This is the bit I don't get. You may have a point about how we dealt with the David debacle - I think the team probably would do things a little differently next time. But it was a really tricky situation and the intention was to do the right thing by a potentially vulnerable person. Our moderation was certainly not malicious or even necessarily wrong
With respect Justine, the actions of MNHQ amounted to censorship. You deleted thread after thread, all while refusing to acknowledge reports about some very troubling threads. You then had at least FOUR different deletion messages on the threads, one of which effectively said you had gone "above and beyond" to confirm the story. Because people were not able to talk about it on MN, which was the preference, the Reddit group was opened, as an uncensored space.
It has then developed a life of its own, But the genesis lies in MNHQ's applying failure to act on time. Three months of reports were ignored. A fundraising page was moved to Charities, further confiri ng that Mumsnet had gone" above and beyond" to check the poster's authenticity.
And when it all exploded, your Mods shut down debate on thread after thread. You do not have to agree with those on the Reddit group, there are certainly a lot of questionable posts there, just like on Mumsnet, but can you at least understand why people were unhappy to be fobbed off and censored, and why they sought an alternative space to discuss their concerns?