MNHQ need to review policy regarding apologist posts

[Baconyum]

This has happened several times this year that I'm aware of.

MNHQ allowing posts defending rapists and csabusers to stand but deleting posts attacking these posts.

Biased in completely the wrong way. Shocking for a site supposedly supporting parents inc parents of victims and parents who've been victims.

I for one would like to know why MNHQ takes this stance.

One thread in question

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2618250-AIBU-to-not-want-to-socialise-with-someone-convicted-of-sexual-offences-related-to-children?msgid=60578335#60578335

But there are/have been others.

[DawnMumsnet]

Hi Baconyum

Thanks for your comments. We take on board what you're saying, but wanted to assure you that this is certainly not MNHQ's stance.

Here's what RebeccaMumsnet posted on the [[http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2618250-AIBU-to-not-want-to-socialise-with-someone-convicted-of-sexual-offences-related-to-children?msgid=60578335#60578335
thread]] you've referred to -

We do not condone apologists in this sense and we have removed some posts, however, we do allow freedom of speech and that can sometimes include views that others will find offensive. We also do not allow personal attacks, even if they may seem warranted. We believe that people can say how they feel without personally attacking others and we will remove posts that do so.

As was also said on the thread, last night was an exceptionally busy one with several contentious threads all demanding attention at once.

We're really sorry that we weren't quick enough off the mark on this occasion, but we do respond to every single report we receive, so please continue to report anything which you feel crosses the line.

[Baconyum]

I've read the entire thread so didn't need telling what MNHQ have posted.

On the one hand saying you don't condone apologists on the other leaving their posts undeleted and with no comments on how they are inappropriate for a parenting site.

As for the busyness this is a continuing problem for MNHQ apparently and one which myself and several other posters have commented negatively on regarding this and other threads and which I also discussed on another thread I started.

Given that there are disturbing and controversial threads and posts on the site and that MNHQ is hardly a cottage business I don't think it's unreasonable to expect professional full time monitoring which really does not happen.

[Baconyum]

I have also received an email about how busy you were. 21 more reports, less than 100 total doesn't sound that busy to me.

[GraysAnalogy]

Is there any need for the attitude?

[steppemum]

I haven't read the thread, but are you seriously saying that every post from an apologist should be deleted?

I would really have trouble with that. That sounds too me similar to the non platforming that is happening in our universities at the moment. We have to argue this stuff out, and present our side of the argument, so that the issue is aired and discussed.

Closing down discussion because we don't like someone's opinion is never the best way. Coming on a posting that we disagree and why is much better.

[Baconyum]

Grays this is a continuing problem on Mn. Plus if you saw the appalling apologist posts on the thread currently running it hope you'd understand why I feel (as several others do and have said so on the thread) that MNHQ handled the reports and the issue of deleting badly.

I think I'm correct in saying that there's even a post from MNHQ admitting as much (yet no redress made).

[Baconyum]

No I'm not saying every post but there are done that are quite extreme that were left to stand and which were very derogatory to the non apologists. Plus posts criticising the apologists were very quickly deleted which showed some bias toward the apologist posters.

[ElderlyKoreanLady]

Deleting posts from apologists only serves to shut down the conversation. There are ways to respond to apologists without attacking them on a personal level.

No need to get shirty with HQ over them not deleting opinions they don't agree with.

[GraysAnalogy]

I've seen it. I've also seen MNHQ apologise numerous times. I understand your anger but I think your rudeness is uncalled for in particular Wondering if Olivia will still have a job tomorrow

I don't know if you've ever been a moderator for a highly populated forum, but MNHQ do incredibly well considering the size of the user base, and especially the amount of trolls they try to protect us from. Whilst that thread was a priority to you at the time, of course it was you were on it, you dont know what was happening behind the scenes that led to them not delivering a service you were happy with.

[GraysAnalogy]

Plus posts criticising the apologists were very quickly deleted which showed some bias toward the apologist posters.

Personal attacks get deleted. Someone arguing a point that some may consider 'apologist' needs to be debated not automatically deleted.

[Baconyum]

As I said I don't mean all posts but some extreme ones were left standing for some time and others still are.

Some posts disagreeing with the idea that it's unacceptable to socialise with a convicted paedophile were thoughtful and tried to be as inoffensive as possible. Some were downright nasty.

[Baconyum]

The apologies were generally somewhat qualified, along the lines of 'sorry some people are upset'.

I disagree they do incredibly well. As I said this is a continuing issue with this particular type of thread.

Mn is a large very profitable business yet myself and others feel there are not enough staff monitoring especially at night and weekends.

[VertigoNun]

I like living in a country that allows free speach.

[GraysAnalogy]

Yourself and others are adults who are fully capable of exiting the thread that is causing them such distress until a time when MNHQ can get round to sorting the bunfight adults got themselves into.

[ThroughThickAndThin01]

I don't agree with you OP.

And actually I think some of the posts on that thread you highlighted are pretty disgusting, and I don't mean the ones you mean.

[Baconyum]

So myself and others who feel this way should be silenced but those disagreeing with us not?

[Baconyum]

Free speech yes, but I think we all should be considerate of others too.

[ThroughThickAndThin01]

If you are clearly overly agressive in your posts thrn you should be 'silenced'. I think.

[GraysAnalogy]

Who said you should be silent? I'm saying you had the option of closing the thread instead of continuing to engage and then wanting mumsnet to come delete the things you didn't like. I don't understand what was so urgent that you're now railing out MNHQ for not responding fast enough

[VertigoNun]

You have choices, leave the thread, stop engaging or debate.

[VertigoNun]

Are you young OP? I notice younger people seem to want to no platform and stop free speech for some reason.

[GraysAnalogy]

There's certain groups of young people particularly in America who are insidiously trying to no platform speech but I don't think it's representative of young people as a whole. I'm not sure I'm considered young anymore at 27 but I know it's not common amongst my peers

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

Apologists in your view

I value the fact that on MN difficult or controversial issues can be robustly discussed with input from both sides of the argument. Just because you find a particular view abhorrent doesn't mean that it should be deleted. You can either stay and debate the poster or leave the thread. Deleting controversial posts isna slippery slope, and MNHQ are very very good on this, even reinstating deleted posts on occasion when they decide the initial decision bwas wrong.

[ThroughThickAndThin01]

Good post ItsAllGoingToBeFine. Spot on.

[VertigoNun]

That is reassuring to read, Greys.