Local conversation, real care

What belongs here

First-hand experience, an honest question, a sourced correction, neighbourhood advice, an event, an opportunity or specific criticism can all help. Distinguish a verifiable fact, opinion and personal account.

When writing about a school, business or professional, include the date, service and context. Do not turn one experience into a universal accusation or definitive ranking.

• be specific, local and useful;
• disclose a commercial relationship, invitation, discount or conflict of interest;
• cite the source for a verifiable claim;
• correct a material error publicly.

Content that will be limited or removed

The team may act on unlawful, dangerous, deceptive or community-threatening content. Context, reach, repetition, intent and risk influence the measure.

• threats, harassment, hate or discrimination against a person or protected group;
• doxxing: a CPF, document, address, routine, phone number or intimate data without legitimate grounds;
• sexual exploitation, intimate material without consent or any child-abuse content;
• fraud, a pyramid scheme, unlawful goods, false identity or deliberately misleading price;
• spam, fabricated reviews, coordinated campaigns or undisclosed advertising;
• a grave factual allegation without verifiable context, manipulated image or fabricated quotation;
• clear copyright infringement or extensive reproduction of another person’s work.

Children, schools and vulnerable people

A child’s best interests prevail over curiosity, engagement and public exposure. Do not publish an identifiable image, regular route, classroom, contact, document, health condition or report that identifies a child.

School information should come from an institutional source, the School Census or a carefully anonymised first-hand account. A child-safety concern requires responsible referral, not a public trial in comments.

Reviews, rankings and conflicts

The portal does not mass-copy Google reviews or turn third-party stars into editorial truth. A synthesis should appear only with a minimum evidence volume, known provenance and a published method.

A business, employee, competitor, publicist or invited guest must disclose the relationship. A sponsored profile remains labelled and cannot buy praise, a score or removal of legitimate criticism.

How moderation works

The recommended flow is to receive a report, reduce exposure where risk exists, preserve only necessary evidence, verify context and sources, decide, record the reason and allow review where appropriate.

Possible measures include a warning, label, reduced distribution, closed comments, temporary hiding, removal and account restriction. A measure should be proportionate; repetition or serious risk supports a stronger response.

Report, correction and appeal

Use the publication’s own tool where available. Otherwise open @meurecifebot and send the link, issue category and a short explanation. Do not repeat harmful content beyond what is necessary.

For an appeal, identify the decision, missing context and supporting source. A reporter does not receive another person’s private data or a guarantee of a particular outcome.

Decisions and editorial freedom

Documented criticism is not removed merely because it inconveniences a business or public body. Freedom of expression likewise does not protect threats, fraud, disclosure of personal data or harassment.

Material changes, corrections and commercial interests should be labelled. The team may publish aggregate moderation reports without exposing reporters or affected people.