I used to work for an Indymedia collective; I'd say we received half a dozen C&Ds. [Indymedia was an open news collective, with a strong anarchist-socialist le

I used to work for an Indymedia collective; I'd say we received half a dozen C&Ds. [Indymedia was an open news collective, with a strong anarchist-socialist leaning] Our "collective" had no formal membership, and no assets. We were all just volunteers who valued the platform and did some work to help out. These emails were always addressed to "To Whom It May Concern". Pseudonymity was the norm in Indymedia, and I was completely ignorant about the IRL identity of most colleagues that preferred to be pseudonymous. They'd usually be complaining about Indymedia reports of the activities of some small businessman, often a builder. It would often be part of a campaign, i.e. there would be more than one article, by different people. So we'd collate the articles, and do web-searches; if the complaint appeared to refer to something potentially libellous; or involved some crime like inciting violence; or violated our posting T&C, like trolling, conspiraloon, or agent-provocateur, then we'd hide the article or comment; otherwise the site would have been deluged in spam. Hidden articles and comments didn't appear in lists. We had no one-button method for removing an article completely, we had to blank the article in the database. We even published a link to a page where you could view all articles and comments; none of these C&Ds ever referred to a hidden article. We never replied to any of these C&Ds. We (or I) never hid an article or comment as the result of reading a C&D; I never thought the C&D had any merit. We took the "Ignore" route, and never suffered any adverse consequences; not even follow-ups. So I don't share the author's opinion that you should never adopt the Ignore route. Perhaps we got lucky, but I'd have taken these messages more seriously if they had named me. FTR, IANAL.