Can MNHQ actually do anything about the DM publishing threads?

[BakeOffBiscuits]

The DM have crossed a line.

They have previously pinched published 'fun' threads but today chose to publish one about a woman asking advice about her abusive H. It contained very identifying details concerning certain things he had done. I hope to god he doesn't read the DM because he will know his wife has asked for help.

Can you actually do anything about the DM printing such threads? If not, women will be put off asking for advice, when they desperately need it and I think you should put up huge warnings "Please be aware that anything you post may be reproduced in the DM"

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

I don't if they can actually do anything, but my suggestions would be:

-A strongly worded press release from MNHQ
-MNHQ to boycott the DM and their publishers by any means possible.
-MNHQ to block DM links
-MNHQ to investigate possibility of blocking DM IP addresses
-MNHQ to set an alert for MN/DM and remove threads as soon as they appear in DM, with a strongly worded deletion message

-Daily Mail are cunts repeated as a background on ever single thread.

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

• look into ways of blocking screenshots

[BakeOffBiscuits]

They are all great suggestions ItsAll.

[Jackie0]

I saw that.
Disgraceful and very identifying

[DonkeyOaty]

Thread now deleted.

Explanation from HQ here wrt Fair Useage
link

[Soubriquet]

That's awful

Like you said,'it's one thing to publish silly threads but ones like that?! Wrong

[nocampinghere]

from MNHQ reply on that thread you linked it, it actually sounds to me like they kind of encourage it...

their background is journalism after all

Letme, we’re sorry the current rash of threads being quoted in the DM is upsetting you. As many posters have pointed out, unfortunately there’s not a huge amount we can do about it - they'd likely claim Fair Use and that would be difficult to challenge. It’s one of the downsides of Mumsnet being an open site, and as always, we remind everyone that this is a public forum, searchable by Google, legally linkable to - and quotable by - all and sundry.
On the upside, this openness means volume of users and volume of users means Mumsnet is available for free to anyone who needs advice 24-7. It also means fresh faces, a variety of points of view, and the wisdom that comes from a very sizeable crowd (which, as an aside, tends to mean that wrong or misguided advice doesn't stand unchallenged).
Only you can decide whether the upsides outweigh the downsides; we hope you’ll stick with us, of course - and making use of the name-change facility with reasonable regularity (perhaps with only a small tweak) makes it a lot less likely that your anonymity will be compromised.

[Soubriquet]

On the upside I don't think they print them in the actual paper do they?

Just the website. I don't buy the paper so I can't confirm that 100%

I know the magazine that's life does print it though

[rememberthetime]

I was really worried about this too. That woman is now in real danger and her husband is likely to see it. It really puts me off asking for advice here.

The ironic thing is that threads are removed if the poster is found to be lying (and rightly so) but if we tell the truth and be full in our recount of our circumstances there's a chance we could be identified to anyone. Not just readers of the site we agree to.

[Starlight2345]

It isn't just the DM..I looked for mumsnet link through google this am and a list of mumnsnet in the news came up.

[Manumission]

The Daily Mail need the danger of their actions pointed out to them very loudly.

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

The Daily Mail don't give a shit. It'd be a good story for them "mother killed by abusive husband after she posted on MN".

DM would say that it is already in the public domain.

[srslylikeomg]

To be frank I think the way to stop your posts being published in the DM is by not posting on Mumsnet. In fact a boycott by posters in protest may focus MN hq's mind?

[toptoe]

I agree this put her at risk. Morally wrong. And monumentally lazy journalism just lifting stuff from MN on a slow day. Not that it was a slow day, because femail journos could have been busy looking at all sorts of womens issues surrounding the trump/clinton stuff. But no, putting a woman at risk was worth the five minutes it took that journo to clip and paste together an 'article'.

I clicked on Harvey whatshisname the journalist that did it and they've lifted a good 50% of their stuff from MN, some from twitter etc. They're making a living out of it. It's not just a bit of lifting here and there. It's their full time job by the looks of it.

Of course, it is in the public domain. But I think it falls to the DM to have some sort of policy to not put women in danger of abusive men.

[WannaBe]

It contained very identifying details concerning certain things he had done. I hope to god he doesn't read the DM because he will know his wife has asked for help." and putting it on mumsnet with the same identifiable information is different how exactly?

How many times do people need to be told before they realise that mn is not some cozy little club where people can anonymously post identifying themselves/their circumstances without the potential for being recognised?

Now while it's fairly obvious that a vast majority of mumsnetters read the daily mail otherwise we wouldn't have one of these threads daily which ask the same questions and ignore the answers that were given yesterday, and the day before that, and the day before that. But the truth is that MN also has millions of users, and a controlling/abusive partner is far more likely to read their wife's computer history to find out what she's doing than be trawling through the daily mail website in the hopes of recognising his wife' story from a third party website.

Besides which most of those kinds of posts aren't even real, so there's a good chance that when one is reproduced there's nothing to identify. But fact is, it was already public. It's no less public just because it's on MN.

It's simple, given that anyone can read a public forum, you should never put anything online you wouldn't want those you are writing about to read, on the assumption they may already be reading it.

[AyeAmarok]

ItsAll very good ideas.

Please do this HQ.

[QueenOfTheNaps]

Perhaps we should have an option (like a tick box) to start every new thread with a disclaimer:

I do not give permission for this thread - my intellectual property - to be used in any way outside of MumsNets Forum

That's something MN could do quite easily I guess?

[LiviaDrusillaAugusta]

Why would HQ do anything? They will get more visitors as a result and the same for the Mail. It's a public forum - you don't even have to register.

It's lazy journalism, of course it is, but the more threads frothing about the DM, the more they are going to do it.

[MyWineTime]

look into ways of blocking screenshots
Completely futile! It can't be done.

I think it is the poster's responsibility to make sure they don't post identifiable information.

I don't understand how it is different and they are happy to post of MN, but it's outrageous that it's then picked up by the DM.
If you are posting it publically on the internet - it's public!!

[AyeAmarok]

Because it's one thing to have penis beaker threads on the DM, which bring much hilarity and new visitors and members that are that way inclined.

But putting people at serious risk of harm through domestic violence is seriously different. It's a massive safety issue. The Relationships board, given the nature of things that are posted there, should not be allowed to be linked to.

[MyWineTime]

I do not give permission for this thread - my intellectual property - to be used in any way outside of MumsNets Forum
Meaningless and unenforceable.

It would be better if there was a notice somewhere to explain that anything you post on here can be copied under fair use laws and there's nothing that you or MNHQ can do to stop that, so be careful about what you post.

[LiviaDrusillaAugusta]

Like a PP said, an abusive partner is more likely to find a thread on MN than see it in the DM so that argument isn't really valid.

As for putting 'copyright' stuff in posts it's meaningless.

Anyone can see posts on here - I think this is something that hasn't occurred to a lot of people

[WannaBe]

"But putting people at serious risk of harm through domestic violence is seriously different. It's a massive safety issue. The Relationships board, given the nature of things that are posted there, should not be allowed to be linked to." But the only people putting people at risk of serious harm (assuming of course that the threads are even real) is the poster posting about their life on the Internet.

The relationships board is public. anyone even the abuser can read it. When will people realise this?

I was recognised in a shop many, many years ago by a mn'er who merely recognised me from fairly inocuous but still relatively identifiable information I had posted on here e.g. Advice on schools in an area I lived in, the fact I am VI and have a guide dog and a chilD. I'm not bothered really. I don't have anything to hide on here. My eXH and my DP all know my MN username and I have no inclination to change it because I don't use MN to slag off my partner or my ex or my family. It's not rocket science.

People are responsible for what they post on public Internet forums.

If people really want to be unidentifiable then don't post information that identifies you, your partner, your children, your domestic situation, on public forums. It being reproduced in the Daily mail or elsewhere (and let's be honest you have no idea whether people are e.g. Sharing your posts to Facebook, Twitter, their mates, isn't putting you any more at risk than publishing it on MN.

In fact, I would say that people are more at risk by posting information which identifies them on here than it being reproduced elsewhere. Because that daily mail article will only catch people's attention for one day at most, and then it will be superseded by some other tripe. Whereas your post about your abusive husband/arsehole mil/shit sex life might run into a thousand posts and pop up in active time and time and time again for months, where anyone is free to find it.

[BakeOffBiscuits]

Wannabe you honestly can't see the difference between posting on a mostly female site, and the same info being on the DM website?

Obviously they are both open to the public but the chances of someone's abusive partner seeing a post on MN is a lot less than seeing it in a national newspaper.

[VintagePerfumista]

at the idea of putting one of those stupid FB "I do not give permission wah-wah" sentences on your posts. Yeah, go on, give it a go.

It's the world wide fucking web, not your secret diary. Sheesh, some people need their internet privileges revoking.

The OP of this week's DM thread has just started another saying she is the OP of that thread in the DM and now she's namechanged, so she's er, kind of outed herself all over again.

You can't tell some people tbh.