After previewing new verification features last month, LinkedIn is now rolling it out to give job seekers the confidence they’re dealing with real companies and jobs. At the same time, this work-focused social network has introduced warnings for posts that may look like a scam. The latter feature appears among the many fake accounts on the site, according to LinkedIn. latest transparency report.

The first type of verification tool is related to job postings, displaying information about posters and their companies. For example, it can display checks for a company page and a work job email, as well as confirmation of whether their ID has been verified by CLEAR, the same company that takes people to security lines, airports, and other places.

“When you see confirmations in job postings, it means there is information that has been verified as genuine by the job posting, LinkedIn, or one of our partners,” the company wrote in a blog post. US phone number and government ID. You can also verify your employer with a verification code sent to your company email address, and some users can verify both their identity and employer through Microsoft Entra for companies enrolled in the program.

LinkedIn noted that it recently launched About this profile a feature that shows when the profile was created and last updated, and if the profile has a verified phone number and/or work email associated with the account. The goal is to get rid of fake accounts, but LinkedIn is also releasing new messages warning users of high-risk content.

“We are now also warning you if LinkedIn posts contain high-risk content that could impact your safety. For example, we will warn you if a message asks you to move the conversation to another platform, as this can sometimes be a scam. If something seems wrong, these alerts will also give you the option to report content without telling the sender,” the company wrote.

New features follow LinkedIn. latest transparency report, which showed a large increase in fraudulent accounts. The company suspended over 58 million accounts between July and December 2022, up from 22 million in the previous six months. LinkedIn even sees profiles with fake photos created by artificial intelligence. wrote about last year. While the company said its new “deep learning-based model actively checks uploaded profile photos to determine if an image is AI-generated,” a recent study identified over 1,000 active profiles using AI-generated photos. Financial Times reported.

LinkedIn noted that job posting checks have just begun to roll out, so while you may not see them yet, the tools will become more common as the company expands access. In the meantime, he encourages you to read his advice on how to notice and avoid suspicious job postings.

All products recommended by Engadget are selected by our editorial team independently of our parent company. Some of our stories contain affiliate links. If you buy something through one of these links, we may earn an affiliate commission. All prices are current at the time of publication.

The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a major challenge to the Internet’s legal shield known as Section 230, which has long protected social media websites from prosecution for what users post there.

In a brief unsigned opinion the court said it would not decide on a potentially important issue because the plaintiffs had no substantiated allegations that Twitter or Google were assisting the terrorists, the allegation that underpinned their suit.

The result came as a relief to social networking sites like Facebook and YouTube, which have grown and prospered in large part due to protections put in place by Congress in the early days of the Internet.

“This is a huge victory for online free speech,” said Chris Marchese, director of the Litigation Center for technology lobby group NetChoice. “The court was asked to refute Section 230 – and it refused.”

But the judges left open the question that first came to their attention so that it could arise in a future case.

Section 230 was called “The 26 Words That Made the Internet” because it stated that “an interactive computer service” could be a platform for free speech and should not be “considered to be the publisher or distributor of any information” posted there.

Thus, while publishers and broadcasters can be held liable for the content they print or put on the air, interactive websites cannot.

In recent years, critics have complained that social media companies are pushing the boundaries of these protections with computer algorithms that direct users to content they might be interested in based on their past activity. Sometimes these algorithms direct users to content that may be considered dangerous, violent, or offensive.

Critics of section 230 have argued that even if companies are not responsible for what their users post, their algorithms’ suggestions for directing users to similar content are essentially company speech and should not be defended.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on section 230, but last year it made much of the tech industry shudder when it agreed to hear a couple of cases challenging the legal integrity of websites.

Two claims came from victims and survivors of the attacks. In 2016, Congress simplified the legal process against those who “assist or abet” an act of international terrorism by “knowingly” providing “substantial assistance” to the perpetrators.

On Twitter against Taamne, The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals cleared the way for social media platforms including Facebook and Google on the grounds that their sites helped recruit the terrorists behind the Istanbul nightclub attack.

Meanwhile, in Gonzalez v. Google, the court agreed to consider whether the platforms could be held liable—despite Section 230—on the grounds that their algorithms played a role in recruiting terrorists for the Paris bombing spree.

In February, judges heard arguments in two cases over two days, starting with a discussion of algorithms. During the second day, several judges were skeptical about the Istanbul attack lawsuit.

On Thursday, they issued a unanimous decision dismissing the suit of aiding and abetting against Twitter. Judge Clarence Thomas said such claims should be limited to “truly criminal behavior” and that there was no convincing case that Twitter knowingly helped recruit terrorists.

Based on this finding, the judges also dismissed a companion case against Google that raised the issue of algorithms, stating that since the main suit could not be pursued, “We therefore declined to consider the application of § 230 to the complaint, which appears to says little.” , if any, a plausible claim for damages”.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Richard J. Durbin (D-Illinois) said in a statement Thursday that the court’s non-decision should prompt Congress to change Section 230. Both Republicans and Democrats are critical of the growing power and influence of big tech.

“The judges missed their chance to clarify that Section 230 is not a jail pass for online platforms when they cause harm,” Durbin said. “Enough is enough. … Congress should intervene, reform section 230, and remove total immunity from liability from platforms.”