Deleting your account

I just wanted to highlight a change regarding what happens when a community member decides they don’t want to be here anymore and they’d rather their profile was removed.

Article 17 of the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulations enshrines a ‘right to erasure’ for its citizens.

This entitles a ‘natural person’ to require those who collect ‘personally identifiable information’ to have that information destroyed when it is no longer necessary to be held. It does however provide a few exceptions including for exercising the right of freedom of expression and information, works carried out in the public interest or in order to comply with a legal obligation.

Previously this has always been handled on an ad-hoc basis when users have asked me via private message.

Now, you can request account deletion straight from your profile preferences.


This will then trigger a 48-hour discretionary grace period, during which it’s possible to ‘revoke article 50’. Once your 48 hours have been run down, your account will be put in a queue and I anticipate profile removal within a further 7 days (most likely much sooner).

During the process, we will anonymise the user’s posts and attribute them to an ‘anon’ user, so they are no longer personally identifiable any individual. This is similar to how messages and group posts still appear in discussions on facebook after a user elects to close their account.

Once your profile has been deleted, it will no longer be possible for us to identify you personally by IP address, username or email address.



A post was merged into an existing topic: Missing buttons

Who owns the words that I type here? Me or FTT?

Contributions are made using the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

1 Like

I quoted, I now own them, simplessssss.

That answered my question by not really answering it and telling me to go away and read something to understand. …which I can’t be bothered to do.

I presume I’m signing my words over to you? :thinking:

1 Like

I’m no copyright lawyer, but I’d ague that you retain ownership of your words but, in posting them to a public site, are granting a non-exclusive licence for them to be used in perpetuity.

Forums wouldn’t really be able to work if the publisher didn’t have the right to publish your posts.

Creative Commons actually explain their licences pretty well

1 Like

Thanks. That helps me much more.

Is this catching?..

A fascinating post and I suspect it’s less to do with them wanting their account deleted and more about other issues. At face value, though, they seem to be in a bad place…


What’s going on here over the last few days? Some members have decided to delete their posts. Which leads to old threads being bumped.

I find that a shame and annoying, but would ultimately accept their right to delete their posts,if they wish.

But then I’ve noticed @Liam taking it upon himself to restore posts. This leads to the thread being bumped up yet again, which is even more annoying.

But it’s also evident that posts are restored that the post authors have decided to delete. This I find inappropriate. I appreciate that the license used when posting on FTT almost certainly permits this from a legal perspective, but still: if an author deletes their own posts, then surely the forum owner ought to respect this, except in the most unusual circumstances.

What do the others think?

Hi [Departed user],

A month ago I had to put a stop to some pretty ugly behaviour that was taking place, and involved the public denigration - and I believe, bullying - of certain individuals.

Unfortunately, it would seem that this did not go down well with a small number of users who seemingly would rather be above any form of reasonable moderation and should be free attack others, call names and impune the professional reputation of others without recourse or being told simply to ‘stop’.

Since then I have started a dialogue with the community on how we - as a community - think that moderation should be applied and what is acceptable and is not. Some, I fear, would rather undermine the community than agree to participate with civility.

I have even reached out, individually, to some of those involved. Without success.

Ultimately, I guess that when we decide we no longer want to be part of something, we have choices to make. We can remove ourselves from the space that we have outgrown entirely, or we can go there more than ever before - just to throw rocks from the sideline.

From the outset, I have always been clear Fintech Talk should be a place where we can talk about fintech - at times robustly - but that we should refrain from personal attacks and be agreeable with each other when we disagree on any particular topic.

I humbly ask that those who do not wish to be civil or play by the rules leave the rest of us in peace and exercise their right to delete their profile.

I’ll not direct this at anyone in particular, it’s not particularly dignified to go after individuals, and I’m not looking to sow further Discord.


That’s a bit of a non answer. Reminds me of other people whom I’d rather not name, lest I also fall foul of the guidelines.

I’m fully aware of the back story.

What I’m not aware of is why you are restoring posts that the authors have decided to delete.

It’s the answer I’m prepared to give.

If an individual has any complaints about the way I have handled their account, then I believe that the best course of action would be for them to approach me.

So you think it’s right to restore posts that the authors have deleted against their wishes?

I don’t wish to labour the point, but like I have said, I have given the answer I am prepared to give.

For everything else, I refer you to the terms and conditions of the site.

Are you standing for parliament? It’s the sort of reply I’d expect from a politician, but not form someone who professes he wishes to have a dialog with the community, and to care about “we - as a community -”.

I take it then that your wish for a “dialog” only extends to those whom you agree with?

Wow. That went personal quick.

Can I just point out that while I disagree with you, I didn’t feel the need to attack you. It’s a shame you chose a different path.

1 Like

How is that personal? There are many mps, I did not reference any one personally. (although I must confess that my first draft did, but I removed that for precisely that reason)

It is a statement of fact that you profess you wish for a dialog with the community, but don’t actually want a dialog with me - a member of that community. That’s not personal either.

So, what is personal please?