Deletions due to being discussed elsewhere

[Coconutspongexo]

Hi

I was wondering if this is going to be the case for all posts now? Can they be deleted just because they’re discussed elsewhere?


It’s a public forum of course all posts might be discussed elsewhere, that’s the risk you take when you post online.


Why doesn’t this happen when people’s threads end up on Facebook/twitter pages dedicated to slating MN users? Not to mention the scummy journos who lift entire threads on here but MNHQ are happy to keep them?


I thought you didn’t delete threads unless against guidelines etc? Is this going to be a new guideline? Must not be discussed on certain forums?

[VivienneWestwoodsKnickers]

I'm guessing they are duplicate threads as opposed to topics discussed off site. There's no need for five different threads all talking about, say, the Zimbabwe coup or Theresa May's latest cough.

[Coconutspongexo]

It wasn’t a duplicate thread

[Rufustherenegadereindeer1]

Is it a particular thread dipping

[Coconutspongexo]

Yes but I’m not sure I can say without this thread being deleted!

[Rufustherenegadereindeer1]

Good point

I would be interested in the answer to this one as well

[Rufustherenegadereindeer1]

Sorry dipping

Is it just the one thread or has it happened a few times to your knowledge

[MollyBear]

It’s not just that the bread is being discussed elsewhere, though, is it? That’s (to use an old MN favourite) just disingenuous.

The thread was being discussed, the OP of the thread was being Advanced searches, with details being dragged up, connected, and picked over like vultures.

More than that, the thread was being liberally (one might actually say wilfully) —mis—interpreted and twisted, as happens with many other threads and posters too, with misquotes and, let’s face it, overhyped lies being accepted as fact.

On a site which is regularly linked to here, so it’s tantamount to having a parallel thread on MN saying all that (in fact, why not just do that?)

I should think some of the above may well have had an impact on why the thread was deleted

[paxillin]

If this is a policy, it should apply to threads ending up in the Daily Mail, too.

[Rufustherenegadereindeer1]

Yep pax

And twitter and Facebook

Or would mumsnet be empty then

[Coconutspongexo]

most threads that end up on that have had AS and people going over details.

People apologised for their mistakes about assumptions made.

It’s weird to suddenly start deleting threads because they’re discussed elsewhere.

The OP on said thread posted an awful lot of information about herself which was quite outing (no one outed her) but if that’s why it was really deleted the deletion message should have said that as they regularly do. To say it’s deleted because it’s being discussed elsewhere is quite strange because anything on here can be discussed anywhere and it has been for a while now

[MollyBear]

Tbh, I think the problem here was the deletion message, not the fact the thread was deleted.

The thread was deleted because the OP didn't need the aggressive and snidey forensic examination of her posting history that was going on elsewhere. She also didn't need facts being cross examined, and dots joined up, with ever present hints of outing and RL repercussions. It was supposed to be a support thread, fgs, for someone going through a tough time in RL.

Sure, MN is an open forum, and anyone can read the threads. It has however, always been frowned upon to instantly pounce on a thread, or part of one, and call troll, or try to prove/disprove parts of it. Or scream for more information, or try to derail what was supposed to be a support thread in an inflammatory manner.


My feeling that a deletion message of 'the OP has requested this is taken down due to attempts at troll hunting and fears of doxxing' would have been more truthful, and closer to reality.

FWIW, I don't like thread sending up in the Fail, or on FB either.

[GreyAndGoldInTheMeadow]

The thing is there are people that are just posting gossip and flat out lies about MN posters else where that are just accepted with out question. I have seen it said that that behaviour is fine because they are free to go and say their piece, but it really is like walking into the lions den where 90% of the posters are so invested in whats described as freedom of speech but in reality is freedom to viciously attack. Walking into that is a pointless exercise that will only result in further hurt to the OP of the target of the day. In this case I think its totally correct that an OP should be allowed to have their thread removed, they have posted on MN where they should be able to reasonably expect their thread to follow talk guildlines and if its then been taken away with the express intent of talking about it without the hassle of following guildlines I think the old phrase of 'Don't feed the trolls' is entirely appropriate.

[RandomDreams]

It's not that surprising really.

That particular thread was being misrepresented at the 'other place', the OP was being misquoted deliberately by certain posters who then refused to edit their posts after it was pointed out that they were inaccurate.

I found the whole thread distasteful and the posters who misquoted the OP should be ashamed of themselves, they made themselves look very, very stupid and by refusing to amend their posts probably caused the OP even more distress.

[Coconutspongexo]

One poster misquoted but under two usernames.

[Rufustherenegadereindeer1]

Found it

I dont realky understand why a thread discussed on another forum shoukd be pulled in this one

I obviously have every sympathy if the Mumsnet OP has guven too much information but thats how MNHQ should have deleted the thread, not because it was being discussed elsewhere

It it one rule for reddit and different rules for other social media? Or is it a blanket decision

[Rufustherenegadereindeer1]

I hate the way the K kn my keyboard is so close to the L

[Rufustherenegadereindeer1]

And the O so close to the N

[LornaMumsnet]

Hi folks,

Thanks so much for flagging this one, you're right! On reflection, we could have developed on our deletion message bit more. We removed the thread after the OP contacted us with some privacy concerns (after noticing that the thread was being discussed elsewhere).

When we are approached by a distressed or anxious OP who has concerns that their thread is being discussed within a wider audience and their privacy is being compromised, we will always take a supportive view and consider it's removal - after all, we are here to make parent's lives easier.

That being said, we always like to remind people that we're a public forum, searchable via Google and available to all, so we'd advise our users to be careful with the information that they share.

[CoteDAzur]

"we are approached by a distressed or anxious OP who has concerns that their thread is being discussed within a wider audience"

"Wider audience"? Everyone on that Reddit sub is an MNer. None of those threads would make sense to anyone else.

Besides, MN boasts over 4,000,000 unique visitors every month whereas that Reddit topic has only about 1,200 followers. How exactly is it a "wider audience"? Please help me with the math, @LornaMumsnet

[LornaMumsnet]

Hi Cote,

Cor, we all love a bit of maths... Thanks for pointing this out, looks like there might have been a bit of misunderstanding here, we used the term 'wider' to describe an audience outside of Mumsnet, not necessarily larger. Sorry for any confusion - in short, we're just about doing what we can to make parent's lives easier.

Do drop us a mail at [email protected] if you have any further concerns.

[CoteDAzur]

I know you all love maths as much as I do

"we used the term 'wider' to describe an audience outside of Mumsnet, not necessarily larger."

But that's precisely the point. The 1260-people "audience" there is made up of MNers, and just a small percentage of MNers at that. Those threads would make no sense to anyone who isn't a MNer.

Yes, it is a sub that is hosted on Reddit, but that doesn't mean anything re audience. The only way anyone would find it among all those thousands of subs on Reddit is by searching for "Mumsnet" and then they would find Mumsnet itself before they find that sub anyway.

[GreyAndGoldInTheMeadow]

Its not the number of people that's relevant is it though? Its the content of what is being posted that would make anyone who is the target of it unhappy to continue to throw fuel to the fire.

[Coconutspongexo]

The thread could have easily been picked up with the likes of the DM and that would have been much worse of OP and her family plus that’s a much wider audience (& possibly more brutal) than those who frequent the other website.

[CoteDAzur]

“Its not the number of people that's relevant is it though?”

Well, MNHQ says it is the number of people in the thread’s audience that’s most relevant to why it was deleted.

Their deletion message says that it was deleted because it’s being discussed somewhere else, which Lorna just confirmed.

[Weebo]

A few people have noticed and mentioned to me privately that the OP of that Reddit thread is - Ironically - a complete troll over there.

It trolls people here too.

I don't blame Euph for getting worried about this weirdo dissecting/twisting her situation.