Advanced search

To think that the Daily Mail should be prevented from using mumsnet thread for its articles

(129 Posts)
Atenco Tue 17-May-16 00:05:00

I am a bit concerned about the number of mumsnet threads appearing in the Daily Mail. IMHO this could end up being dangerous for some posters

Sunnsoo Tue 17-May-16 00:06:34


It's good, solid, traditional, British journalism. smile

PaulAnkaTheDog Tue 17-May-16 00:07:08

Grief! Not another thread about this! Every bloody say someone starts one!

joopy79 Tue 17-May-16 00:09:43

Absolutely agree. People post here anonymously and don't want to end up in the papers, especially not the daily fail

AHellOfABird Tue 17-May-16 00:13:16

Under English law, how would this prevention work?


Fourormore Tue 17-May-16 00:14:23

It's a public forum. Anyone posting here "anonymously" is being naive.

19lottie82 Tue 17-May-16 00:15:40

YANBU but....

Not possible in the slightest I'm afraid.

Lazy journalism yes, but it's a public Internet forum and the DM aren't technically doing anything wrong.

Atenco Tue 17-May-16 01:13:16

Sorry PaulAnka, for being a bore, I actually hadn't happened to see this subject before.

Can Mumsnet not have copyright or suchlike?

thecatsarecrazy Tue 17-May-16 01:27:54

Its not just the daily mail. There was something on the mirrors twitter on Saturday

AndTakeYourPenguinWithYou Tue 17-May-16 01:33:21

No it doesn't work like that.

And if it were dangerous for someone to have lots of people reading their thread, why would they be posting it on an open forum in the first place? Mn, DM, no difference really.

HouseOfBiscuits Tue 17-May-16 01:41:03

From MN's Terms of Use:

Copyright: This Web site and its contents are copyright Mumsnet, all rights reserved. Reproduction of all or any substantial part of the contents in any form is prohibited. No part of the site may be distributed or copied for any commercial purpose without express approval.

AdjustableWench Tue 17-May-16 01:46:28

I think it's vulgar, but I doubt they can be stopped.

EddieStobbart Tue 17-May-16 01:50:10

I was utterly bemused to hear the wedding cheque thread being discussed absolutely everywhere. Radio 5 had a feature based around it and everyone seemed to just take it as read that a brassnecked wedding story by an anonymous poster on an internet forum full of anonymous posters = genuine to point of outrage and subject for topical debate. Ok then.

NZmonkey Tue 17-May-16 02:05:48

The wedding cheque thread you mentioned Eddie made it to our New Zealand new site about a week after it was first posted.
Very lazy journalism. Surely they could report on some actual news.

dailymaillazyjournos Tue 17-May-16 02:30:18

But if as per HouseofBiscuits extract says, everything on the site is copyright of MN, I don't understand how they can do what they're doing or how they can't be stopped?

NightWanderer Tue 17-May-16 02:38:14

I was surprised because I saw the wedding cheque thread mention on the US Country Living Facebook. It really went viral, didn't it?

It can't be helped though, public forum and all that.

herecomethepotatoes Tue 17-May-16 02:41:32

I'm not sure if it's modern journalism of lazy journalism.

They aren't breaching any form of copywrite; they're citing their sources and it's more of a commentary on a thread as opposed to simply copying the thread.

It isn't just the DM.

As society moves more or less completely into the digital age, comments like "isn't there any really news" don't hold up to scrutiny as writing about a thread here or from any other source doesn't preclude writing about something else. There are no 'limited number of paper pages one which the editor can print. Isn't there also an argument that while not individually, an aggregate of online opinions can give a fair insight into the mindset or mood of a particular demographic and that is therefore worth exploring for a journalist?

I have no idea about journalistic ethics and if it would be legal but I'd feel aggrieved if they were directly posting quotes from a serious matter such as a particular case of rape or child abuse or what have you. Copying a story about a grabby bride gets a big 'meh' from me.

Suggesting it's 'outing' people is naive to say the least when those people have put the information into the public domain. You would be shocked how easily your details can be collected. My specialism is computational linguistics and an area my company has worked on is syntactical analysis of writing. I could created a database of all posts from the same user. Analyse that and compare it to other posts with a high degree of certainty all your name changes could be recorded. Assuming name changes are made after people say something that they worry could remove their anonymity, all this info could be collated. IP addresses can be collected (private messaging functions are great for (ab)using for that). It's usually possible to harvest IP addresses from people loading a page. If I were to do that I'd have a large number of addresses no doubt but comparing them with times someone posted my well tell me who they are. Searching the rest of the internet for the same user name, comparing to the statistics gained from syntactical analysis and other methods is fairly sure to tell me exactly who you are.

I could do all of that and it certainly isn't my field. If you think you have any anonymity online, you're wrong!

NerrSnerr Tue 17-May-16 03:07:07

As pp has just said, they're not breaching copyright. MNHQ have already commented on one of the many other threads about this saying there isn't anything they can do and to remind people not to put anything on mn you wouldn't be happy being quoted elsewhere.

acasualobserver Tue 17-May-16 06:47:48

OP, what specific course of action do you want MN to take in order to prevent newspapers from using material collected from threads here? Tell us what you propose.

NarpIsNotACunt Tue 17-May-16 06:48:46

My name change is my contribution to the fight

At least they won't screenshot me

CoolforKittyCats Tue 17-May-16 06:52:45

It's a public forum. Anyone posting here "anonymously" is being naive.

^ this.

topcat2014 Tue 17-May-16 06:53:27

The internet is public, though, it's not like phones are being hacked..

ApricotSorbet99 Tue 17-May-16 06:55:42

Why are people so fucking precious about this site? You all behave as if it's a cross between a private members club and some kind of emergency counselling service.

It's an open site on the internet that anyone can read and anyone with an email address can join.

If you want to keep your issues private, don't fucking post them on an internet site with millions of viewers.

HoneyDragon Tue 17-May-16 07:00:00

<sigh> bupcakesandcunting has already been screen shot and shown on tv yonks ago so clever rebellious cunt named will make no difference to a good story.

At least the trolls are finally getting some attention though, bless them.

leelu66 Tue 17-May-16 07:03:13

All publicity is good puboicity - yoi do realise it brings more users/members to MN?

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now