To think the Daily Fail is a spoilsport

[Girlwhowearsglasses]

Hijacking content and making it into something it was never meant for. Poor OPs having to have threads removed because suddenly their privacy is national news.

Can't they exercise a tiny bit of sensitivity? They could have asked for an 'actual' interview.

[NeedACleverNN]

Yabu and yanbu

Unfortunately, once it's on the Internet it's fair game. If you don't want it publicised, you shouldn't post it.

However the dm should ask permission to use if it's particularly upsetting out of curtosey if nothing else. Though I get they aren't obligated to

[NameAgeLocation]

Yes I think it's inappropriate personally.

Of course we all know that anything we put on the internet is public and can be accessed from anywhere in the world at any time (and never really goes away).

That's still a bit different to making it front-page news in a national newspaper.

There are identifiable things I would take my chances with posting on MN, but still wouldn't write to the people concerned about them (or put them on a billboard outside their houses).

I'm sure many will disagree with me. But I think writing a Daily Mail story about something is very different to posting online about it. Shona Whatsit regularly writes about her family online and I think she crosses a line there. Posting on MN would be acceptable IMO.

[MartinaJ]

The day the Daily Fail will do something decent will be the day I will genuinely subscribe them for a whole year.
Will never happen so my money and my reputation as a decent human being is safe.

[Andrewofgg]

The good bits of the Daily Hate Mail:

1. The gardening column.
   
2. The Sudokus.
   

The bad bits:

All the rest of it.

It has a possible function but the supermarkets do a better product in several pastel shades.

[meditrina]

"The day the Daily Fail will do something decent will be the day I will genuinely subscribe them for a whole year."

So you were a subscriber when they were the newspaper that published names and pictures on the front page of the Stephen Lawrence killers, and dared them to sue and they'd love to see them in court?

That aside, I have had a MN post quoted in the DM.

It is rather naive to think that once you have published something globally, it is in any way private.

That's why I give a little internal cheer when I see posters taking issue with anyone who ever describes MN as a 'safe space'

[BeyondTellsEveryoneRealFacts]

Have they done something in particular, or is this a general dm-slag-off-athon?

[NameAgeLocation]

There's currently a story about a thread on Reddit, as well as an MN thread, both of which are pretty identifiable.

Also a story about the recent MN thread on things midwives have said. It's not going to concern anyone too much but it's very lazy 'journalism'. Why not do their own research and write a story FFS? Oh that's right - it would cost too much!

[Girlwhowearsglasses]

I used the word 'spoilsport' because I find it distasteful, and rude, and also not even in their own interests to do Thais pet of thing. If we assume that free speech means they will always publish this sort of stuff because people read it it's still counter-productive:

They could easily contact the OP, make a nice feature and feelgood story, maybe even pay the OP. The OP would have agree choice on whether to have the thread deleted to protect her username. Win-win.

Instead it's lose-lose because now the OP is probably worried and upset, we have lost an innocent thread that entertained and provided a lot of lighthearted fun, and now many of us just won't post our stuff ever again. mumsnet will be boring and the DM will have to get their content somewhere else.

[LadyEnglefield]

Not just the DM, there's a piece in today's Times by Carol Midgley using the midwife thread as well!