This newspost will answer questions that have been gathered from the userbase, in different topics concerning recent events on the platform, as well as the general situation concerning racism, discrimination and bias. At the end of this post, there is an overview of structural changes.
We have tried to sort the different questions categorically and grouped them so it's easier to follow along in the text.
MODERATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Why do moderators search FMBs without user reports?
Moderators cannot search private FMBs unless they are friends with the user. Staff do not look through FMBs or goMessages unless content is reported or flagged by the system.
If an FMB is reported, moderators can see the reported content and may request that the Admin team review the full context when necessary.
Who evaluates whether moderation decisions contain racial bias?
Reports involving racial bias are handled by the Admin team and reviewed under an internal oversight process. The purpose is not for the user to convince us that injustice has taken place; the user will be met with good faith, and we will correct the mistake.
If there is any uncertainty, more people will be involved in the handling of the case. The individuals involved with the original incident will be informed about the removal of the sanction, if they are still within the company. If further action is required internally, we will do so.
To reduce bias:
— Cases involving racism or discrimination are prioritised.
— Second opinions are required for sensitive reports.
— Members of the Inclusivity Group may be consulted when relevant.
— Review discussions may take place in a separate communication space to ensure impartial input.
This structure exists to ensure decisions are not influenced by a single moderator’s interpretation.
TRAINING AND EDUCATION
Who creates the internal training materials regarding racism?
Internal training materials relating to racism, discrimination and inclusivity are developed through collaboration between the Inclusivity Group and relevant internal teams. This is a collaboration we are actively working on strengthening, so that it feels more like a dynamic dialogue.
The Inclusivity Group contributes with:
— Educational materials addressing racism, bias and discrimination.
— Practical guidance documents.
— Reflection tools and discussion frameworks.
— Case-based examples relevant to the platform.
— Generalised feedback, thoughts and opinions.
It varies if their contribution is due to a staff request or if an IG member initiates it. The involvement of IG is not a mandatory request we make; their participation in each project is voluntary.
In addition to Inclusivity Group materials, moderators and staff have access to:
— General moderation training materials
— Internal policy guides
— Scenario-based guidance
— De-escalation and decision-making frameworks
These materials are continuously reviewed and expanded to ensure they remain relevant and aligned with platform needs. We are also looking into proactive ways of ensuring that the resources are read and understood. It is a criterion to familiarise yourself with the resources and understand when and where they are applicable.
We are also incorporating external educational resources where appropriate. For example, publicly available frameworks such as Unmasking Racism: Guidelines for Educational Materials by Migration Lab are being reviewed as reference material while we go through our internal resources.
In addition, the Inclusivity Pledge and associated workshop materials form part of our broader educational framework. Previous workshops have contributed to internal understanding and shared language. Future workshops, updated guidance documents, and additional learning tools are currently in development.
So in short, most of the internal training materials are created by staff involved with the moderation team, and in collaboration with the Inclusivity Group, with the use of a variety of source materials.
Why does staff rely on self-education instead of mandatory professional training?
Staff do not rely solely on self-education. All staff have participated in two mandatory workshops delivered by Danish Industry. Volunteers were also invited to join these workshops, but it was not mandatory for them.
The first workshop was called “We Are All Biased”, and the second workshop was called “Inclusivity & Diversity Workshop - Theme: Allyship”.
The first workshop was about identifying one's own identity markers, reflecting upon those, and whether those identity markers have defined you in negative or positive ways. Furthermore, it was discussed how one may have been biased in certain situations, and what one had learned from that, or situations where someone else had been biased towards you.
The result of the workshop was to be able to identify bias and learning bias blocking strategies.
For the second workshop, we looked into what allyship meant and how this translates into your work and everyday life. We also discussed microaggressions and how one would react if one were in a situation where someone else was the target of microaggressions.
Key points on how to be an ally:
— Listen, learn, and be willing to unlearn.
— Recognise and reflect on your own privilege.
— Acknowledge that people experience the world differently.
— Recognise that discrimination exists, even when it is unintentional.
— Stand in solidarity with groups you are not a member of.
— Support individuals and initiatives that challenge racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, ableism, ageism, and other forms of discrimination.
Will the company hire external diversity experts such as Tony Nabors or Lovette Jallow?
Two further inclusivity workshops are already planned to take place, and will be delivered by Danish Industry. Future workshops will continue to be mandatory for staff and will also be extended to moderators as a mandatory commitment.
Beyond this, we are exploring opportunities to collaborate with additional external diversity experts in the future. No final decisions have been made regarding specific individuals at this stage, but we have made note of your recommendations.
Our focus is on ensuring that any external collaboration:
— Provides relevant expertise,
— Aligns with the needs of our platform and community,
— Strengthens existing internal structures.
CAMPAIGN PLANNING AND COMMUNICATION
Why did Valentine's events receive massive resources while Black History Month received one recycled competition?
The Valentine's event was relaunched from a previously developed campaign originally created in 2014. Because the code and assets were already available, we were able to deploy this event efficiently with minimal development time while still offering players a nostalgic experience tied to version 1.0.
Black History Month was planned to include multiple competitions, not just the Black Impact competition. However, the Black Impact competition was scheduled to launch first based on our original timeline. The remaining BHM competitions were planned for release later in the month.
Why was this the competition you decided to launch first, when it was a recycled competition?
Parts of the Black History Month campaign were initially planned earlier in the planning stage, on the basis of loose suggestions and informal feedback. It was assumed to be cleared, and the focus was moved over to the additional planning. We should have followed up and ensured that we were on the same page.
Had the full set of competition received a formal presentation and time to be reviewed, this could have been avoided.
We understand why launching a recycled competition first, particularly during Black History Month, was not the right thing to do. Even if the format existed prior to the expansion of the campaign, we should have reassessed whether it was the right initiative to lead within that context.
Why are we doing such a big event for Valentine’s Day while it is Black History Month? Should the focus not shift?
When a highly visible event such as Valentine’s Day receives significant promotion during Black History Month, it creates the impression that BHM is secondary or symbolic rather than a priority. That perception matters, and BHM should not feel overshadowed by unrelated events.
Moving forward, we will review our Campaign plan and ensure that cultural events are not diluted by simultaneous large-scale events. Valentine’s Day and other seasonal campaigns will still take place, but they must not dominate the platform in a way that sidelines cultural events like BHM.
We recognise that this balance has not been achieved, and it must improve.
Why does staff wait for public outrage before addressing known issues?
We understand that the amount of time we took to address the issues was too long, and we acknowledge the frustration this caused. The remaining Black History Month competitions were temporarily paused so we could reassess and ensure that internal alignment, messaging, and overall execution met our intended standards.
Our goal was not to delay action until there was a public response, but to take time to ensure that the upcoming content was communicated clearly, thoughtfully, and respectfully before release. That said, we recognise that earlier and more transparent communication would have helped prevent confusion and frustration.
VOLUNTEER TREATMENT
Why does staff rely on the Inclusivity Group to moderate complex racism topics?
We have, up until now, relied a little on the Inclusivity group to help moderate cases like racism. But we have also neglected to involve IG in different areas where they should have been involved. We are working on improving this, and will make sure to utilise IG in more areas. We also have to make sure that we run things by IG before putting it live on the site.
What specific protections exist for minority volunteers?
We have direct lines to staff and admins to privately report internal microaggressions. They can report biased colleagues or staff members and can guarantee that there will be no retaliation for speaking up. It is our strict policy to investigate every internal report regarding racism or other sensitive topics. We then remove volunteers who direct microaggressions. Instead of relying on free educational labour, we hire external professionals to train our staff and moderators. That burden should not rest on the Inclusivity Group or one individual.
Why must minority users perform free educational labour for the staff?
Users should not have this responsibility. We take full responsibility for our education. We will stop asking users and volunteers to provide free labour for us to teach us about bias and microaggressions. All staff and moderators will have mandatory training by external experts. This is something we will add to the trial period for moderators as well. If they do not complete this training, they will not pass the trial period.
New moderators currently have a checklist, together with their tutors, of what they should know before the trial period ends. This will be updated to include training about bias and microaggressions. Current moderators will also have to complete mandatory training. Moderators who fail this training will be let go.
CENTER BLACK USERS
Why does it feel like Black voices are hardly recognised by the website, staff, or userbase?
We acknowledge that there have been instances where Black voices have not been recognised, amplified, or supported in the way they should have been. For this, we take responsibility.
We have not consistently prioritised these concerns, and during Black History Month, we repeated mistakes that should already have been learned from. Black users have pointed out problems, including microaggressions, and the response has been too slow, unclear, or insufficient. In practice, this meant that the burden of explaining and pushing for change has fallen on the same people who were already affected by the issues.
It is our responsibility to create a space where concerns are taken seriously, addressed promptly, and not left to those affected to resolve.
We go into more detail about how to avoid this happening again further down in this post.
Why should Black users keep helping if nothing is implemented?
It is not the responsibility of Black users to continue investing emotional labour without seeing change. If we ask for continued engagement, it must be matched by visible and measurable action.
We are committed to implementing the following:
— External expertise and mandatory training
— Review and reversal of unfair sanctions
We have reviewed and cleared unfair sanctions, and we will continue to assess cases where bias or misjudgement may have influenced moderation decisions.
— Rule updates to better protect BIPOC users
We are updating our rules to explicitly address microaggressions and harmful behaviour. Discomfort must not be weaponised to silence lived experiences. Policies will be clarified to ensure that users speaking about racism or discrimination are not penalised for doing so.
— Clearer escalation and accountability structures
We are strengthening internal review processes so that reports involving racism and bias are handled consistently and with appropriate oversight.
— Structured community involvement
Where we seek input from Black users and other marginalised communities, this will be within defined frameworks, with transparency about what can be changed and what action will follow. Consultation must lead to outcomes.
We understand that trust cannot be rebuilt through promises alone. Continued engagement should be a choice, not an obligation. Our responsibility is to ensure that participation leads to tangible change.
CONSULTING AFTER BACKLASH INSTEAD OF BEFORE
Why isn’t BHM content planned with input BEFORE publishing?
Historically, our planning process has not been structured in a sustainable or enforceable way. Internal miscommunication and inconsistent response timelines further complicated the process, reducing opportunities for timely dialogue and feedback. As a result, content development often progressed without the full range of input. This was not due to a lack of willingness to contribute, but rather to gaps in the process.
Although planning has, at times, taken place several months in advance, progress often stalled due to a lack of structured follow-up, ultimately pushing the review process too close to publication deadlines.
To address this, campaign content will now follow a clearly defined three-month planning timeline. This timeline will be shared with the Inclusivity Group and the full staff team and will include structured checkpoints and defined response windows to ensure that review and feedback take place well in advance of publication.
If you know this happens every year, why does it keep happening?
Although these challenges have been discussed previously, it has continued to happen because we did not formalise a preventative structure. Without defined planning windows, clear checkpoints, and shared accountability, the same reactive cycle has repeated itself.
We recognise that knowing a problem exists is not enough. A structured process must exist to prevent it.
We will also invite you to join in on a post-event survey as a new standard.
Was IG involved in the first place?
In previous instances, involvement was either limited, unclear, or occurred too late in the process to meaningfully influence outcomes.
This lack of clarity contributed to confusion about accountability and decision-making.
In this particular case, the first competition was not run with the whole team, as it should have been. The idea was derived from different discussion points in a loose sense, but it was not finalised for review. The rest of the campaign was done in close collaboration with the Inclusivity Group, with a possibility of giving direct feedback before things went live.
So, while yes, IG was involved to varying degrees, it is clear that it was not done productively or sustainably throughout the whole of the campaign.
TRANSPARENCY AND STAFF PRESENCE
What’s the point of having admins answering if they can’t answer the questions?
The staff is a united front, with Admins being responsible for all communication with the userbase. Admins will address all user concerns and questions on behalf of the entire staff.
Moving forward, procedural changes will be made to ensure that Admins are able to better communicate the information needed, and in a more timely manner.
The most visible format is news posts and allocated forums in the staff section or the resource section. When admins go out into the forums, their purpose should be clear; time should not be spent on letting users know that they don’t have the answers, but an update informing them that finding the answers is a priority.
RESPONSE TIME AND COMMUNICATION
How will we do this moving forward?
We will formalise response timelines and internal escalation procedures.
Going forward:
— Reports involving racism, discrimination or bias will be prioritised.
— A clear internal review process will be defined so cases are not delayed or redirected without resolution.
— Responsibility for follow-up will be assigned, rather than assumed.
— Updates will be communicated where appropriate, so users are not left without acknowledgement.
Reactive silence has contributed to mistrust. We recognise that timely and transparent communication is essential.
Will staff respond faster and more directly?
Delays have often occurred due to internal uncertainty, lack of alignment, or unclear authority.
To address this:
— Internal clarification will happen before public communication.
— Designated spokespersons will respond on behalf of the team where necessary.
— Holding statements will be used when full answers are not yet available, rather than remaining silent.
— Faster responses must not mean rushed responses, but they must mean clearer and more accountable ones.
How will staff ensure the “new” competition will be appropriate and not centred on white experiences?
Cultural initiatives will no longer be structured as regular competitions. Where themed campaigns are created, they will undergo pre-publication review to assess framing, representation, and implicit centring.
To be specific:
— Planning will begin at least three months in advance.
— The Inclusivity Group will be consulted throughout the planning before campaigns are finalised.
— The framing of prompts and visuals will be reviewed to avoid centring white norms as default experiences.
— The purpose of the initiative will be clearly defined before execution.
— Representation must be intentional, not incidental.
Has there ever been an option for Black users to do takeovers / hosted features, similar to what goHosts do now?
There has not been a consistent or structured pathway specifically for Black users to host takeovers during Black History Month.
Moving forward, we will explore:
— Structured hosted features during cultural events, planned in advance and clearly supported by staff
— Transparent application or nomination processes so opportunities are accessible and fairly communicated
— Defined support systems to ensure hosts are safeguarded and not left to handle possible backlash or conflict alone
Opportunities to centre voices will be proactive, intentional and embedded into our planning, rather than symbolic or reactive.
We are implementing structural changes to strengthen accountability, inclusivity, moderation quality, campaign planning, and communication.
Mandatory Training and Education
All staff members and moderators will be required to complete anti-racism and bias training.
— External workshops will be mandatory for staff and moderators.
— New moderators must complete this training during their trial period.
— Moderators who fail mandatory training will not pass their trial period or will be removed.
— Training requirements will be integrated into the moderator onboarding checklists.
— Staff and moderators will be required to familiarise themselves with internal educational resources and understand how they apply.
— Additional workshops and updated learning materials are in development.
These measures ensure that knowledge about racism, bias, and discrimination does not depend on voluntary self-education.
Improved Moderation Oversight and Accountability
Moderation involving racism, discrimination, or bias will follow strengthened review procedures.
— Reports involving racism or discrimination will be prioritised.
— Sensitive moderation cases will require second-opinion reviews.
— The Admin team will oversee cases involving racial bias.
— Additional reviewers will be involved where uncertainty exists.
— Inclusivity Group members will be consulted when relevant.
— Review discussions may take place in separate spaces to ensure impartial input.
— Clear internal escalation procedures will be defined.
— Unfair sanctions influenced by bias will be reviewed and reversed where necessary.
— Moderation policies will be updated to explicitly address microaggressions and harmful behaviour.
— Users discussing racism or discrimination will be better protected from sanctions.
These changes ensure that moderation decisions are not dependent on a single moderator’s interpretation.
Greater involvement of the Inclusivity Group
The Inclusivity Group will be more consistently integrated into platform processes.
The Inclusivity Group will be involved in:
— Event planning
— Rule and guideline development
— Moderation processes
— Training materials
— Campaign content will be reviewed by the Inclusivity Group before publication.
— Cultural initiatives will be developed in collaboration with the Inclusivity Group.
— Consultation processes will include defined timelines and response windows.
This ensures Inclusivity Group involvement is structured rather than informal or inconsistent.
Structured Campaign Planning
Cultural campaigns will follow a formal planning structure.
— Campaign planning will begin at least three months in advance.
— Planning timelines will be shared with staff and the Inclusivity Group.
— Structured checkpoints and review deadlines will be established.
— Campaign framing and representation will be reviewed before publication.
— Cultural initiatives will no longer be structured as regular competitions.
— Cultural events will be planned so they are not overshadowed by simultaneous major events.
— Representation will be intentional rather than incidental.
— The purpose of initiatives will be clearly defined before execution.
These processes are intended to prevent reactive planning and repeated mistakes.
External Expertise
External expertise will be integrated into staff and moderator education.
— Workshops delivered by Danish Industry will continue.
— Additional external experts are being explored as an option.
— External educational frameworks will be used as reference material.
This reduces reliance on unpaid educational labour from users and volunteers.
Clearer Communication and Response Procedures
Communication with users will follow clearer internal procedures.
— Response timelines will be formalised.
— Reports will receive acknowledgement where appropriate.
— Holding statements will be used when answers are not yet available.
— Admins will act as designated spokespersons.
— Internal clarification will happen before public responses.
— Updates will be communicated when appropriate.
These changes aim to reduce reactive silence and delayed responses.
Volunteer Protections
Additional protections will exist for volunteers, especially minority volunteers.
— Direct reporting channels to staff and admins will remain available.
— Internal reports of microaggressions will be investigated.
— Volunteers who engage in microaggressions may be removed.
— No retaliation is permitted for reporting concerns.
Community Involvement Framework
Community consultation will follow clearer structures.
— Consultation processes will include transparency about possible outcomes.
— Participation will be voluntary rather than expected.
— Hosted features and takeovers during cultural events will be explored as an option through structured processes.
— Transparent application or nomination systems will be explored.
— Staff support will be provided to hosts to prevent backlash situations.
Post-Event Evaluation
— Events will be evaluated through structured feedback systems.
— Post-event surveys will be conducted.
— Event-specific feedback will be stored and tracked.
— Feedback will be used in future planning.
Summary
These structural changes aim to create:
— More accountable moderation.
— Better education and training.
— Earlier and more inclusive planning.
— Clearer communication.
— Stronger protection for marginalised individuals.
— More meaningful community involvement.
