Post deletions but MNHQ not against talk guidelines?

[ShirleyPhallus]

Hi MNHQ

I have posted twice on a thread to ask for clarification around talk guidelines - my post has simply asked how come so many posts are being deleted which don’t seem to contravene guidelines... except those posts are being deleted too.

Please can you clarify what is breaking talk guidelines?

The thread is this, and at the moment posters are just saying which accounts they like - nothing controversial or inflammatory

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3335830-To-think-that-instagram-has-jumped-the-shark?msgid=80222878#80222878

Hi Kate

Thanks for your response, but could you please address the concerns that we have that MNHQ have been too over-zealous with deletions. On that thread, particularly for the last few hours after the first commen, there was little comment on any one individual but instead general positive comments on who to follow. These were deleted. My posts asking why they were deleted were deleted.

Can you understand why we have real concerns about being accused of bullying, when for the majority of posters this simply isn’t true?

Hi Shirley - as I said on the thread but perhaps you didn't see, there were a couple of accidental deletions of questions (including yours and another one-word one). Those should have been undeleted now and if not they soon will be.

But the majority of the deletions were made because they commented on the person that we'd just asked for no more comments on.

On your point about 'right to reply', I do understand why it might feel a bit frustrating. Taking a step back though, it's easier to see that no-one here has actually been mentioned by name, or even by their MN name as far as I'm aware. So there's not a huge amount to be cross about in terms of damage to reputations or anything like that. And MN as an entity, as it were, has big girl pants and can take generally a bit of criticism especially when it's clear things have got pretty fraught, and therefore more heated, than they might otherwise have been. Hope that makes sense, going to head to bed now!
MNHQ

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."

"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.

I take your point Pommes, but actually, we do expect users to follow mod's directions when they're asked not to do something, and those posters didn't do so. It's not something that we've ever thought necessary to specify in the guidelines, but perhaps we should consider doing so now.

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.

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