Is it ok to discuss issues with companies who target mums to 'work' for them and to highlight any issues or will they be deleted?

[amispartacus]

Mumsnet is a great forum used mainly by mums and as such - if people want to warn others about issues with companies who target mums for work such as MLM and others, should that be allowed?

Where do you strike the balance between protecting your users from companies who may be taking advantage of people and protecting the reputation of companies who rely on mums to sell their products?

[Manumission]

Hopefully the deletion of the JFLP thread was a mistake (?)

[WorraLiberty]

Why would you start this thread before waiting to find out if it was a mistake on HQ's part or not?

I think the fact the deletion message states it was deleted at the OP's request, when it actually wasn't, makes it fairly obvious it was deleted in error.

[Manumission]

I can't help thinking that it's more likely they deleted intentionally but used the wrong message worra.

But we'll see. I hope I'm wrong.

[amispartacus]

makes it fairly obvious it was deleted in error

You have a lot of faith in MNHQ.

Other threads on companies are deleted. They do have a track record.

[WorraLiberty]

They don't have a track record for pretending the OP asked for it to be deleted when they actually didn't, though?

That's what makes this look like an error.

[Manumission]

Exactly. That's why I'm thinking wrong message in error but deliberate deletion.

OR there was some discussion of a legal threat, HQ haven't seen the OP's reply for some reason and (because of phrasing of their earlier email) have taken the silence as a request to delete.

MNHQ aren't sneaky even if they do have form for deleting threads about businesses.

[KatherineMumsnet]

Hi amispartacus,

This was a mistake on our part - we posted the following to clear things up:

'Hi everyone,

Gah! We're so sorry, we have made a mistake here. We deleted the thread instead of a post as we did have a libel complaint. The complaint did include the OP too and we were planning on mailing the OP with info until we made this balls up. We're so sorry OP. We will mail you with further info. Sadly as we made an error, the Section 5 process hasn't been followed correctly so the thread will have to remain deleted.

Huge apologies again, we'll mail you now OP.'

[RockNRollNerd]

Argh - I think the fairies have cursed me - should say 'at the posters request' in the bit above not OP's request...

am off to spill salt and sugar all over my floors now, just to be on the safe side...

[EdithWeston]

Quite a lot of threads about MLMs - long multipart one in Money Matters and several in other forums in the last week or two (do you think people have been suckered in at New Year?)

But remembering ither threads when someone has complained, MN don't necessarily have to delete threads, but may have to pass name of the person publishing the information in the site to the complainant. If they cannot do that (MNer will not supply info or consent to any info already held being passed on) then they must delete the propel attic posts (no need to zap the whole thread)

Or at least that's how I thought it worked, and why there are a few holey threads still extant. I think @TalkinPeace knows a fair amount about all this (used the ampersand to draw this thread to her attention)

[Manumission]

See what happens when you mess with the fairies Rock?

[LeopardPrintSocks1]

How convenient

[GlacindaTheTroll]

"See what happens when you mess with the fairies Rock?"

Spiderwick Chronicles?

[TalkinPeace]

Hi Edith
golly that @ thing is rather clever !

I was one of the posters on the QE thread that became subject to Defamation Act deletions.
I therefore read up on the rules quite a lot to understand what MNHQ were being asked to do
and what the risks to myself were
and I'm rather an anorak so enjoyed the reading

There is in general no need to delete whole threads under the defamation act
but individual posts can be pulled.

MNHQ are obliged in law to provide the true details of any poster deemed by the potentially defamed company to have damaged their reputation.

If MNHQ do not have the details that Justine and team become personally liable for the comments.

I am surprised that more of the MLM companies have not acted,
but then again the bowlderised QE thread is actually far more damaging to QE than many of the comments that were removed.
THe Streisand effect

FWIW one of mine was along the lines that they were thin skinned about fair opinion