TL;DR — Open supporter video submissions bring a real risk of abuse, inaccurate claims, or someone else's personal data appearing without permission. A simple review queue with a named moderator and a clear policy, checked before anything is published, handles most of this without slowing a campaign down much.
- Review every clip before it is published; never auto-publish submitted video.
- A short written moderation policy, agreed in advance, is faster to apply consistently than ad-hoc judgment calls.
- Watch for factual claims in supporter clips as closely as you watch for abuse or harassment.
- Check for unauthorised personal data of third parties — a clip naming or showing someone who hasn't consented is a separate risk from the speaker's own data.
On this page
Read this first
This is general information, not legal advice. Rules on political data, campaign communications and digital imprints vary significantly by country and change over time — check current guidance from your national regulator/electoral authority and consult a qualified professional before relying on this for a live campaign.
Why a review queue is worth the friction
A campaign inviting open video submissions is, in effect, running a small content platform. Most clips will be fine, but a review step catches the small share that aren't, before they reach a public page or a paid advert rather than after. A short delay between submission and publication is a reasonable cost for that protection.
A moderation policy outline
- Accuracy — does the clip make a factual claim that is false, misleading, or unverifiable? Flag anything stated as fact that the campaign cannot stand behind.
- Abuse and harassment — does the clip target, name, or attack a specific individual in a way that goes beyond expressing a position on an issue?
- Third-party personal data — does the clip show, name, or identify someone other than the speaker, without their knowledge or consent? This is a separate concern from the speaker's own data and needs its own check.
- Consistency with campaign messaging — does the clip conflict with the campaign's stated position in a way that would confuse rather than add a personal voice?
- Appropriateness for the intended audience and platform — does the content fit where it's going to be published, including any platform-specific content rules?
- A clear outcome for every clip — approve, hold for more information, or decline, with a brief note on why for anything not approved.
Who should review, and how fast
One named person or a small rotating team works better than an informal "whoever sees it first" approach, since consistency matters more than speed for this kind of decision. A same-day or next-day turnaround is usually fast enough; same-hour review is rarely necessary and increases the chance of a rushed call.
Handling a clip you have to decline
Decide in advance whether declined contributors are told why, and consider a brief, kind explanation rather than silence — most people submitting in good faith will understand a factual or privacy concern if it's explained plainly, and a clear reason reduces frustration more than a vague rejection does.
A short checklist before anything goes live
- Has a named person reviewed this specific clip, not just the batch it came in with?
- Does it contain any factual claim that needs checking or softening?
- Does it name or show anyone other than the speaker without their consent?
- Does it fit your digital imprint and disclosure requirements for the platform it's going on? See Digital Imprints and Campaign Video.
- Is there a record of the original consent covering this specific use?
How to do this in Whoosh
Every submitted clip lands in a review queue by default, not a public feed. A named reviewer can approve, hold or decline each one before it moves into a public reel, with notes kept against each decision.
Start freeFrequently asked questions
How quickly should we review submitted clips?
Same-day or next-day review is usually sufficient and gives enough time for a considered decision rather than a rushed one.
What if a supporter makes a claim we think is true but can't verify?
Treat unverifiable claims with caution regardless of whether they feel plausible — ask the supporter to soften the wording, or decline the clip, rather than publishing something the campaign can't stand behind.
Should we moderate clips differently depending on where they'll be published?
Yes — a clip going into paid promotion or a formal submission generally warrants a stricter check than one for an internal supporter update.
Can automated tools replace a human reviewer for this?
Automated checks can help flag obvious issues, but a human review step is worth keeping for anything going public, given how context-dependent accuracy and harassment judgments usually are.