Does MNHQ Check Our Inboxes?

ArriettyJones

Maybe if ‘Justine’ had a more secure site that wouldn’t have happened. I’d be careful about the way in which you transfer your funds.

“I’m actually going to do a 180 and sign up to premium as a result of this thread.”

Why? To spite the other site? Weird, you seem to be taking this very personally. Also, what do you mean ‘unknown site security’? we KNOW MN site security, and look how that went.... Hacking, doxxing (by staff) etc...

but you're wiling to hand over financial details to a forum which has had multiple breaches and hacks

I will if there’s a card payment option and I can use a preloaded card, yes. That’s probably enough about my cautious foibles now.

You mean my email address? What are they going to do with that? Email me?

Pfft. I’ve still got the shivers from the time hackers got Justine’s and SGB’s homes raided by armed police.

Wait until you find the personal information being sold via your Oyster Card. You’re naive to think you’re not being harvested here, and else where

You won’t be surprised to hear that I only use unregistered Oyster cards. I have about ten of them

don’t understand posters willingly handing over their email addresses and IPs, and maybe other personal data, to a completely unknown board of unknown ownership and unknown security tech.

I’m actually going to do a 180 and sign up to premium as a result of this thread.

So you can't understand why posters willing hand over their email address to a new forum, but you're wiling to hand over financial details to a forum which has had multiple breaches and hacks

MN terms and conditions :

Exceptional circumstances - safeguarding and official investigations
−
If there are obvious safeguarding reasons, or if we are contacted by the police about a possible breach of the law, we may share your personal information with public authorities without your permission. If we are compelled to do so by a court order, we will share your personal data to the extent specified in the order.
If there are compelling safeguarding considerations, we may share your data with public authorities without your permission. We understand 'compelling safeguarding considerations' to mean credible evidence of imminent risk of serious harm, especially to a child or vulnerable person.
In such circumstances, on the judgement of a senior person within Mumsnet and in consultation with the Data Protection Officer, we may proactively contact relevant authorities (the police or ambulance service, for example) and share any relevant data we have, such as location data, relevant posts, private messages, details of any children who might be at risk, and descriptions of the situation.
If contacted by the police about possible breaches of the law disclosed in posts, we may sometimes – on the judgement of a senior person within Mumsnet and in consultation with the Data Protection Officer – share your personal information with them. We will share your personal information if compelled to do so by a court order, for example under Section 5 of the 2013 Defamation Act.

ArriettyJones

You mean my email address? What are they going to do with that? Email me?
Wait until you find the personal information being sold via your Oyster Card. You’re naive to think you’re not being harvested here, and else where.

I’m not sure what point you think you’re proving with your £5 membership. But feel free. I’d do it monthly though as you stand to lose a years fee. Keep the 350k a month wage bill in mind and your £5 isn’t going to do much.

Over the years there have been many of these 'alternative sites' set up. I may have joined one or two they always start iff great, but after everyone's but he's about whatever caused the breakaway, they fizzle out because there's just not the numbers to keep it interesting.

I think spamming PM's is a bit low, but MN have nothing to lose by letting people post about the new site it's been proven again & again, that a breakaway group just don't have the ability/resources/whatever it takes to start a new MN 🤷🏻‍♀️

Don't they have something in the terms and conditions about being able to look at PMs if there are serious concerns about somebody being at risks? I wouldn't be surprised if MN and other sites did.

I don’t understand the scoffing on this thread. I’ve joined the other site and found myself posting less on here. It’s good.

I don’t understand posters willingly handing over their email addresses and IPs, and maybe other personal data, to a completely unknown board of unknown ownership and unknown security tech. Responding to spam is generally a bad idea, isn’t it? Especially cheeky member-poaching spam.

I’m actually going to do a 180 and sign up to premium as a result of this thread. (If they don’t ban me as a result of my comments on night moderation )

I can’t believe MNHQ are getting more of a bashing over a pre-programmed message used for deleting PMs than the anonymous spammers are getting for being so shady.

Joining MN just to send links to another site is spamming regardless of what you think of MN.

“As a rule, we don't check Private Messages unless they are reported to us”

‘As a rule’? So there are other times you look when messages haven’t been reported?

To the post saying they didn’t get a PM - I think it was one or two posters from the other site messaging as many as they could. I get the impression that everyone is very much welcome.

I don’t understand the scoffing on this thread. I’ve joined the other site and found myself posting less on here. It’s good.

It was MN going all North Korea over us

Oh dear god... 🤦🏻‍♀️

No it’s just a slicker version of Mumsnet.

Hardly, it's a 'trying their luck' washed out version, where they are posting things like 'free at last from the tyranny of mumsnet' because no one ever leaves mumsnet with nowhere else to go.

It's a site that has reply, and like which is good

glad someone else got the deleted PM at least I won't wonder what it was now.

Me too! From same poster, same opening line but message deleted.

It’s terrible that the night watch is run by volunteers, for example, when there’s £350k per month rolling around to pay people to do goodness knows what. Moderation is important and those people should be paid.

I have to agree. It makes the site vulnerable, and those who want to cause chaos or have dodgy intentions know that the site is lacking in proper moderation for quite a long period of time each night. Moderating during such a vulnerable time period is a lot of responsibility, so the fact they go unpaid is shocking.

I had one too, from ‘theodoref’. Removed also. Is it because MNHQ have banned that poster? Would it have been to do with the alternative chat site?

Coming back to this, so if most of the deleted "at user's request" messages were about the new website (mine was over a year ago and definitely not inviting me anywhere, and others I've seen talked about on SS we're ages ago too) then it seems that when HQ do look in inboxes (this has also been asked before and yes they can, but no they don't unless extreme circumstances) and delete stuff, their system posts that message that it was at "user's request"
Was definitely a glitch with me though, me and the other poster asked.

Have I been picked last in PE again?

You and me both

I had an email from MNHQ to say they had banned the new user and deleted all the PMs

That would have been the better thing to do. I received no email telling the truth. I had Mumsnet go into my private messaging and place a fictional explanation as to why my message has gone. I won't be using the PM service ever again, is it even legal to interfere like that?

*It’s transparent enough.

If I had a sweet shop and you had a sweet shop and you came into my shop and started handing my customers flyers inviting them to your shop, I’d boot you out*

No it's not! It's an outright lie. It's like you saying the flyer person wanted to leave of their own accord. They didn't. You grabbed their flyers and shoved them out the door!

The notice lies,* saying* that the user requested deletion. No they did not! It was MN going all North Korea over us and then covering it up with a lie.

It would have shown much more integrity to have said removed by MN because it contravenes something.

Is there any law against helping yourself to my private messages? I take issue with this.

Yes, be so easy to give it its own look. I think that’ll happen in time - it’s clearly a swipe at this place!

It’s obviously been set up by a disgruntled mner who’s fed up with the poor functionality of this site and is demonstrating how very easy it’d be to make it user friendly (and respond to some of the long-term requests for adaptations).

I can understand the frustration in light of the tone deaf request for cash from mumsnetters, in all honesty. That’s just wrong, particularly in light of the ludicrous salary bill...this is patently the sort of site that could easily be run by three or four full time people with the right expertise.

Despite a bit of eye-rolling at the superficial similarities I think the potential is there for it to do well as it is a much better set up for users and I think MN has neglected user experience.

It’s terrible that the night watch is run by volunteers, for example, when there’s £350k per month rolling around to pay people to do goodness knows what. Moderation is important and those people should be paid.