Can MNHQ actually do anything about the DM publishing threads?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

That's awful

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

Thread now deleted.

Explanation from HQ here wrt Fair Useage
link

I saw that.
Disgraceful and very identifying

• look into ways of blocking screenshots

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.