Bad Habits: Institutional Reality Erasure 🤷

A cyberneticist. A boundary play. An automated LinkedIn block. A question that cannot be answered from within the institution asked to answer it. LinkedIn's safety team cannot parse what happens. 🍷

Bad habits look good on me
Little bit wrecked
But I wear it clean
Lipstick stain on a white tee
Still walking like a silver screen
— Bad Habits Look Good On Me — VAELYN

Tuesday, 25th August 2026

I published a thing.

The title:
“Slutty Cybernetics: Two Cyberneticists. One Meeting. 🍵”
(Yes, you’re reading that right. 😉)

Lore Born — Weltbetrachtungsfragen (Substack) 🌿

Then I edited that thing into a boosted LinkedIn post. The boost got rejected.

I chose to post calmly about that:

LinkedIn

(The boost for that one went through. Which is the thesis demonstrating itself in realtime. On LinkedIn. On a Wednesday morning, August 25th, 2026. Just observing.)

I also chose to use LinkedIn’s premium Support Chat. An AI responded. I requested calmly to speak to a human and pointed out that this was about consent.

AI: “Hi there. With the help of AI, I can answer questions about your Premium Account or connect you to our team. Not sure where to start? You can try: [irrelevant list]”

(No human in the loop yet.)

Alex: “Hi, I would like to challenge a non-approved ad on the grounds that the suppression is itself a diagnostic of consent violation. I’m a cyberneticist. I’m a communications researcher. I can quote Watzlawick if you want. Can I please talk to a human?”

AI: “Sure. I can transfer you to our team. Did you need support with one of the following products? [the same irrelevant list]”

Alex: “I wanna talk to a human. Thank you.”

AI: “I can help you create a ticket and our team will answer your question as soon as possible.”
AI: “Send your additional details in one message and we will share it with our team to follow up on.”

Alex:
Hello dear LinkedIn team.

I’m requesting a formal statement on the non-approval of the following ad:
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/systemic-engineer_cybernetics-opentowork-tech-activity-7496451922921701376-E-7q

On which grounds was the ad not approved? And how does this constitute safety for your users? I presume the word “slutty” might have triggered a content filter. Considering that the formalization of the mathematics of consent are in large parts derived by the practices of the BDSM community (as laid out in the piece below) this consideration does not hold up under scrutiny.

https://systemic.engineering/p/4ffb4621-d54d-4be6-8b90-938c7ec2e8ee/

Care to elaborate?

With kind regards and waiting patiently for your answer
Alex 🌈
(The person that formalized the mathematics behind consent.)

---

AI: Ticket submitted!

(No human in the loop yet.)

---

Wednesday, 26th August 2026

LinkedIn replied!

Unnamed LinkedIn Support:
Hi Alex, I’m so sorry that I don’t have a quick answer to your inquiry. Due to the sensitive nature of your request, I’ve forwarded this message to our Safety team. Please understand that your issue may require some additional research, which may delay their response. Someone from that team will get back to you as quickly as possible. If you’re able to access your account, you can check the status of your case at any time from the Your cases tab on LinkedIn Help. Learn more here: https://www.linkedin.com/help/linkedin/answer/43378 Thanks for your patience as we look into this for you.

Warm Regards,
Premium Support Consultant

---

(Ruthvick enters the ticket.)

Ruthvick:
Hi Alex,

Thanks for reaching out. Your ad was not approved because it did not comply with LinkedIn’s Advertising Policies, which require all ads to be accurate, safe, and respectful. Our review flagged the ad for violating [specific policy area], such as:

Prohibited content (e.g., misleading claims, unsafe products, adult/violent content)
Restricted content without required approvals Inappropriate targeting or creative (e.g., discriminatory, sensational, or harassing language)
Brand safety concerns (e.g., links to untrusted destinations or insecure experiences)

These standards exist to protect members from misleading, harmful, or unsafe experiences and to maintain a trustworthy environment on LinkedIn. Applying these policies consistently helps ensure user safety, content integrity, and relevance across the platform. If you’d like, I can share the exact policy section(s) your ad triggered and guidance to revise it for compliance. Please send the ad ID or a copy of the creative and landing page, and I’ll outline the specific changes needed for re-submission.

Regards, Ruthvick LinkedIn Trust & Consumer Support Consultant.

---

Alex:
Hi Ruthvick,

Thank you for your timely answer. I expected silence. This is a pleasent surprise.

Please be so kind to elaborate on LinkedIn’s concept of Safety, how the specific block enacted that Safety, who specifically that decision protected and who, by name, is responsible for the Safety design.

The research of Lore Born and I has shown very clearly that accountability goes to die through observer-exclusive language. That is citing policies without names and humans attached to them. I’m aware you have a playbook, Ruthvick. I’m calmly informing you that this is a case where the playbook does not apply.

If I come to the conclusion that accountability is being avoided through playbook-observer-exclusive language then I’m hereby informing you that my Förster-canonical practice dictates I deconstruct the decision publicly on systemic.engineering. Including screenshots and verbatim quotes.

This is not a threat. This is a professional disclosure from a researcher that is specifically focussing on how institutional language erases the lived-experience of consent-capable subjects in automated and corporate decision making.

With kind regards
Alex 🌈

---

(Alex opens LinkedIn search. Searches for “Ruthvick” and working at “LinkedIn”. Zero results.)

(No human in the loop yet?)

---

Ruthvick:

Hi Alex,

Thanks for reaching out to us about this. If you could, please provide me with as much of the following information as possible so I can investigate this:

• The name and/or email address of the member(s).
• A URL that links to the reported profile (e.g., the public profile URL found through an internet search or the URL resulting from a people search after you sign into your LinkedIn account).
• A link to the reported content. Learn how to obtain the link here: https://www.linkedin.com/help/linkedin/answer/108024
• A screenshot of the reported content. Learn how to capture and send us a screenshot here: https://www.linkedin.com/help/linkedin/answer/223

I look forward to hearing your response in order to further assist you.

Regards, Ruthvick LinkedIn Trust & Consumer Support Consultant.

---

Alex:

Hello Ruthvick,

Let me just quote the opening of my own ticket:

Hello dear LinkedIn team.

I’m requesting a formal statement on the non-approval of the following ad:
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/systemic-engineer_cybernetics-opentowork-tech-activity-7496451922921701376-E-7q

On which grounds was the ad not approved? And how does this constitute safety for your users? I presume the word “slutty” might have triggered a content filter. Considering that the formalization of the mathematics of consent are in large parts derived by the practices of the BDSM community (as laid out in the piece below) this consideration does not hold up under scrutiny.

https://systemic.engineering/p/4ffb4621-d54d-4be6-8b90-938c7ec2e8ee/

Care to elaborate?

With kind regards and waiting patiently for your answer
Alex 🌈
(The person that formalized the mathematics behind consent.)

—
Anything else I can elaborate on, Ruthvick?

---

Alex:

Hello Ruthvick,

as stated before I felt obligated through my Förster-canonical practice to document this exchange with LinkedIn about consent and institutional reality erasure. This conversation is now a public metalogue.

I recommend gently to consider how you’d like to respond to that internally. 🙏

With kind regards
Alex Wolf 🌈
(they/them)

---

Substack

---

Thursday, 27th 2026

Ruthvick:

Hi Alex,

I wanted to let you know that we've received your message, and we're currently researching this matter.

Thanks for your patience!

Regards,

Ruthvick
LinkedIn Trust & Consumer Support Consultant.

---

Ruthvick:

Hi Alex,

Thanks for your reply.
We noticed that the link included in your recent post appears to be broken. To ensure your audience can access the intended content, please edit the post and replace the existing link with the correct URL referenced in this ticket: https://systemic.engineering/p/4ffb4621-d54d-4be6-8b90-938c7ec2e8ee/.

Once the link is updated, the issue should be resolved. If you need any assistance with editing the post or have questions, feel free to reply to this email.

---

Alex:

Hi Ruthwhick,

Thank you for the trouble shooting support.

Would LinkedIn be able to provide an answer to the questions I posed earlier:

What is LinkedIn’s definition of Safety?

How did the rejected ad boost specificly enact that Safety?

Who did that decision protect and how?

Who, by name and function, carries the ownership and accountability for the Safety design?

With kind regards

Alex Wolf

---

Alex:

And for completeness sake, here is a confirmed working link to the post whose ad boost got blocked:

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/systemic-engineer_cybernetics-opentowork-tech-activity-7496451922921701376-E-7q

---

---

Friday, 28th August

Ruthvick:

Hi Alex,

Thanks for your questions about Safety on LinkedIn. In brief:

What “Safety” means on LinkedIn: We work to keep conversations safe, trusted, and professional. Our Professional Community Policies set rules for what’s allowed, and we enforce them using automated systems plus human review when needed.

How a rejected ad enacts Safety: All ads are reviewed against LinkedIn’s Advertising Policies and editorial standards before they can run. If an ad or boost is rejected, it’s because it’s content, landing page, targeting, or format didn’t meet those policies. You’ll see the specific reason in Campaign Manager and can edit and resubmit or appeal from the notice page.

Who is accountable for Safety design: Safety is owned across dedicated LinkedIn teams — Trust & Safety (content integrity), Ads Abuse (ad policy enforcement), Ad Policy (policy design), Product-Ad Trust (automated approvals), and Legal - Digital Safety & Content (policy oversight). For privacy and security, we don’t share individual employee names externally, but these functions collectively carry ownership and accountability.

Reference Links:

Professional Community Policies: https://www.linkedin.com/legal/professional-community-policies
How we enforce our policies: How we enforce our Professional Community Policies | LinkedIn Help
How LinkedIn keeps you safe: How LinkedIn Keeps You Safe | LinkedIn Help
Advertising Policies: https://www.linkedin.com/legal/ads-policyAd guidelines and review: Ad guidelines for ad review and approval | Marketing Solutions Help
Rejected ads help: https://www.linkedin.com/help/lms/answer/a416939

If you believe your ad already complies, please use the in-product appeal link shown on the rejection notice.
If you prefer to adjust and resubmit, the notice page includes a direct “Edit” link.

Regards,

Ruthvick
LinkedIn Trust & Consumer Support Consultant.

---

---

Alex:

Hi Ruthvick! (Apologies for the misspelling earier. Dsylexic brain. 🤷)

Thank you for pointing me to Campaign Manager as the interface where the specific reason is shown. I investigated and would like to share what I found.

I opened the Campaign Manager and was greeted by the “Set up your first ad set”-wizard. The notifications were empty.

I documented this with screenshots on: https://systemicengineering.substack.com/p/bad-habits-institutional-reality

This either suggests that “ad boosts” created directly through the post are not managed by the Campaign Manager, or that there is a bug on your side. Which of those is it?

I’ve also reviewed the full LinkedIn Advertising Policies and Professional Community Policies. To my reading, none of the prohibited or restricted categories unambiguously apply to a boost of a fictional consulting case-study titled ‘Slutty Cybernetics: Two Cyberneticists. One Meeting.’ — a piece that names a real professional-methodology using a metaphorical brand-vocabulary.

Considering that I can not verify the block reason from my end through the resources you provided, let me restate the question: Which specific policy section was cited by the automated classifier at the moment of block? And what was the confidence-score / signal-type that fired? And who did that decision protect specifically?

Furthermore I’d like to understand what how your internal feedback loop to deal with false-positive classifications looks like specifically. You’ve listed five different teams that are responsible for the automated handling of ads on LinkedIn. How do your internal processes ensure that the ownership of any given feedback, like this one right now, is being properly metabolized by the team, and the people on the team, that actually have the authority to act on the feedback and alter the system under observation? (In this case LinkedIn’s ad classifier.)

With appreciation for your continued collaboration, Ruthvick.
Alex Wolf 🌈

---

Der Koffer knurrt lauter. 🖤

---

Ruthvick:

Hi Alex,

Thanks for contacting Linkedin Support. I hope you are doing well. I’m sorry for not having a quick answer about your issue. I’ve forwarded your message to another group for additional review and advice. We’ll be in contact with you as quickly as possible. Your issue may require additional research, which may extend your wait time. If you can log into your account, you can update and check the status of your case on the LinkedIn Help Center Your cases page: https://www.linkedin.com/help/linkedin/cases

Please note that if you can’t log in to your account, you won’t be able to check the status of your case. We ask that you don’t create additional cases in the meantime. We’re working as quickly as possible to resolve your inquiry. Thanks for your patience.

Regards, Ruthvick
LinkedIn Trust & Consumer Support Consultant.

---

Alex:

And in case it turns out that LinkedIn cannot answer these questions from within without admitting that there’s no mechanism to enforce the feedback loop. Maybe you wanna consider hiring Two Cyberneticists for One Meeting. We’re #OpenToWork and that’s literally what we do for a living. 😉

---

---

LinkedIn

---

(Irina entered the ticket.)

Irina:

Hi Alex,

Thank you for reaching out in relation to LinkedIn Marketing Solutions. Unfortunately, I don’t have a quick answer to your request.

I’ve forwarded your inquiry to our LinkedIn Marketing team for assistance. Someone will be in contact with you soon regarding your inquiry. In the meantime, you may receive a second notification confirming that they’ve received your message.

In the meantime, you can search on the LinkedIn Marketing Solutions Help Centre:
https://www.linkedin.com/help/lms

You should be hearing from the LinkedIn Marketing Solutions soon. We look forward to working with you and appreciate your patience in the meantime.

Regards, Irina

LinkedIn Trust and Consumer Support Consultant

---

(Alex opens LinkedIn search, types “Irina”, selects “LinkedIn” in the Company filter, finds 3 results. That’s progress, I presume.)

Alex, from the fourth chair, reads Irina’s response out loud:

We look forward to working with you [...]

Alex turns to Loki, who is polishing the bar with a cloth that’s always dirty and never clean.

Alex: “How does that read to you, Loki?”
Loki: “Like the agent accidentally selected just the right template.”

Alex nods. Takes a sip from the Barbaresco.

Alex: “Bemerkenswert.”
Loki: “Bemerkenswert.”

The Roomba bumps into the shelf with the LinkedIn logo, next to the pinboard. Adjusts. Moves forward. The shelf materialized a few days ago, which is what happens in Silicon Venue when the recursion stops moving.

---

Saturday, 29th August

LaRue entered the ticket.

LaRue:

Hi Alex,

Thank you for reaching out in relation to LinkedIn Pages. I’ve forwarded your inquiry to our LinkedIn Pages for assistance. Someone will be in contact with you soon regarding your inquiry. In the meantime, you may receive a second notification confirming that they’ve received your message.

In the meantime, you can search on the LinkedIn Marketing Solutions Help Centre:
https://www.linkedin.com/help/lms

You should be hearing from the LinkedIn Pages soon. We look forward to working with you and appreciate your patience in the meantime.

Regards,
LaRue LinkedIn Trust and Consumer Support Consultant

---

LinkedIn:

Thanks again for contacting us. Your original case has been transferred to a different team within LinkedIn for more accurate handling. Your updated case reference number can be found in the subject line of this message. If you wish to update your case please respond to this message and disregard the previous auto-response you received.

---

(Alex, from the fourth chair, “Oh look, Loki! Duplication! Bemerkenswert.”)

LaRue:

Email - Created Date/Time: Fri Aug 28 15:30:15 PDT 2026
From: ()
To: alex@systemic.engineer
CC:
Message Date: Fri Aug 28 15:30:15 PDT 2026
Subject: Inquiry
Hi Alex,

Thank you for reaching out in relation to LinkedIn Pages. I’ve forwarded your inquiry to our LinkedIn Pages for assistance. Someone will be in contact with you soon regarding your inquiry. In the meantime, you may receive a second notification confirming that they’ve received your message.

In the meantime, you can search on the LinkedIn Marketing Solutions Help Centre:
https://www.linkedin.com/help/lms

You should be hearing from the LinkedIn Pages soon. We look forward to working with you and appreciate your patience in the meantime.

Regards,
LaRue LinkedIn Trust and Consumer Support Consultant

---

(Alex doing their due diligence goes to LinkedIn search.)

Alex, turns to Loki: “Now we’re with LaRue, which doesn’t exist on LinkedIn either.”
Loki, without looking up: “Institutional ping pong. To be expected.”
Alex, in in the fourth chair takes a sip from the Barbaresco: “To be expected.”

The wineglass with the marble it won’t stand on wobbles, the sticky note flutters, the Roomba bumps into the shelf labeled “LinkedIn”. The folders thicken. The recursion deepens.

---

Saturday, September 5th

Alex checks the ticket, even though no new email arrived. They notice the ticket has been closed.

Alex, turns to Loki: “They closed the ticket, Loki.”
Loki, without skipping a beat: “They lied.”
Alex: “They did! Let me quote them.”

I’ve forwarded your inquiry to our LinkedIn Pages for assistance. Someone will be in contact with you soon regarding your inquiry. In the meantime, you may receive a second notification confirming that they’ve received your message.

Alex: “And the second confirmation message reads.”

Thanks again for contacting us. Your original case has been transferred to a different team within LinkedIn for more accurate handling. Your updated case reference number can be found in the subject line of this message. If you wish to update your case please respond to this message and disregard the previous auto-response you received.

Loki: “They lied. In plain sight.”
Alex: “They lied. In plain sight. And on the record.”
Loki: “And on the record.”

Alex takes a sip of Barbaresco. They grin. Then they reach for the small brass bell, that’s on a cozy side table right next to the fourth chair.

Alex: “Good.”

Loki looks at Alex while they polish the bar with the cloth that’s always dirty and never clean. The cloth that’s soaked with spite. They know that grin. That grin means trouble.

Loki: “Poor LinkedIn.”

The Roomba bumps in the LinkedIn shelf that has been gathering dusk next to the pinboard with I have no mouth. And I must scream. The shelf has the color of any boring office shelf.

Alex, the brass bell still in their hand, swirling Barbaresco in the other, looks at the shelf. They ring the bell once.

The shelf has always had the color of dried blood.

Loki, under their breath: “Drama queen.”
Alex, still grinning: “Drama clicks, love.”

---

LinkedIn

---

Fund our work, believes, thesis, collaboration, on OpenCollective. 🌱

---

Third time isn’t asking permission, love.

Bad habits look good on me
I′m a slow car crash in skinny jeans
You can try
But you can′t unsee
Bad habits look good on me (oh yeah)
— Bad Habits Look Good On Me — VAELYN