We are on LinkedIn’s naughty step, so I’ll just tell you: there’s plastic in your balls

It was the culmination of a three-way partnership between Worth Your While, Glue Society, and iconic fashion photographer Derek Henderson. Shocked by research showing that microplastics had been discovered in 80% of penises tested, we couldn’t understand what the world would need to hear to wake up and take decisive action against pollutants.

So why the tighty-whites and provocative plastic bottles?

Well, research showed that environmentally friendly behavior and even concern for the environment were considered feminine.

This was dissuading men from engaging with the issue (big yikes).

Campaigns should, the research argued, work hard to lean away from the “green-feminine” stereotype and position environmental issues as in men’s interests. And, we are going to need men if we are to implement change...

So, we spoofed Calvin Klein ads with a PET bottle in the place of a bulge, and emblazoning the waistbands with messages like ‘80% of penises now include plastic’ and ‘How toxic is your masculinity?’

The campaign went live alongside the final negotiations of the Plastics Treaty in Geneva to warm industry praise and even passed the “will they talk about it on breakfast TV?” test.

They did (we were jazzed).

But if you were scrolling LinkedIn, you wouldn’t have a clue.

Since we launched, almost all of our campaign imagery and content related to the campaign has been shadow-banned or censored due to LinkedIn deeming it “harmful”.

Just to underscore for anyone in any doubt, the images in question feature no sex organs… simply a strategically placed plastic bottle. And they are no more or less explicit than any other fashion campaign you might walk past in the street, hand-in-hand with a small child.

Given the vague nature of LinkedIn content moderation, it’s not possible for us to know concretely what about Are You Packing Plastic? didn’t cut the mustard, but we have our theories.

[LinkedIn’s rules of engagement: Remember to be professional and don’t post anything misleading, fraudulent, obscene, threatening, hateful, defamatory, discriminatory, or illegal. Have they pegged this campaign as obscene?]

It’s safe to say that LinkedIn’s community policies seem to be implemented inconsistently.

For a long time, professionals in women’s health, sexual wellness and campaigners have called out LinkedIn for allowing gratuitous sexualized imagery, but banning their posts.

And, in recent weeks, we’ve also seen the platform make some questionable moves, including quietly removing explicit protections for transgender and non-binary users, as well as removing “race and gender identity” as traits for which negative comments are considered harassment.

This, alongside the wider context of swinging political agendas and calls for “more masculine energy” in professional environments, raises the question: what was it about our content that meant LinkedIn wasn’t prepared to host it? Was it really the plastic bottle that was “harmful” and “shocking” or “obscene,” or was it the critique of toxic masculinity and the role (or more accurately, lack thereof) that men play in the environmental polycrisis that tipped the balance?

Ultimately, we can’t control when the platform chooses to pull the plug. And once a post has been removed, there’s no amount of un-removing it that’s going to allow us to jump back out of an

algorithmic pit of doom and get engagement. Instead, we’ve been forced to use the takedown as part of the story and share it as evidence that we’re hitting a cultural nerve.

But not on LinkedIn, hah! Any content we put out criticizing the takedown saw little to no reach and quickly drew the critical glare of LinkedIn moderation teams. This meant that we had no choice but to evolve the campaign into spaces the platform can’t touch.

Billboards confronting the delegates in Geneva mid-negotiation, high-impact outdoor in Denmark, and seeding content to trusted voices and press have carried the work to places the LinkedIn algorithm wouldn’t.

For any other provocateurs and hell-raisers hoping to make a splash, but fearing a LinkedIn flop, our advice is this: Yes, it stings, especially when you’re a little shop that wants to make its mark. But that brick wall you hit isn’t as immovable as it feels.

If you use it correctly, the story of LinkedIn censorship will spread your work further and faster, reaching more people than the campaign ever could have originally. So keep going. And know this: the LinkedIn naughty step can be a great stage if you play your cards right.

Editor’s notes: [We are seeing an uptick in campaigners complaining about work around sustainability, sexuality, or global conflict struggling on the platform. There is an assumption that the automated moderation is managing select keywords but it may be a case of people reporting work that doesn’t fit their tastes or worldview.]

Tali is the chief strategy officer at Worth Your While.

Get in touch with Tali on LinkedIn

Read more opinion on The Drum