GONE WITH THE TRUTH: LinkedIn, Lies, and Libel

LinkedIn just deleted my most recent exposè of Yana Dianova but she cannot touch this blog.  She will, once again, attempt to delete this blog, which is cross-posted to, among many other social media platforms, LinkedIn.

Now the truth is a matter of public record and will hang on the internet – forever.

In an effort to counter any attempts by Yana Dianova to expunge the truth, I am blogging Mr. Berger’s excellent article below.  It is currently on LinkedIn but she will claim it is “defamatory”, because it exposes her with facts and truth and she will most likely attempt to delete it quickly.  Now it is publicly available – forever.

In Russia, the truth can be suppressed. Not so in the real world.

It would have been so simple for her to have been friendly, to be a decent human being. But constant attacks, abuse, and haranguing have forced these actions. She only has herself to blame.

The below article contains definitive proof of Ms. Dianova abusing the use of LinkedIn. She abuses her position and her authority and uses intimidation as a weapon.  LinkedIn is an unwitting tool for her use and abuse.  Yana Dianova is a Russian troll.

</end editorial>

By James Berger

Global Competitive Intelligence Specialist – Attorney

Jun 6, 2016

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/gone-truth-linkedin-lies-libel-james-berger

Episode 1 – “The Scarlett Affair” (In which a Former High-Ranking CIA Officer is Seriously Defamed on LinkedIn; Presents Detailed Evidence of the Misconduct; but then Quickly Learns that Some LinkedIn Members are More Equal than Others) 

“Professional” may not mean what you think it means… You’re about to experience a face-to-face encounter with one of LinkedIn’s most unfortunate realities. Although this network claims to enforce professional standards (SeeLinkedIn User Agreement Rules 1 and 8.2 – available at:https://www.linkedin.com/legal/user-agreement), LinkedIn actually only enforces its User Agreement either arbitrarily or not at all.

Even in the most egregious of circumstances – for example, when a Member specifically proves, well beyond a preponderance of the evidence, that their honorable career has been illegally defamed, Linkedin both refuses to help and even admits that its real policy is to protect the offending party rather than abide by its binding membership contract. With the libel still visible to all – and even being repeated by other Members – the victim next discovers there are only two unfair options: suffer baseless reputational harm OR spend countless hours reminding his fellow Members that, even if LinkedIn no longer values integrity, the rest of us can still do so ourselves.  [See Exhibits 1-3, below]

You have the right to know: Is LinkedIn safe? Are YOU at risk?

In the incident recounted in this article, LinkedIn’s response came courtesy of something/someone that sounds downright Owellian – a representative from LinkedIn’s “Department of Trust & Safety,” specifically, one using the moniker“Scarlett.” (Just a guess, but he/she probably isn’t especially easy to locate in the “real word…”) As dictators like Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong Un could assure you, cloaking a regime’s misdeeds in anonymity may not be original but it sure as heck works…

Critically, the foregoing applies to ALL sections of LinkedIn’s rules.What was once a website for professional networking has been transformed into a playground for foreign propagandists, liars, political extremists (left and right), scam-artists, pornographers, anti-Semites, racists, jihadis, homophobes, and countless others seeking to twist LinkedIn’s original mission into a sad and dangerous mockery of a once great idea.

For a growing and publicly owned company, now hosting roughly 450 million global Members, such blatant misconduct is hardly a small issue – especially because LinkedIn specifically promotes its business based on assumptions of honesty, trust and fair-dealing. 

WHY THIS MATTERS: Admittedly, this particular case may feel more like a spy novel than something most LinkedIn Members might encounter. The underlying narrative does indeed evoke tropes pulled straight from the Cold War itself. Do not be fooled. EVERYTHING you’ll see is 100% relevant to YOUR social media experience – not James Bond’s.

Put simply, LinkedIn Members are getting a raw deal. In consideration for their valuable personal information and/or paid subscriptions, LinkedIn promises to provide a specific set of services. These include adherence to the conditions in its User Agreement. The User Agreement is a binding contract that LinkedIn also employs as a marketing device. Therefore, the company’s failure to give Members the “benefit of their bargain” is what lawyers call a “breach of contract” (or in the worst instances, “fraudulent inducement”). In other words, what’s happening here has a lot more in common with Bernie Madoff than any Bond villain (or Dr. Evil, for that matter…)

Amazingly, despite the fact that LinkedIn settled a class action lawsuit as recently as 2015 – specifically due to breaches of its User Agreement – conditions for Members have only worsened. [See https://www.linkedinclassactionsettlement.com/Documents/SettlementAgreement.pdf] Something has to give.

WHAT YOU WILL LEARN: First, you will see a written complaint (Exhibit 1) submitted to LinkedIn on behalf of Mr. Charles Leven, a long-time LinkedIn Member and, as noted, a retired high-ranking CIA officer. (By way of full disclosure, I am currently serving as Mr. Leven’s attorney.) This evidence is not subjective. Rather it shows LinkedIn being used deliberately to defame Mr. Leven’s reputation in a manner amounting to “actual malice.”

[NOTE: Links to all of the original threads are included in Exhibit 1 so that readers can evaluate them in their entirety and draw independent conclusions]

The “attacker,” Ms. Yana Dianova, a citizen of the Russian Federation and member of an organization called the Russian International Affairs Council, uses LinkedIn to portray Mr. Leven as having engaged in criminality while performing his official duties for the United States government. Ms. Dianova bases this eroneous claim on source materials that both the Russian and US intelligence communities have subsequently declared to be 100% false. Despite being offered numerous explanations, opportunities to correct the record and to retract her libelous statements, she instead repeats this libel under the ludicrous guise that she had merely asked some sort of “innocent” question. As you will see, the complaint sent to LinkedIn includes a timeline of events, provides all necessary context, presents screenshots of the libel, screenshots of Mr. Leven’s defense and also highlights the absurdity of Ms. Dianova’s subsequent response.

Exhibit 2 then contains the previously mentioned screenshots of LinkedIn’s responses to complaint – namely, Scarlett’s refusal to take action or to address Mr. Leven’s substantive claims.

AND THEN… IT ONLY GETS WORSE: Additionally, you’ll see screenshots referencing several (now voluntarily deleted) LinkedIn threads in which a LinkedIn Member named Evan Hogewood chose to repeat the IDENTICAL libel previously posted by Ms. Dianova. While (so far) there is not definitive proof of a “direct” connection between these events, the Hogewood libel demonstrates exactly why LinkedIn’s failure to enforce its rules poses such serious dangers. In the new “wild west” of social networking, libel ripples through time and space at unimaginable speed. Repetition becomes virtually inevitable.

Nevertheless, the difference in outcomes does offer some hope and points toward a partial solution. After being informed of the truth by other LinkedIn Members who had read Mr. Leven’s defense, Mr. Hogewood eventually decided to do the right thing. He publicly admitted that he had been deceived by Russian propaganda; renounced his lies; and issued a profound apology to Mr. Leven. This set of screenshots constitutes Exhibit 3.

CONTRASTING SCARLETT WITH HOGEWOOD: According to Scarlett, Libel is merely “people communicating freely.” She also rather bizarrely argues that LinkedIn doesn’t owe Mr. Leven protection because the corporation is itself protected from liability by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. (Incidentally, even if Scarlett’s interpretation of Section 230 is correct, she neglects to mention that (a) LinkedIn can still CHOOSE truth over lies; and (b) that while the CDA may shield LinkedIn from damages caused by Member malfeasance, it has NOTHING to do with LinkedIn’s contractual obligations).

PROBLEM SOLVED? HARDLY… How many other LinkedIn Members saw Ms. Dianova’s comments and believed them? How many failed to read Mr. Leven’s defense or to see Mr. Hogewood’s apology? (As the complaint points out, Ms. Dianova attacked Mr. Leven in the most devious possible manner – by “blocking” Mr. Leven first so that he wouldn’t even learn about the libel, be able to discuss it directly or mount a comprehensive defense until after it had been discovered by others!)

WELCOME TO LIBEL – Version 2.0: Defamation has been condemned by law going back at least as far as Ancient Rome. But in today’s era of social networks, for the first time in history, the potential permanently to damage a person’s reputation has morphed into an exponential threat. For reasons the company won’t explain, LinkedIn is siding with the perpetrators. ATTENTION MUST BE PAID.

After all, if LinkedIn refuses to act in a matter where indisputable evidence is presented by someone who once held the civilian rank of a Three Star General, how can any Member feel secure? Are you comfortable knowing that it’s Scarlett who has your back?

NOW, WITHOUT FURTHER INTERRUPTION: EPISODE ONE – “THE SCARLETT AFFAIR”  (NOTE: If any of these images are difficult to view, depending on your device, either “double clicking” or magnifying should remedy the problem – Otherwise please provide feedback in the comments section and I’ll do my best to produce larger versions ASAP)

Following the presentation, I am also providing several suggestions for any Members seeking to follow Mr. Leven’s example and help restore the professionalism that the vast majority of LinkedIn’s users originally came here to find.

Exhibit 1: The written complaint presented to LinkedIn (multiple times and by multiple persons) detailing the libel perpetrated against Mr. Charles Leven by Ms. Yana Dianova and requesting enforcement of the User Agreement.

Exhibit 2: A representative sample of LinkedIn’s responses to Mr. Leven’s complaint from “Scarlett” – an individual that LinkedIn described as specializing in user defamation issues (Numerous other attempts to inform LinkedIn were met with identically negative results – and usually even identical language)

Exhibit 3: Mr. Evan Hogewood’s admission and apology upon realizing he had been duped by Russian propaganda and his retraction of the identical libel originally published by Ms. Dianova.

HOW YOU CAN HELP? START BY PRACTICING WHAT LINKEDIN PREACHES: PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

LinkedIn’s User Agreement (especially the rules set forth in sections 1 and 8.2) is fair, responsible and would lead toward a uniquely professional online community. Hence, even if LinkedIn won’t enforce its standards, there is A LOT you can do:

• QUESTION: Look back closely at the this presentation. Ask yourself what it says about the parties involved. Question the nature of Scarlett’s lack of  response. Try to decide whether this network truly represents professionalism or perhaps has some other agenda. If so, what might that be?

• OBSERVE: When you see something, say something. The same rule that applies on subways and in airports is just as relevant in an online community. The lonely voice of the injured victim is a sad cry in dark compared with a chorus of good Samaritans (especially BEFORE the injury has occurred)

• RESIST: When you see lies, dispute them. If you encounter suspicious claims, demand evidence. And when propaganda rears its ugly head, call it what it is. Never be content to lie down in the face of injustice.

AND Finally, always remember that LinkedIn is still YOUR network. The User Agreement is a binding contract between YOU and a publicly owned corporation. Consider: if some other business routinely breached its obligations, would you just do nothing? If your answer is “NO,” now is the time to stop giving LinkedIn an unearned free pass. You’ll be protecting yourself, your fellow Members and – as the above evidence illustrates – speaking out for common decency, the rule of law and mutual respect.

COMING SOON… EPISODE 2: “The Agenda – LinkedIn’s Abandonment of Decency, Respect and Morality”

Source: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/gone-truth-linkedin-lies-libel-james-berger