How should one properly evaluate claims of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy when discussing hashtag group members?

In recent years, one has seen the rise of "hashtag" groups with no formal organizational structure. For example:

• Occupy Wallstreet
• Anonymous
• Black Lives Matter
• GamerGate

Typically when a person who claims affiliation with such a group performs an action that others morally disapprove of, somewhere along the line the following exchange will be noted:

1. #Group's ideology is to blame for the actions of their member!
2. Your claim is invalid, #Groups are not organized!
3. Your counterclaim is invalid, because No True Scotsman.

In the broadest possible terms of political philosophy and applied ethics, where should the discussion go after that? Is the claim of No True Scotsman truly a flag on the play here, or is it valid and yet still irrelevant to the discussion? In what sense can a hashtag group said to be 'responsible' for the actions of an individual, or that a flawed question to ask?