Can you say more? Why isn't it neutral or slightly positive? I would assume that a KYC provider would want to protect their reputation more than the average company. If I were choosing a KYC provider I would definitely want to choose the one that had not been subject to any privacy scandals, and there are no network effects or monopoly power to protect them.

> Why isn't it neutral or slightly positive?

Because KYC is evil in itself and if the linked article does not explain to you why is that then I certainly cannot.

> KYC provider would want to protect their reputation more than the average company

False. It is exactly the opposite. See, there are no repercussions for leaking customers data, while properly securing said data is expensive and creates operational friction. Thus, there are NO incentives to protect data while there ARE incentives to care as less as possible.

Bear in mind that KYC is a service that no one wants, anll customers are forced and everybody hates it: customers, users, companies.

I want KYC. I want AML. I want reversible transactions. I also want all of those things to be well regulated by a responsive and reasonable regulatory body.

They may have cases where they break down, but their net social impact is positive.

We're talking about LinkedIn, not banking. KYC and AML with respect to banks is a privacy tradeoff that is required by law, after public debate from legally elected representatives. With LinkedIn, it's none of that.

What does the (I assume) acronym KYC mean?

Kill Your Customer.

Know your customer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_your_customer

Know Your Customer