Our Liv Nervo Post Was Taken Down
On reproductive coercion, content moderation,
and what gets lost when harm is named
We’ve never had a post removed before. So when Instagram took down our feature on Liv Nervo - a post about reproductive coercion, grounded in respect and lived experience - it felt like more than a moderation decision. It felt like a reflection of something deeper.
Because the post didn’t target anyone. It didn’t harass. It didn’t incite. It did something else. It named harm.
“Labels Protect Us”
In a recent report in The Guardian, Liv Nervo spoke about why naming reproductive coercion matters, because without language, experiences fall through the cracks. Her case sits exactly there.
Reproductive coercion is recognised within existing frameworks - often as part of coercive control - but it is rarely applied or distinctly named in practice. In Liv’s case, despite findings of deceitful and abusive behaviour, the courts declined to formally determine whether reproductive coercion had occurred. The behaviour was acknowledged - but not named. And that distinction matters.
As one MP put it, when courts are presented with evidence but choose not to recognise or name it, “we are left with a gap not just in terminology, but in protection.”
That gap is where many people sit:
knowing something was wrong
struggling to articulate it
unsure whether it “counts”
Naming is not semantics. It is recognition. It is protection. It is the difference between being seen - and being dismissed.
When Platforms Mirror the Same Problem
And this is where it connects. Because when we shared a post naming reproductive coercion - calmly, clearly, without accusation - it was removed under bullying and harassment. The irony is hard to ignore.
A system that:
struggles to recognise harm
flattens context
and defaults to caution
Ends up doing something unintended; it treats the naming of harm as the harm itself.
The Risk to the VAWG Space
For those working across violence against women and girls, this isn’t a small issue. This space depends on:
language evolving
experiences being shared
patterns being recognised
Reproductive coercion is already under-recognised. Even now:
many people don’t have the language for it
legal frameworks don’t always clearly reflect lived experience
those affected often carry uncertainty and shame
So when content that attempts to name it is removed, it doesn’t just affect visibility. It reinforces the very silence that keeps it misunderstood
A Familiar Pattern
There is a wider pattern here - and it’s not limited to one platform or one post. When stories gain traction:
legal pressure can follow
reputational concerns increase
platforms act conservatively
And somewhere in that process, nuance gets lost. The question becomes less about what is being said - and more about whether it feels “risky” to host it. But in the VAWG space, risk cannot be the only lens. Because difficult, uncomfortable, legally complex experiences are often exactly the ones that need to be understood.
What Gets Lost
On the surface, this is one removed post.
In reality, it’s something else:
A moment of hesitation for others considering speaking up
A disruption to awareness around an under-recognised form of harm
A quiet signal that some conversations are harder to hold than others
And for those already unsure whether their experience “counts”, that signal matters.
Holding the Line
This isn’t about outrage. It’s about clarity. If courts struggle to name reproductive coercion,
and platforms struggle to host conversations about it,then the gap widens. And people fall into it.
We’ll keep sharing. We’ll keep naming. And we’ll keep paying attention to how systems - legal and digital - respond when people try to put language to their experiences. Because both matter. And right now, both are still catching up.
