Request for Clarification on Thread Retention and Content Ownership
Comments
-
You have captured the concern extremely well, especially the distinction between an original post and the collective effort that develops once others begin contributing. That shared work becomes something the whole community has invested in, and it makes sense that people want clarity about how it’s handled.
Your point about other platforms setting this out in advance is an important one. Whatever the policy here turns out to be, having it stated transparently would help everyone understand where they stand before putting time, thought, information, and often a great deal of emotional energy into a discussion.
I also agree with what you have said about this forum being both informational and relational. On a disability support forum, people aren’t just exchanging facts, they are offering lived experience, encouragement, and emotional reassurance. That’s exactly why a clear framework matters, it protects contributors, supports moderators, and helps maintain the sense of safety that makes people willing to share.
Thank you again for raising it so clearly. Your comparison really helps show why this is not a theoretical question but something that affects the health and trust of the community as a whole.
1 -
HI all
Thanks for your question about discussion removal.
Our current guidelines are that if a member requests the deletion of a discussion they started, the entire discussion is removed. This approach is consistent with how we handle account deletions, when a member asks for their account to be deleted, all discussions and comments they have created are also removed.
Members have the right to request the removal of their content at any time, and we apply this consistently across the platform. As a result, we do not retain partial threads or notify other contributors prior to removal. Notifying other members brings up privacy concerns and we could not share that a member has requested their account or posts be removed.
That said, we understand your feedback, we will take it on board and ensure it is raised for discussion internally within the team.6 -
Just a question why does Scope only have one Disability Network which clogs us the Announcement section of the Recent Discussions section.
So is Cerebral Palsy the only disability that Scope want to discuss, and have a member repeated posting a announcement
1 -
Wasn't Scope initially a CP charity?
2 -
Hi @dolfrog
This is because Scope began as a charity supporting people with Cerebral Palsy way back in the 1950s. We are now a pan-disability charity, which means our work includes people with all kinds of disabilities and on the Online Community we encourage discussions from anyone with experiences of disability.
But supporting people with Cerebral Palsy is still a big part of Scope's history as well as our current work. This is why we have our Cerebral Palsy Network and will always be celebrating and recognising the brilliant work that they do. March is Cerebral Palsy awareness month, so there may have been a few more discussions or announcements about CP than usual for this reason. The people posting announcements about Cerebral Palsy-related things are all staff members from our Cerebral Palsy team at Scope.
If you're interested, there's a bit about Scope's history here:
Outside of our Cerebral Palsy Network, we do have our Scope Membership which is open to all and free:
And just as a note, if you want to reduce the amount of announcements you see, there is an option to 'dismiss' them.
From the Recent Discussions page, click the circle with three little dots inside it. It's usually towards the top right of any announcement post. Click it, select 'Dismiss' and this should mean that they don't appear for you again. I have put a red arrow on the picture below to show what the icon looks like.
I hope that helps explain things.
3 -
When you click dismiss they do disappear but they reappear when someone comments on them.
0 -
I appreciate the clarification and the indication that this matter will be reviewed internally. However, the explanation provided is difficult to reconcile with observable moderation practices.
Historically, when a member deletes their account, their posts are anonymised as “Deleted User,” while the wider discussion remains intact. The sudden removal of an active, multi‑member discussion solely at the request of the initiating member represents a significant and unannounced departure from this precedent.
To be absolutely clear, no one is suggesting that a member cannot request the removal of their own content. However, using this principle to justify the current practice fundamentally conflates a user’s right to personal privacy with granting them unilateral authority over a collective discussion.
In the specific case of “An Interesting Read,” the original post contained no personal information, it consisted solely of a public BBC news link. The deeply vulnerable content belonged exclusively to the other members who shared personal experiences relating to panic attacks. The policy as described therefore allows one individual to erase the emotional labour and personal testimony of others.
A serious procedural issue also arises regarding transparency. In this recent case, specific members clearly knew they could request a full thread deletion, yet a review of the published community guidelines reveals no mention of this policy. An unpublished rule of this magnitude creates an inequitable and non‑transparent environment in which only a select few understand the mechanisms governing our contributions.
Given the substantial implications for members who invest time, emotional labour, and vulnerable personal testimony in good faith, allowing one individual to erase the disclosures of others without notice or consultation raises a genuine safeguarding concern.
While I appreciate that this policy will now be reviewed internally, members are continuing to contribute and share vulnerable experiences today. Therefore, if this is indeed the current operational policy, I request that the published community guidelines be updated immediately to reflect it, rather than waiting for the outcome of internal discussions.
Members have a fundamental right to informed consent. They must be clearly warned before participating that the thread starter possesses unilateral authority over the entire discussion, and that any personal testimony they contribute can be summarily erased without any valid justification, simply upon the thread starter’s request.
Thank you for taking these safeguarding concerns seriously and for recognising the importance of maintaining trust and emotional safety within this community. I look forward to seeing the guidelines updated so that all members can participate with clarity and informed consent.
1 -
Thanks for sharing your concerns regarding the removal of the discussion. We have noted your points regarding transparency and the emotional labour involved in community discussions. At this time, we will not be making immediate changes to our current moderation rules. Our existing rules are designed to maintain a consistent user experience and are in line with the standard operating procedures of other social media sites and community forums.
As previously mentioned, we are reviewing these processes internally. Should any formal updates be made to the community guidelines following this review, they will be communicated to the community as a whole.
2 -
I understand that while historically posts on a thread created by a member other than the member who has deleted their account show as "deleted user" any thread the member who is deleting their account has created no matter how long ago the whole thread is deleted.
I do not think it has ever been any different.
3 -
That's correct @Bluebell21.
2 -
@Community_Scope - this was not about a member deleting their account, rather having the ability to ask for the removal of their post whilst an active member.
I have tried to previously say in this thread that such a member should be able to do so if they feel they've shared personal info which they later feel uncomfortable with in whatever shape or form. I may have blinked, but I've only ever seen instances of it being about such personal content.
The post in question was different; the member that posted gave a link to an external news website & didn't initially comment; they shared no subsequent personal info, yet were able to decide on how to 'moderate' it rather than leaving it to the Scope team & your guidelines.
I take onboard what @Emilee says especially where she says at the end that she, ''would like to assume the mod team uses some discretion and common sense where needed too.''
Perhaps that's a way forward; a member should always have the ability to remove their discussion where it's personal, but those inviting comments from an impersonal source such as a news link should be treated differently. I say this also taking onboard that Emilee also asks, does this happen very often? I don't think so, but when the member that started this post has started several other posts with newslinks, etc., then I hope such impersonal discussions may be viewed differently.
I'm unsure as to how an external link can be considered a Scope member's 'content;' I think the BBC & the authors of a medical paper may disagree as they're just being quoted, e.g.
[Removed by moderator]
In the latter example the member posting the discussion, other than giving the title to the thread hasn't even commented once, yet could potentially delete this post too at any time in the future. Of course I'm not saying they will do so, but such scenarios from a member solely giving a link to external sources such as this have the potential to be somewhat misused.
0 -
Emilee, we often are in the minority but that's another matter entirely!
I try not to repeat myself but none of this is new and should not surprise established members of this forum!
Nobody needs to explain why they want a thread they created to be deleted - it's a simple request to Scope. Scope can also choose to delete an entire thread but that doesn't happen very often.
As Bluebell outlines, when a member leaves the forum, all their contributions are wiped.
SwiftFox's topics aren't inflammatory or distasteful and he's been more magnanimous than I could be but members still aren't satisfied. There are better examples of forum misuse.
I expected to see this thread closed today as usually happens on the rare occasion that Scope's statement on the matter in hand is challenged.
5 -
We understand your point regarding the nature of the content in the "An Interesting Read" thread. However, our position remains that we will not be changing the current rules at this time. Our policy treats the person who initiates a discussion as the owner of that thread, regardless of whether the initial post contains personal testimony or an external link.
As we have previously stated, we are reviewing our internal processes. Until that review is complete, the existing guidelines stand.
We have decided to close this discussion as it is becoming uncivil.
Online Community Team
3
Categories
- All Categories
- 15.9K Start here and say hello!
- 7.6K Coffee lounge
- 108 Games den
- 1.8K People power
- 164 Announcements and information
- 25.4K Talk about life
- 6.2K Everyday life
- 506 Current affairs
- 2.5K Families and carers
- 875 Education and skills
- 2K Work
- 588 Money and bills
- 3.7K Housing and independent living
- 1.2K Transport and travel
- 647 Relationships
- 1.6K Mental health and wellbeing
- 2.5K Talk about your impairment
- 882 Rare, invisible, & undiagnosed conditions
- 942 Neurological impairments and pain
- 2.2K Cerebral Palsy Network
- 1.3K Autism and neurodiversity
- 41K Talk about your benefits
- 6.1K Employment & Support Allowance (ESA)
- 20.3K PIP, DLA, ADP & AA
- 9.2K Universal Credit (UC)
- 5.3K Benefits and income