Statement from the Founder – 11 June 2026

After several more exchanges with LinkedIn staff over the past few weeks, I am relieved to say that I have finally regained access to my account. However, the process that led to this outcome has raised serious concerns for me regarding transparency, consistency, and accountability.

Following a number of conflicting interactions with LinkedIn support, I temporarily regained access to my account, only to have it restricted again. I was informed by a LinkedIn Trust and Consumer Support Consultant, “Ramesh S”, that my account had violated the LinekdIn User Agreement and Professional Community Policies.

No explanation was provided as to what specific policies I had allegedly violated, what conduct gave rise to the restriction, or what evidence supported the decision. I repeatedly had to push for additional information.

I also submitted a Subject Access Request (SAR) under UK GDPR seeking information relating to my account and the decisions made regarding it. To date, I have not received any acknowledgement or response, which is concerning given LinkedIn’s obligations under data protection law.

Meanwhile, another LinkedIn representative, “Nayana”, informed me that there were alleged inconsistencies between my profile and my proof of identity.

The representative then requested that I provide another form of government-issued ID in addition to the passport I had already submitted. When I explained that my passport is the strongest form of identification I possess, I was instructed to print and sign a form before a Notary Public or Public Official.

I repeatedly questioned why such a requirement was necessary and pointed out how disproportionate it seemed. Nevertheless, I was informed that LinkedIn would maintain its original decision and that my account would remain restricted.

At the same time, another employee, “Anjali”, informed me that my identity had in fact been verified, but that LinkedIn had identified what they claimed was a second account belonging to me, constituting misuse of the platform.

The account in question bore an entirely different name, “Akanke Adebiyi”, had no profile photo, no connections and no activity. I had never seen the profile before in my life.

I made it clear that only my own profile belonged to me and asked how it had been concluded that an account under a completely different name belonged to me.

This created a bizarre situation in which one LinkedIn employee was insisting that I obtain notarized documents to prove my identity, while another had already confirmed my identity and was sending me password reset links.

Unfortunately, those links repeatedly failed to work despite being used within the validity period and across multiple devices. It was not until Wednesday morning (June 10th 2026) that I was finally able to successfully reset my password and regain access to my account.

I subsequently asked LinkedIn to confirm that the “Akanke Adebiyi” account had not used any of my personal information during registration and to explain why it had been attributed to me.

In response, Anjali stated:

“We sincerely apologize for any confusion caused earlier. Upon reviewing your account, we would like to confirm that the information shared previously was incorrect due to an internal error.

Please be assured that you have only one LinkedIn account, and it is currently active. We also see that you have successfully logged in to your account.

We regret any inconvenience this may have caused and appreciate your patience while we looked into this for you.”

I appreciate that I have finally been able to access my account again and I am genuinely relieved that this issue has, at least for now, been resolved.

However, I remain deeply concerned by the lack of transparency surrounding the original restriction, the contradictory information I received from different members of staff, the extraordinary request that I seek notarization despite having already provided a passport, and the fact that my Subject Access Request appears to have gone unanswered.

Mistakes happen. But when a platform plays such an important role in people’s professional lives, clear explanations, consistency and accountability matter.

The absence of these things only creates confusion and undermines trust. Given the wider circumstances of covert repression I am experiencing, it is hard not to assume the connection between these extremely bizarre events.

I hope LinkedIn will still respond to my SAR and provide some clarity regarding the events that led to this experience.

Thank you for your patience with me if you have tried to contact me. Going forward, I would advise trying to reach me via email or WhatsApp if you need to contact me, in case something like this happens again. If any other disruptions to my ability to communicate take place, I will aim to disclose that as soon as it becomes clear that it will not be resolved quickly. As I mentioned in a previous statement, as of March 10th, I do not have access to my longstanding UK phone line, which was disconnected by O2 under similarly bizarre circumstances.

— Nikki Adebiyi
Founder, Bounce Black

Statement from the Founder – 6 June 2026

I am increasingly concerned by what appears to be a growing lack of transparency and accountability from major technology platforms when restricting access to users’ accounts.

After finally regaining access to my LinkedIn account following a lengthy verification process, my account was once again restricted. The only explanation provided by LinkedIn Trust and Consumer Support Consultant, Ramesh S, was:

“Your account has violated the LinkedIn User Agreement and Professional Community Policies. Due to the number and/or the severity of these violations, your account will remain restricted.”

No details were provided regarding which policies were allegedly violated, what content or actions gave rise to the decision, when the alleged violations occurred, or how I might challenge or understand the basis for the restriction.

As someone who has consistently used LinkedIn over the years for professional networking, advocacy, and discussion of workplace abuse, racial inequality, retaliation, and broader concerns about surveillance and repression, I find the absence of any meaningful explanation deeply troubling. What differentiates my LinkedIn activity from many users on the platform, and who decides that?

At a minimum, due process and basic fairness require that individuals understand the allegations being made against them. Vague assertions of policy violations without evidence, context, or specificity create the impression of arbitrary enforcement and make it impossible for users to defend themselves.

I cannot currently determine whether this restriction is the result of error, automated decision-making, malicious reporting, or something more concerning. However, when viewed alongside other recent disruptions affecting my communications and online presence, it raises serious questions that deserve answers.

If technology platforms are to play such a central role in public and professional life, they must be transparent, accountable, and willing to explain decisions that can significantly affect a person’s reputation, livelihood, and ability to communicate.

I continue to seek clarity regarding LinkedIn’s decision and remain committed to speaking out about political persecution, workplace retaliation, and the importance of protecting civil liberties in both physical and digital spaces.

Your support and vigilance concerning these matters are appreciated.

— Nikki Adebiyi
Founder, Bounce Black

Workplace bullying affects around 30% of workers, turning everyday jobs into stress-filled environments. Understanding your rights is crucial. Learn about the signs of bullying, its impact, and legal options available. Don't suffer in silence; empower yourself with knowledge and take action for a safer workplace.

#WorkplaceBullying #EmployeeRights #LegalAdvice #MentalHealthMatters #KnowYourRights

Read th...
https://huprichlaw.com/understanding-can-you-sue-for-workplace-bullying/?fsp_sid=2939

RE: https://infosec.exchange/@briankrebs/116280575943263005

Workplace bullying doesn't always look like yelling. 😔

Sometimes it's subtle. Death by a thousand cuts.

If it's costing you your peace every single day, that's not a "tough job." That's a toxic one. 💙

No role is worth leaving your dignity at the door.

#WorkplaceBullying #EvilTwin #EvilMaid

From 380 IT professionals in India: bullying harms sleep via psychological distress, but resilience blunts the damage—so what should workplace prevention really prioritize?

Anandhan H, Sathyamoorthi V, Deikus M, Vveinhardt J. Resilience as a Moderator of the Effects of Workplace Bullying on Psychological Distress and Sleep Quality Among Information Technology Professionals. IJERPH, 2026, 23(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph23010029

#WorkplaceBullying #MentalHealth #PsychosocialRisks #OpenScience

From 440 transport workers in Lithuania: quitting intentions are driven most by abusive task assignments and declining well-being—so what should “prevention” really target?

Feel free to give it a read.
Vveinhardt J, Domarkaite S, Deikus M. Intentions of transport sector employees to leave the job: is workplace mobbing truly a catalyst? Business: Theory & Practice, 2024, 25(2), 603–613. https://doi.org/10.3846/btp.2024.21494

#WorkplaceBullying #TransportSector #EmployeeTurnover #HR #OpenScience

This study links the lived realities of workplace mobbing with response patterns in the Gospel of Luke, offering practical guidelines for using specific biblical narratives more systematically in spiritual counselling and care.

Feel free to give it a read.
Vveinhardt J, Deikus M. The New Testament and Workplace Mobbing: Structuring of Victims’ Experiences. Religions, 2022, 13(11), 1022. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel13111022

#WorkplaceBullying #SpiritualCounselling #WorkplaceWellbeing
#OpenScience

Workplace bullying is not only a productivity problem but a moral test—and this paper argues that bystanders are more likely to act constructively when guided by conscience (synderesis) than by consequence-based ethics alone.

Feel free to give it a read.
Vveinhardt J, Deikus M. Synderesis vs. Consequentialism and Utilitarianism in Workplace Bullying Prevention. Social Inclusion 2025, 13, 8406. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.8406

#WorkplaceBullying #Mobbing #BusinessEthics #MoralPsychology #OpenScience