Moderation
Distinguishing disagreement from harassment
Assess criticism, personal attacks and repeated targeting in context, with a moderation decision aid and a qualified Australian reporting distinction.
Judge a disputed post by what it says, whom it addresses and what happens around it. A member can strongly criticise an idea, a product decision or the business without harassing anyone.
Personal attacks, unwanted pursuit, threats and coordinated targeting warrant closer action. A report raises a concern; it does not settle the decision by itself.
Read the claim and the conduct separately
“I think this pricing change is unfair because it removes a feature I use” challenges a decision. “You are incompetent and should leave this group” targets a person. A moderator needs to identify the behaviour at issue, not decide solely by whether the tone feels uncomfortable.
Read the relevant exchange. A sharp reply may answer a direct question; a mild-looking sentence may be part of repeated unwanted contact.
Check whether someone is responding to an argument, following a person across threads, encouraging others to target them or continuing after a request to stop. Leave room for criticism even when the business dislikes the conclusion.
Use a decision aid, not an automatic sanction
| What the moderator observes | Response to consider |
|---|---|
| A pointed objection to an idea, without personal targeting | Leave the disagreement open; ask for clarification if it would help. |
| A personal remark attached to a relevant argument | Ask for an edit or remove the remark while keeping the substantive question available where possible. |
| Repeated unwanted replies, intimidation or evidence of an organised pile-on | Review the pattern, restrict conduct that breaches the rules and offer the targeted person a private route. |
| A threat or exposure of personal details | Act promptly to limit further sharing and follow the community’s safety procedure. |
Context, severity and immediate risk can change the response. A single serious act may justify action without a prior pattern.
Ask questions that improve the decision
Which rule applies? What shows targeting rather than criticism? Is the behaviour repeated or escalating?
Would the decision be the same if the criticism were aimed at the business? What could the member change to continue the discussion?
Ask privately for missing context. Do not make the person who reported the concern argue their case in the thread.
Record the relevant material and decision for the moderation team, with access limited to those who need it. If the reviewed content stays up, explain that outcome without dismissing the reporter.
Keep community moderation separate from external reporting
A community may prohibit conduct under its own rules without deciding whether it meets any external reporting or legal threshold. For information about reporting adult cyber abuse, refer to the eSafety Commissioner’s “Report adult cyber abuse” page.
Use the community’s published rules for ordinary moderation decisions. A moderation outcome does not determine what eSafety may do.
Apply the community’s conduct standard to staff, paying customers, long-standing members and newcomers alike.
Key Reporting Thresholds in Australian Online Safety
- eSafety Commissioner's Report Adult Cyber Abuse
- Official reporting pathway for serious online abuse in Australia.
- Community Rules vs Legal Threshold
- Community moderation can act independently of legal standards.
- Australian Standards Apply Universally
- Rules apply equally to all members, including staff and long-standing users.
