On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 06:26 PM, Epicatt2 wrote:
Just wondering since such an option could be useful to have on any groups where youngsters may visit.
In a way the option does already exist, and it's called a
Moderator.
In a (mainly?) moderated group a moderator can and must stop any inappropriate material in its tracks and prevent it ever reaching other members either via the web UI or by email, and IMHO "stopping" means rejecting the message out of hand, not sanitising it. The rejection should (must?) include a clear message back to the originator stating in no uncertain terms why the message was rejected, with an unambiguous warning that any attempt to repeat the sending of unacceptable content will result in removal from the group.
If a group is unmoderated (or the member concerned is unmoderated) then putting them on moderation has to be the first step. Again IMHO having an entire group, or just some members unmoderated does not absolve an owner or moderator from the responsibility of ensuring that members are behaving themselves and that the group is being properly run. Once the individual is on moderation then the "rule" in the paragraph above can apply.
Bear in mind the Terms of Service that Frances linked.? I don't think an owner of moderator can or should try to weasel their way out of trouble by saying "it's nothing to do with me" or some variant thereof. I suspect that if Groups.io (i.e. Mark) realised that any given group was allowing material that was
verboten to appear he would be within his rights to simply close it down.
Owners and Moderators must consider the possible impact of their failing to perform due diligence on a group and its members. Do you really want to compromise an entire group by overlooking unacceptable behaviour on the part of a single member, or a small group of members?
Chris
