Dear editor:
Let me get this straight.
A “private” Facebook group (Residents 4 a Better NOTL) — one that mentions me and my family in what feels like every second post — can freely speculate, criticize and spread misinformation.
But when I join the conversation to correct falsehoods and provide context, I’m removed.
Not for being abusive. Not for violating community standards. But because my participation disrupts a preferred negative narrative.
That should concern everyone.
I was told I was banned because I shared a screenshot of a conversation that was “taken out of context.”
No, sir. The only thing taken out of context is the information being circulated about me — and about others — without facts, without balance, and without accountability.
When misinformation is repeated often enough in an echo chamber, it starts to feel like truth. And when someone directly affected steps in to correct the record, suddenly that becomes the issue.
That is not discourse. That is control of narrative.
Groups that claim to want a “better Niagara-on-the-Lake” but refuse to allow council members to engage, listen, or respond are not fostering solutions—they are fostering division.
If you truly care about the future of this community, you should want elected officials to understand: what frustrates residents, where misinformation is taking root and what people actually mean when they say “better NOTL.”
Banning engagement doesn’t strengthen democracy. It weakens it.
Your group rules state that nothing can be shared or screenshotted.
So let me ask the obvious question: If the goal is inclusivity, transparency, and improving NOTL — why remain private?
Why restrict visibility while discussing public officials, public decisions, and public policy?
Private groups that shape public opinion without allowing accountability should make everyone uneasy.
This isn’t just about one councillor or one ban.
It’s about whether we are willing to challenge misinformation when we see it, allow respectful engagement from those directly involved and have honest conversations without silencing voices that don’t fit a preferred storyline.
Shame on the administrators who choose exclusion over dialogue. And shame on any member who sees this happen and stays silent.
If we truly want a better Niagara-on-the-Lake, we need fewer echo chambers — and more courage to hear the full story.
And let me be clear: I am a public figure, you can direct your upset and dissatisfaction towards me. Our families, with all due respect, are off limits.
Maria Mavridis
NOTL
