I’m concerned about the amount of misinformation on the Covid threads. Mumsnet have a duty of cars to their readers.

That is censorship. Credit posters with the intelligence to research for themselves what is true or not.

Do you want to censor all topics? I’ve seen some terrible misguided breastfeeding advice on the baby feeding board. Bad relationship advice on relationships that could lead someone to stay with an abusive dangerous partner. Bad financial advice that could lead people to ruining their financial stability. Advice to parents of gender non confirming kids that might lead to children going down a path of sterilisation. And on and on. Should Mumsnet censor everything or is it just the coronavirus stuff?

If you can see what posts are saying the truth and what are lies, why are you assuming that everyone else can't?

I agree if people are quoting so called.facts that are not facts or linking to sites that provide misinformation they should be removed. Conspiracy theories and misinformation about COVID is dangerous and Mumsnet shouldn't allow it

I think the best thing we can all do is report everything dodgy. If MNHQ get completely overwhelmed with reports then they may up their game and start banning those who deliberately spread lies.

Yes we can all counteract the misinformation, but it could be a full time job as the same lies pop up in thread after thread after thread.

I’m not sure it’s idealistic, but it’s certainly libertarian

I trust that people are able to discern their own point of view. Yes, occasionally they may fall foul of liars and treacheries but so what, that’s life, that’s always been the way.

I’d argue it’s more idealistic to think you can accurately censor science. It has so many potential pitfalls. For example, just imagine that case is proven to be caused by the vaccine, and it’s been censored and taken down everywhere…how do you square that with everything?

I go back to that case purely because it’s the one OP specifically mentioned as misinformation, people pile on and go “yeah misinformation” but the truth is no one knows.

That’s a pretty idealistic pov though isn’t it @hamstersarse? Regulatory bodies like Ofcom and laws around libel arose because there was a need to ‘protect’ people from misinformation and the harm it can cause.

Aside from covid we’re at a fairly interesting point regarding digital media. Any legislation to control communication of harmful information (from terrorism to mlm) is way behind current capabilities and volume. It’s not about denying people access to information to make their own minds up it’s about preventing inaccuracies becoming accepted as standard information.

It doesn’t fill me with joy to think that the internet requires moderation or censorship but the truth is that it’s an evolution of what we’ve had in printed and televised sources already.

Absolutely! if someone makes a wild claim not based on evidence and tries to pass it as 'fact' and the post is reported then, it should be removed.

The anti-vaxx claims on social media need to be addressed...

I am not talking about people offering different point of view on how Covid is dealt with which should be welcome and is simply freedom of speech, it is about people putting out so called medical or scientific evidence/fact which are simply made-up to fit in with the anti-vaxx conspiracy theories.

I came across that particular case for the first time in the MN thread.

As it was, I could read both points of view, and as I see it, it's possible that the child was harmed by the vaccine, and possible that there is another explanation. There is no conclusive evidence either way.

If every mention of this case, and others like it, was deleted instead of discussed, I'd be much more likely to be concerned, and wonder why they were being censored and covered up. Much more suspicious that something untoward was going on.

If you think something is wrong, don't censor it, put forward your argument against it.

Again, it depends on your point of view. Facebook certainly do do a lot of fact checking, but it is not true to say that is not contentious.

Even the BMJ have things to say about this 'fact checking' on social media - science is not black and white as I know everyone here knows. Things are never as straightforward as we would all like them to be, things surprise us, things are unexpected and for that reason, censoring information and conversation has always been the road to ruin - we can never have absolute certainty. Even this pandemic has shown that things we said a year ago as 'fact' simply aren't true now, and that includes 'facts' about the vaccine efficacy - do you want to censor people who are talking about the current effectiveness of the vaccines (not booster) and stick to the fact that last year they were 90% effective, but now can be less than 30% - do you class that as misinformation now?

You have to trust that people can make their own minds up and you don't need to caretake for people all the time.

www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1170

At the very least, MN should be fact checking some of these threads if they won't take them down.

A disclaimer and link to accurate, evidence based information would help. Some of these threads can seem so sincere, so much damage has been done by so few.

I agree that MN perform fairy poorly regarding misinformation and shills. Other sites manage to flag without necessarily removing posts yet MN seems to think they don’t need to take any responsibility for the kind of conversations that can freely take place here.

I don’t think that posts necessarily need removing but there needs to be something in place that highlights questionable claims. A blanket notice on all threads mentioning vaccines might be appropriate.

I’m also not sure the ones they do delete make much impact because the effect of just deleting a post means there’s no trail of what has been said and is therefore unacceptable. I think I’d rather threads were locked over being deleted like there has never been an issue.

No I completely disagree. I am continually shocked by how we have moved as a nation towards censorship.

Anyone that posts crazy articles are counter argued and often factually proven to be incorrect by the majority if Mnetters. The more you censor a topic the more fuel you give to the anti establishment ideas.

Where does censorship stop...?

Not at all questionable then….

So a woman gets an antivaxx lawyer to represent her and people think there’s nothing suspicious about it? Riiight.

Plus we need to be realistic here. all medical treatment has the potential to cause harm. Even something as simple as paracetamol can cause an adverse side effect in someone.

But we don’t highlight the one off side effect case to try to promote the calls for banning paracetamol or to suggest that it’s dangerous. We instead recognise that the benefit of taking paracetamol far outweighs the potential side effects, and urge people to take where necessary.

Millions of people have now died from COVID. In comparison, anyone who has suffered adverse reactions to the vaccine (and no, a couple of days of flu-like symptoms doesn’t count) is neglidgable.