My friend changed her political view and our group is treating her old post like evidence in a trial

A close friend publicly changed her position on a local issue. She did not pretend she had always believed the new thing. She wrote that new information and several conversations had changed her mind, then explained the part of her previous argument she no longer accepted.

Within hours, people from our broader social circle found a post she wrote two years ago and began placing the screenshots side by side. Some called her a hypocrite. Others demanded that she delete the old post. One person said leaving it up spread misinformation; another said removing it would erase proof that she could not be trusted. There appears to be no action that is not treated as confession.

I disagree with parts of both her old and new positions. What bothers me is the incentive being created. We say people should listen and learn, then punish visible evidence that learning occurred. At the same time, an old post can continue circulating without the context that its author has rejected it.

My friend asked what I would do. I suggested preserving the old post but adding a prominent note at the top with the date of her update and a link to the explanation. If the platform does not allow editing, she could repost a screenshot herself with the correction attached and stop arguing about motives. She should correct any specific factual error, not demand applause for changing.

She is considering deleting everything because the attention is exhausting. I cannot blame her. Still, I worry that deletion will be described as concealment and that the old screenshot will continue without her correction.

What does accountable political change look like online? When should an old post be deleted, annotated, or left as a record—and how do we distinguish genuine growth from convenient repositioning without making consistency more valuable than truth?