LinkedIn cited three posts and videos by Mr. Ramaswamy. In one, he argues that if adherents to “climate religion” really cared about the climate, “they’d be worried about, say, shifting oil production from the U.S. to places like Russia and China.” In another he says “fossil fuels are a requirement for human prosperity.” In a third, he says China played the U.S. like a “mandolin” and “weaponized the ‘woke pandemic.’”
You can disagree with such lines or think they are over the top, but they’re well within the realm of political debate. They’re hardly extreme next to President Biden’s argument that Georgia is imposing “Jim Crow 2.0” on its black citizens, or Democrats’ ubiquitous claim that climate change poses an “existential” threat that has to be solved in the next X years, or else kiss humanity goodbye.
Mr. Ramaswamy’s team asked LinkedIn what exactly is misleading about those snippets. The company replied: “We can’t interpret the LinkedIn User Agreement or Professional Community Policies for you or tell you how it would be applied in any hypothetical situation.” The platform promised, however, to unfreeze his account and “grant another chance” if he replied by “expressly stating that you agree to abide by our Terms going forward.”