Rwanda

she posts really offensive stuff to wind people up? the site is public, anyone can report the posts. They don't have to be an active poster

The moderators had already deleted other posts on this thread, so I still think they were probably already keeping an eye on it - but I guess we’ll never know if somebody reported again, who decided to suspend, and exactly why.

And you know that because...

if she is a her

I suspect people have been reporting her weeks though

GrannyGravy13

FannyCornforth Urms post did not contain anything that had not already been posted on this thread.

Well there we have it.

FannyCornforth Urms post did not contain anything that had not already been posted on this thread.

No, scrub distasteful, pathetic

FYI Urms said that she was concerned about male Muslim immigrants coming here on small boats.

She also mentioned the Manchester attack.

I don’t think that she should have had her post deleted, let alone that she should be suspended or banned.

I’m very much of the left wing persuasion, but I find the congratulatory back slapping distasteful.

Don’t bother replying to me. I’m just posting this so that you know what you are getting all excited about.

I was at work and I'm not a racist

Germanshepherdsmum

I didn’t see the post but if anyone makes a report which leads to a poster being banned I think they should have the courage of their convictions.

Why do you need to know? I wasn't here and therefore (annoyingly) don't know what the post said. Obviously, another member pointed GN in its direction. They decided.

However, if it makes you feel better, I will stand up and shout "I'm Startacus" just to stop this ridiculous conversation. Currently, so many topics are so very, very much more worthwhile discussing.

Agreed.

That would be fine if it wasnt for the influence that all those sites hold. I dont think its particularly important with regards to GN or MN but the others I am not so sure.

But this is just a discussion site aimed at older people. There are a limited number of posters and we should just rub along.

If Elon Musk re-writes the rules of twitter to define what he think is offensive - or more likely says "anything goes", then we can all decide to take part or not. Its his platform. None of us have to be on it and its not a human right to tweet. If we don't like it, don't engage.

I sort of agree with that volver hence my first comment but if you hand it over to MN or GN you have to be happy handing control over what's offensive to Elon musk or trump for that matter.

Earlier in the week, a couple of us tried not to post on a deliberately provocative thread, but as it was fast becoming a mutual admiration thread for the more blinkered posters, I for one felt I had to jump in to illustrate that we don't "all agree with the flights to Rwanda". Anyone lurking or a potential advertiser perhaps, would have got totally the wrong impression of the views of members of GN. Racist or whatever the post was today, would have the same effect. Sorry if this is a thread about a thread.

Galaxy

You shouldnt be handing over the decision on what's offensive to random people who own websites. I think my two posts now contradict each other but it's a very complex area

I'm a bit gobsmacked by this. GN is not a "random person who owns a website". Its part of a £9 million pound company with a reputation to uphold.

I've had comments deleted in the past because someone gets offended by them and I shrug my shoulders and move on. They can decide. Its their site.

But I've never posted anything that is hateful about a particular demographic and which GN could be construed as advocating. They have advertisers who presumably don't want to be associated with racism or any thing like it. We all know what the rules are when we sign up. Stick by the rules or don't join. GN membership isn't a human right.

WWM2 In which case it must have been bad. Much of what I read here from the right wing makes me wince and yet it remains in situ.

Off topic re Rwanda but regarding moderation - people might like to read the novel We had to remove this post by Hanna Bervoets. It's about the staff of third-party companies employed by socia media sites to moderate offensive content. The social media site isn't specifically named in the novel but the end notes make it obvious that it's based on real evidence about what gets posted on FB. It's shocking reading, the effect that having to look at vile content all day does to the minds of moderators.

Callistemon21

If it was unlawful then understandably it was deleted.

But a ban?

I don't know what the policy is. Maybe she's had warnings before.

If it was unlawful then understandably it was deleted.

But a ban?

Galaxy

You shouldnt be handing over the decision on what's offensive to random people who own websites. I think my two posts now contradict each other but it's a very complex area

Why not? I manage a couple of online sites and I wouldn't accept anything which would offend a huge number of the members and would possibly be illegal. As the "publisher" of the sites, I would be held responsible.

Callistemon21

^The content is no longer “in your face” and can still be read but needs a bit of effort to do so. Other forums do this. It would cut out all the post-deletion speculation too^

Interesting, I didn't know that. At least we could judge.

As I didnt see the deleted thread I cannot judge but at least GNHQ could give an explanation of why it was deleted, if it was sufficiently offensive to warrant suspension or a ban and thus end speculation.

Was it any worse than anything HM Government is saying, I wonder.
It would be boring if this became a 'nodding dog' site. Oh Yes.

I did see the post and can remember the content. I don't think even the government would come up with something so blatantly offensive, although a couple of individual MPs have come close to it.

You shouldnt be handing over the decision on what's offensive to random people who own websites. I think my two posts now contradict each other but it's a very complex area

The content is no longer “in your face” and can still be read but needs a bit of effort to do so. Other forums do this. It would cut out all the post-deletion speculation too

Interesting, I didn't know that. At least we could judge.

As I didnt see the deleted thread I cannot judge but at least GNHQ could give an explanation of why it was deleted, if it was sufficiently offensive to warrant suspension or a ban and thus end speculation.

Was it any worse than anything HM Government is saying, I wonder.
It would be boring if this became a 'nodding dog' site. Oh Yes.

That would be a good idea Caravanserai, as long as the post wasn't deemed to be so offensive as to be illegal, it would let us see what people really think.