Tattle Life’s rebrand revelation: Still a cesspit, just with moderation

Don’t hire me as a poet. It took me longer than I’d like to admit to come up with a Tattle-style thread title for this. I nearly went with “Tattle’s New Form, Same Old Scorn” - equally terrible, but honestly fitting.

Following up on my previous blog about Tattle Life and its impact on public figures, things have changed slightly. The site has introduced a new registration system, a Google Form and a locked registration page claiming the platform is “full.” On paper, it looks like reform. In practice, it’s a façade.

The site is currently “closed to new members,” unless you happen to have an invitation code from an existing user “in good standing.” Good standing, on a website built around harassment. It’s a contradiction that speaks for itself.

The new exclusive form to join Tattle House.

The illusion of accountability

The new Google Form reads like an attempt to sound responsible, full of self-congratulation about “strict rules” and “zero tolerance for abuse.” It’s not moderation, it’s presentation. They’ve tried to repackage the same obsessive culture under the language of integrity.

The registration page takes it further, claiming the site is “at capacity.” Realistically, that’s not true. Online forums don’t fill up. It’s simply a way to make users feel part of something exclusive, like being accepted into a private club. The “we’re full” message is about as believable as Soho House pretending to be exclusive these days.

In reality, it’s an act for legal eyes, a way to look like they’re taking moderation seriously. I tested it and put in joke answers, and my account was approved in five minutes. That sense of exclusivity isn’t about safety, it’s about optics, a way to suggest structure while letting the same behaviour continue behind the scenes.

Dissecting the new “application”

What’s striking about this new form is how it tries to sound professional while saying almost nothing. It opens by blaming “bad actors trying to discredit the site,” which is ironic considering that’s exactly what fills it.

Then it pivots into self-promotion, describing Tattle Life as a place that “allows commentary and critiques of people who choose to monetise their personal life.” That line tells you everything. In trying to justify its existence, it exposes its own prejudice. The tone is smug and moralising, implying that anyone who shares part of their life online deserves public humiliation for it.

The rest is corporate fluff: “zero-tolerance policy,” “team of moderators online 24/7,” “stricter than big social media sites.” It sounds official until you look at what actually happens on the site.

And despite all that talk of moderation and responsibility, there’s still no proper reporting system. If you’re defamed, stalked or harassed on Tattle Life, you can’t simply flag a post. You have to locate a buried contact form or file a legal notice yourself. From experience with clients, that’s the only thing that ever works. A formal legal notice is the only language they seem to understand.

Even Google’s own guidance confirms this: you can’t report Tattle posts through a “report” button at all. Your only options are to contact the site (which never replies), send a formal Notice of Complaint, or take legal action. That’s it. So while Tattle boasts of being “stricter than social media,” it’s actually less accountable than any mainstream platform on the internet.

Still “strict” moderation, apparently

To test their supposed zero-tolerance policy, I looked at their Trending Threads. Within seconds, I found one titled “Elle Darby/Swift #84: ‘Eldolf Swiftler’...” which is a warped pun comparing an influencer to Hitler.

That was on their front page.

In one random thread, users were mocking a YouTuber’s boyfriend for having bad teeth, calling him “disgusting” and “unhygienic.” These aren’t celebrities with PR teams and six-figure brand deals. They’re YouTubers with ten thousand followers, people with normal jobs who make a bit of content on the side. They can’t rely on YouTube to pay their bills, and being mocked like that can genuinely damage their careers and mental health.

And the site’s owners still allow these threads to be indexed on Google. That means if someone searches your name, these attacks will appear in the results. It’s astonishingly cruel. Even if Tattle insists on existing, the very least they could do is hide it behind a login wall so it isn’t public. But they won’t, because humiliation only works when there’s an audience.

The irony of “vetting”

Looking closer at the registration form, new users are asked to explain whether they’ve had a Tattle account before, describe “what Tattle is about,” and list which threads they want to post on. None of that makes the site safer. It just creates the illusion of screening.

No one is verifying these answers. There’s no ID check, no background review, no moderation standard. It’s just digital theatre, a checkbox designed to say look, we’re being careful, while letting the same people back in under slightly different usernames.

Even the “invite-only” system reinforces this cultish dynamic. It turns the site into a gated club, not a moderated one. And when cruelty becomes exclusive, it only gets more self-righteous. They see themselves as truth-tellers. In reality, they’re spectators in a colosseum they built themselves.

Why this form exists

This isn’t about safety or moderation. It’s about optics.

Since Tattle Life’s founder, Sebastian Bond (who went by “Helen” online), was exposed earlier this year and ordered to pay £300,000 in damages, the platform’s reputation has been in free fall. The new “application” system is their attempt to look legitimate. They’re hoping that by adding a few polite questions and a reCAPTCHA box, they can appear responsible while avoiding further legal scrutiny.

But the reality is unchanged. The same people are still on there, writing the same venom under new usernames. The “invite-only” structure doesn’t stop the abuse; it just makes it harder to trace new accounts. If anything, it protects the worst users by filtering who gets in and who stays quiet about it.

The legal smokescreen

From a PR and legal perspective, this is clever in a grim sort of way. By pushing registration through a third-party form and asking for “definitions” of what Tattle is, they can argue they’re vetting users while in reality collecting nothing of substance. There’s no ID check, no verification, no accountability.

And the phrase “Tattle is full”? That’s not a system limitation; it’s plausible deniability. If regulators, journalists, or lawyers ask about moderation, they can point to this process and say, “We’re managing capacity and carefully approving members.” It’s a PR shield, not a safety measure.

The people behind it

Let’s be honest, this site only exists because some people can’t bear their own unhappiness. These are individuals spending hours every day dissecting strangers’ relationships, looks and livelihoods, convinced that cruelty is entertainment.

It’s not curiosity. It’s addiction. A need to feel superior by tearing others down. And because they’re anonymous, they feel untouchable. They can say whatever they like, and they do. I’ve had clients accused of the worst things imaginable on there, including false claims serious enough to trigger welfare checks at their homes. It’s vile behaviour from people who clearly think anonymity makes them clever. It doesn’t. It just makes them cowards.

This website should be taken down, not only for the sake of those relentlessly targeted, but also for those wasting their own lives fuelling it. There’s no joy to be found in publicly humiliating strangers. It’s bullying dressed up as accountability, and it ruins people on both sides of the screen.

If you’re going to be a critic, have the decency to use your name and photo. If you’re going to be a dickhead, at least be a visible one.

If this platform insists on existing, the very least it could do is introduce basic accountability, verified ID to post, and a proper reporting system so that professionals like me can identify users who are defaming clients and receive their information. Right now, the system protects abusers and punishes victims. That’s not freedom of speech. It’s institutionalised cruelty.

Tattle Life hasn’t reformed. It’s just rebranded its entryway. If anything, the “invite-only” setup proves what the site has always been: a secret club for people who want to insult others without consequence. The form, the invite codes, the smug “we’re full” message, it’s all theatre.

Tattle doesn’t need a new login system. It needs accountability. And a permanent shutdown would be a good place to start.