Post deletions but MNHQ not against talk guidelines?

I meant NOT responding like this, as you said above it wasn't in response to legal action.

Gawd this really is like SWMNBM!

I was on many of the early instamum & influencer threads. I'm quite surprised to see you reacting like this @MNHQ in response to ONE instagram account after allowing so many to be criticised over the last year. Is it because this person has ties with you, having been a former MN blogger and nominated for MN blog prizes?

I appreciate that she has openly talked about having mental health issues, and you're trying to do the right thing, but what if one of the other people hurt by the threads had been previously feeling suicidal - would it only count if they had broadcast it publicly?

It's amusing that you've used the phrase "to follow mod's directions" as MOD, mother of daughters, was one of the instagrammers that received a lot of criticism and complained about the threads - she said so on here - but you hardly did much moderation in response. Which seemed in line to how the rest of the site is run, so that's not a criticism on my part. I'm just puzzled as to why you are so quick to ban any mention of one person, especially someone who is a touring performer and putting work out into the public domain, so will be getting publicly reviewed and discussed.

I'm not fully convinced @KateMumsnet that despite what you say Mumsnet is responding like this because of the instagrammer, according to one of her previous posts, going to the police and sending you a solicitor's letter.

"Lowering the heat" mentioned one too many times in my example, however the point still stands. MNHQs deletion message in these circumstances is both inaccurate and misleading to an observer.

Thanks for your reply @KateMumsnet.

While it seems, on this one occasion, that posting names haven't been specifically mentioned it still leaves me feeling very uncomfortable that there's a blanket silencing policy on this issue. Posting names were previously mentioned by other Instamums but still the posters' right of reply was drowned out by this policy.

As an aside, MNHQ are in agreement that posts which do not break talk guidelines were being deleted. For the avoidance of doubt and to not make us all look like bullies would a deletion message like that composed below not be more appropriate?

"This post does not break talk guidelines. However for the purposes of lowering the heat we are deleting all posts related to the issue to lower the heat."

One person (who even had a username that was derogatory about the IGer in question) wrote some nasty things about her on the thread that was deleted last week or whenever it was. I imagine it was the same person who then apparently went and said the same things about her on GOMI. That poster was called out on the thread at the time, and obviously posters were reporting the nasty posts because those posts were deleted very quickly.

It has totally being exaggerated what happened and what was said about her.

Yes - beauty. Just looked and there is a thread already

I can understand that @breadsticksandhummus

It has turned into quite the shitstorm.

Is that a thing @Gobbolinothewitchscat ? I may join you

It’s such a useful tool for the message she wants to get across though.

Not when she's doing it in the way she is. I'm a working class WOC, and she's alienated me completely with this whole business I'm afraid.

It leaves me wondering whether I need to search out a better place to have these discussion

Yes - MNTrolls on Reddit. I may register and start a thread.

No I wouldn’t either @breadsticksandhummus

It’s such a useful tool for the message she wants to get across though.

I think this thread is pertinent though as this person isn’t the only IGer who has set people onto MN with inaccurate reporting of what’s going on and then MN becoming trigger happy leaving an incomplete thread and room for imaginative stories to be told to fill the holes. Which doesn’t close the issue and fans fires that weren’t even there in the first place. It’s not healthy for anyone.
I can’t see how a lot of the posts on the thread mentioned in the OP were breaching guidelines - and think that MN need to be clearer so rules of engagement are known and some self policing can be done by us all as well.

She's lying. I like her account, have followed for ages, found her refreshing. But she's no better than the rest of them when it comes to whipping up a frenzy for the sake of... I'm not sure what.

Stop telling us to stop talking, please ive

This instagrammer has posted many times about not having her voice silenced. In fa ct, was that not the reason she decided to stay in jnstagram? T he right to free speech does not just apply to selected individuals who are allowed to use it to make false allegations about other people who don't have the right to defend themselves

But she’s struggling with people that don’t know her talking about her on forums.

I wouldn't like that either, but in that case I probably wouldn't have a public Instagram account.

This has also really pissed me off. I am all for deleting any personal attacks, and sometimes even "pile on" posts that don't add anything to a discussion and actually present MN in an unfavourable light to anyone reading, say, a thread that's been mentioned on instastories. But, yet again, I'm left feeling censored by the moderation of instagram related threads.

I appreciate things blow up suddenly but the silence from MN, not defending itself or, more importantly, allowing its users to defend themselves, is so irritating. It leaves me wondering whether I need to search out a better place to have these discussion

i don’t think she always reports these issues accurately.... But she’s struggling with people that don’t know her talking about her on forums. Which is what we are doing again now! And I think we should stop. But let’s also remember she’s coming from a well intentioned place. She’s trying to shine a light on social inequality amongst a sea of #ad and #gift accounts. That’s no bad thing.

I would have thought their own users should be the priority, not someone who cries “bullies” and threatens legal action.

Thinking logically - what's the corollary to this? What do MN do if we all find the deletions vastly upsetting/perilous to our mental health (who knows what underlying mental health issues we might have?). I personally find being falsely accused of calling someone a child abuser online very unpleasant. Does that mean our posts are re-instated?

There seems to be no logic to this new policy which was brought in with no notice whatsoever and just based on who feels the most upset

Nobody said a thing about anyone's parenting. The thing that wound everyone up was the fact the thread was being falsely accused of things it simply hadn't done.