To wonder why people on here do this?

[MeltyTalented]

I've noticed lots of posts recently which start along the lines of "fuck you Daily Fail" "The Daily Mail can piss off if they think they can use this post" or similar.

It's obviously an attempt to stop so called journalists from lifting threads and using them for an easy story but I don't see what difference it makes? Surely they will just crop/edit out the bits they don't want?

Have I missed something or is it a bit pointless?

[Thisisnotadrill]

It’s pointless and the posts usually aren’t that interesting anyway.

[GreenThing]

It's completely pointless, and usually indicates an inflated sense of their own importance.

One poster took to tacking it on to the beginning/end of every post they made on a particularly long running thread.

The total lack of awareness made it impossible to take anything they were saying seriously.

[CuriousaboutSamphire]

Given the rather distressing post addressed to Rebecca Flood I'd say it was a pointless exercise, regardless of the intentions behind it!

[MeltyTalented]

Ok so I'm not missing anything glaringly obvious then.

I do sort of think it makes the posters sound a bit pathetic but I could understand if it actually made a difference.

The Rebecca Flood thing is awful, I know we should all be aware that anything we post here is public but she didn't even edit it or make any attempt to make it less identifying. How much is she getting paid to literally copy and paste like that?

[twistable]

And the crossing out stuff. Like this What's that all about?

[bingoitsadingo]

I've seen DM articles where they literally print screen posts so presumably it would stop them doing that! If they don't print screen then it's less likely to be linked to your username.

Are they legally allowed to print stuff they have expressly been told they aren't permitted to quote? Who knows. It's such lazy journalism I assume they probably don't know either and probably just flick onto the next post as it's not worth the risk.

[heartshapedknob]

It’s a publicly accessible forum so although technically Mumsnet would own the copyright to any posts, there’s nothing to stop lazy journalists lifting content.

[thedisorganisedmum]

People are forever naive to imagine MN is a private little bubble and nothing will filter on the outside world.

MN publish threads on FB that you can share with whoever.
Journalists from anywhere can pick up stories.
People can recognise you unless you really change more than a few details - it does happen frequently.

Quoting the DM is a way to make someone feel important. It tells you a lot about the way to read the rest of the thread!

[thedisorganisedmum]

I do like the crossing out!

I am so tempted to use it in emails.

[StillCoughingandLaughing]

I've seen DM articles where they literally print screen posts so presumably it would stop them doing that! If they don't print screen then it's less likely to be linked to your username.

I agree; this is probably why people do it. Also the Mail has been known to contact MNHQ asking for quotes from the OP - they’re less likely to bother if the OP has been actively hostile.

[twistable]

But what is the crossing out for??

[thedisorganisedmum]

You strikethrough to make a joke, or to write what you really mean as opposed to the politically version

No, Susan, of course I don't mind to babysit your little brats adorable darlings one more time tonight.

oh you look goddam awful absolutely stunning in your wedding dress

I can't think of a good example right now though of course.

[MNminion]

I would expect the DM to be reluctant to use MN threads for stories when the linked story is critical of them.

I also assume MN aren't hugely bothered because DM stories presumably drive people to the site.

[thedisorganisedmum]

DM is not reluctant at all, if a poster's name is insultDMand everybody who reads it they just black it out, makes no difference whatsoever.

[LadyRochfordsSpangledGusset]

Strikethroughs add nuance to your post, same as Italics or bold.

[LegitimateShite]

I did see an article recently where a lazy journalist had lifted something off MN and quoted along the lines of “A Mumsnet user who calls herself FuckYouDailyMail commented...”, which did make me smile!

[twistable]

So different views on the strikethoughs

I still don't like them

[FizzyGreenWater]

I think it does help to stop them lifting though. The usual format is a link to the thread, or they at least name where the thread is from - they are absolutely less likely to choose a thread where if their readers click to see the original they'll see FUCK YOU DAILY MAIL/SUN whatever as the first sentence.

[IrmaFayLear]

1. I like strikethroughs

1. People saying FuckOffDailyMail are usually about to post about the most boring, mundane thing of no interest to anyone (and I suspect are actually trying to attract the paper's attention...)

[SausageMashandOnionGravy]

It always makes me laugh because the threads they post it on are usually so dull, who on earth will want to steal your thread moaning about Sandra at work zzzzz.

[Romanov]

C - I would maybe post
U - like this to annoy
N - the 'journos' that lift
T - stories, however, anything
S - you put on the internet is there for good! and in the public domain

[Bungalowbeth]

What’s the Rebecca Flood post?

[TrainSong]

What's the Rebecca Flood thing? (Advanced search only brought up this thread and stuff from years ago.)

[Tanith]

I did see an article recently where a lazy journalist had lifted something off MN and quoted along the lines of “A Mumsnet user who calls herself FuckYouDailyMail commented...”, which did make me smile!

Me, too! I imagine the Daily Mirror took great pleasure in printing that one!
As it happened, the story they lifted certainly wasn't mundane.

[VladmirsPoutine]

Isn't it to do with screen-shot reporting. That said, I think it's quite pointless tbh.