Please or to access all these features

Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

MN - too lenient on hate speech at present

106 replies

OhYouBadBadKitten · 29/06/2016 08:15

Yesterday Amnesty International launched an urgent research campaign into the rise in hate speech Yesterday the UN High Comissioner urged Britain to urgently stop hate crimes

People need to call it out when they see hate speech on mn. There has been plenty recently. It can take courage when so many supporters then pile on though, but you don't need to get into an argument. A simple statement rejecting what they say, without quoting them, is enough. Just simply not saying anything then waiting several hours for mn to delete it adds power to their voice. People always need to report things to mn.

I am concerned that mn are not dealing with things quickly enough at the moment. They must be swamped with reports. I think that an option to report for hate speech should be an explicit available reason and those reports should be red flagged as urgent. The more hate speech that is seen, the more that it tacitly gives others the go ahead to say the same.

I've seen examples of a post being deleted, but the poster not being banned - despite them having said something that is so irrefutably xenophobic, that nobody could interpret it otherwise - and this concerns me. All that teaches them to do is to learn to moderate their language, so that they can get their messages across more subtly. This allows an insiduous tolerance of hate speech to creep across the boards.

It is important to allow freedom of discussion. It is wrong to allow xenophobia, racism and hate to proliferate. It's a difficult one to reconcile, but the balance needs to shift.

MN you could also help by cooperating with amnesty international in recording and reporting incidents to them.

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
thecatfromjapan · 03/07/2016 23:39

It's the just-below-the-radar 'dog whistle' posts I found incredibly worrying. Even illuminating their racism was (and I suspect 'will be' is a verb tense I should use here) hard-going, and involved a minute discussion, in which the poster of said remark would prove (unsurprisingly) unwilling to engage.
I think we will see more of that as we see political parties falling over themselves and the political climate moving to accommodate xenophobia (and racism) as a 'legitimate concern'.

TinnTinn · 01/07/2016 17:50

Ok, so I'm assuming racially abusive language? I imagine mumsnet HQ would jump on this straight away, along with the rest of mumsnet.

Personally I have never seen it, but you are always going to get trolls who pop up and say awful things in order to get attention. I can't see how it could be dealt with any better?

ErrolTheDragon · 01/07/2016 17:43

TinnTinn - no, we're not being overly sensitive. Hate speech is against the law, and certain other things are against the talk guidelines of this site. Its pretty simple - if you see something that looks like it breaks talk guidelines (hate speech is one case, obv, personal abuse is another) then hit the Report button and MN will decide what to do with it. The thing I reported earlier this week (along with others) was unambiguous racist hate speech - I can't show you it because its gone and its not the sort of thing I'd commit to memory.

If MNHQ think the post you report is ok and part of a valid discussion, they'll let it stand, sometimes with a comment.

sorenofthejnaii · 01/07/2016 17:42

I think there is a lot of stereotyping and labelling of groups based on the actions of a few. I don't think that's hate speech but it's othering. Othering is dangerous when it leads to discrimination and hate.

You see 'othering', misinformation, constant negativity etc towards certain groups a lot - on here and elsewhere. I think that is not helpful for those groups but it is freedom of speech.

TinnTinn · 01/07/2016 17:42

*Unnecessarily

TinnTinn · 01/07/2016 17:41

Yes I've definitely seen lots of 'thick' and 'stupid' type posts in regard to the referendum.

It's rude and ignorant but if aimed at me I wouldn't think of it as hate speech necessarily, Just people getting angry and hot under the clear about political views. I wouldn't take it personally.

If however it was a thread in relationships for example, and it was a very sensitive issue and these words were necessarily bandied about I would likely get upset.

TinnTinn · 01/07/2016 17:35

So would this be a case of:

" are all assholes and I think they should be put in prison/killed/whatever"

"I had a really bad experience with and this is what happened....."

"I don't like the fact that do this"

Or would this all be considered hate speech?

PortiaCastis · 01/07/2016 17:35

The on!y hate speech I've seen has been during the past week.
Thick
Uneducated
Morons
I reported and most of it has been deleted, after all I think because someone has an opposing view hurling insults negates any debate.

usual · 01/07/2016 17:31

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Atenco · 01/07/2016 17:29

If you want to see an example of hate speech, do a search on travellers, where an entire ethnic group is negatively stereotyped

TinnTinn · 01/07/2016 17:26

Ok, so do you mean name calling? Racist abuse? Bigoted views?

I'm really struggling to work out whether you are being over sensitive or whether it is genuine hate speech.

Obviously I am not advocating hate speech in any way whatsoever here. I am trying to understand what you mean.

OhYouBadBadKitten · 01/07/2016 17:16

Fab stuff, Thank you so much mn team :)

OP posts:
Queensbelfastvcisasexistprat · 01/07/2016 17:11

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Samcro · 01/07/2016 17:10

hmm you want examples!!
but then it would be deleted as hate speak

TinnTinn · 01/07/2016 16:53

Would really like to see some examples here. Or even just the gist of what was said in the hate speech.

It's very difficult to comment without knowing the specifics of what you considered hate speech on here.

Ficbia · 01/07/2016 16:46

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ErrolTheDragon · 01/07/2016 16:42

Good, thanks for the prompt attention to this.

Samcro · 01/07/2016 16:42

badkitten well done on starting this thread and getting a good response from mn hq.

KateMumsnet · 01/07/2016 16:29

Hi all - just to let you know that we've had a close look at our processes here and we think we've identified some ways to improve our response times on these kind of reports. We're going to get these changes made quickly and then we'll test for a while - hopefully we'll see an uptick, but if not we'll think again.

Thanks all

MNHQ

OhYouBadBadKitten · 01/07/2016 14:56

Thank you Katherine :)

OP posts:
ErrolTheDragon · 01/07/2016 14:33

Thanks KatherineMN.

cozietoesie · 01/07/2016 13:44

I appreciate it when use of words is challenged - it gives me pause for thought and reflection on my own attitudes and the possible effect of my words on others. Which is surely what discussion ought - at least partly - to be about?

But having thought about it in this way, I will continue to regard 'beyond the pale' as an acceptable phrase.

KatherineMumsnet · 01/07/2016 12:25

Hi all,

Just popping on to say that we are discussing this thread here at MNHQ, and we've not forgotten it! We will post again as soon as we can.

Atenco · 01/07/2016 00:13

I can't imagine what would be offensive about the expression, as you say, Dragon, it means to overstep the mark. My historical context was to show that there is nothing offensive about it at all

ErrolTheDragon · 30/06/2016 23:58

I'd always assumed that 'pale' was merely in its sense of a fence, having never heard of the Pale before. I would never have guessed it might be considered at all offensive, as it makes sense without any historical connotation - akin to 'overstep the mark' . If phrases like this occur then I'd hope the first response would be a helpful link to derivation.

Swipe left for the next trending thread