[phasefactor]

Love it, the article referring to a statement by a LinkedIn spokesperson: "The first part of that statement is false, as you can see from the screenshot above. Given the obvious untrustworthiness of that half of the statement, we didn't bother wasting any time trying to evaluate the second part."

[elsjaako]

To be technically correct: if even a single non-premium member can, for some reason, see who viewed their profile, then the statement "only Premium members can see who has viewed their profile" is false.

So technically, you can't say that the first part of the statement is false from the screenshot.

[noutella]

They do say they won’t bother, but the rest of the article is actually precisely covering this second point, aka Article 15 of LK Privacy Policy

[loloquwowndueo]

Rhetorical argument is rhetorical?

[SAI_Peregrinus]

It's covering article 15 of the GDPR, not of LinkedIn's Privacy Policy.

[SAI_Peregrinus]

Also, I just checked, and LinkedIn's privacy policy page doesn't contain any information about who viewed my profile in the last year. No usernames, no company names, it's just a generic privacy policy. So the data isn't there either.

[huhkerrf]

But the statement wasn't false, was it? I'm not a paying member of LinkedIn, and I can see who visited my profile.

[xerox13ster]

What you have is the ability to see every 5th person who entered your house.

[thrance]

Seriously, this is what I miss the most in legacy media. Much too often "journalists" will simply relay politicians' statements uncritically, when they're obviously fallacious or straight lies. This is very refreshing on The Register's part.