The "Hate Speech" button - really?

Exactly, gives them a rough idea of what you think might be an issue. They may not agree that it's hate speech, or not a genuine poster or whatever you have pressed but it gives them a clue, and then they'll review the post/thread accordingly.

I agree with you OP. It makes me very uncomfortable. Surely you only need two buttons

Spammers/advertisers
Other posts, with a drop down box so you can put a reason (like they have now)

I always click the "other" button. Its not my place to decide if the post falls under a specific reason. All I am doing is asking mn to check the post or poster. Then its up to them to put the delete reason if they choose.

Women are not assaulting, raping and killing men at a huge rate are they?

@AlisonDonut so is misandry that also isn't a hate crime. Have you seen the hate written against men on here too?

Sorry Freddy, in terms of the police, mysogyny isn't a hate crime and a non crime hate incident against a mere female wouldn't be logged as we aren't important enough to be considered a victim. It is the only protected characteristic that isn't considered in terms of that particular law. We are fair game.

Indeed hence why people claim racism and misogyny on posts that are nothing of the sort. It is weaponising opinions. Ive seen stuff on here classified as hate speech which is simply factually correct just not politically correct.

Are we going to have other boxes that frame the contents of a post in quasi legal terms? Con Artist would be a good one.

Yes but there is a UK law that means non crime hate incidents can be put on your criminal file, without your knowledge, without any evidence and without any right of reply.

That's why it is important not to record this as it can be weaponised. Mumsnet and the reporters do not have the right to say you have committed hate speech. It's bad enough that the police do.

You can bet your life that won't count as HS @MissyB1 don't be silly now.

@AmaryllisNightAndDay What would you suggest as an alternative?

I've always viewed it as a catch-all option for racism, religious hatred, unpleasant remarks about disability, or anything else which is offensive to the person reporting the post.

Whatever MNHQ called it, there still wouldn't be anything stopping malicious or vexatious reporting, would there? People would still do it to cause trouble if they wanted to.

Yes it already does.

Appear as hate speech that is.

It'll be used by TRAs to bash MN. Own goal.

I agree with you op.

How could we feel safe giving controversial opinions on FWR in future?

Ordinary views about knowing what a woman is and that humans can't change sex are not controversial though.
Neither is wanting to keep single sex spaces or discussing female legal protections.

The majority of the population have the same view.
A perfectly ordinary viewpoint that some people think is 'hate speech' because they don't like hearing it.

I really do wonder why MN would shoot themselves in the foot like this.

I think that if you report a post you should be able to articulate and justify your reasons, not just pick a predefined classification. Especially one that is so open to misinterpretation and misuse. I don't think this has been thought through at all.

It's been there for ages.
I've used it for racism

I'd like to know what definition of 'hate speech' you are working with. I've seen far too much hyperbole over what activists term 'hate speech' and it would be helpful to know how MN define this.

Of course people use 'hate speech' to label ridiculous things, but I'm not sure why you (royal you) wouldn't just laugh it off.

The 'hate speech' report option is useful for flagging ableist, misogynist and racist posts if it means they get prioritised in the reporting system (IMHO they should be top priority).

If people are using it spuriously then that's a separate issue, and I'm sure the mods have ways to deal with that, but that's an issue with the reporters not those being reported.

I often see extremely derogatory comments and insults directed at people who have faith. Will that count as “hate speech” ? Nope not if the comments were about Christianity, you can bet your life on that!
I don’t have an issue with a hate speech report as such, but I would like to see a definition of what will count as hate speech.

Surely unless the post actually contains something that is hate speech it doesn’t really matter how it is reported. Is there any evidence that mumsnet are keeping a record of why a thread was deleted based solely on the button pressed by the person who reported it? Unless that is the case then even if a non-hate speech but still rule-breaking post is reported as hate speech and consequently removed it doesn’t really matter, just because it is reported by a random user as something doesn’t mean mumsnet HQ will see it like that. I have reported threads in the past where none of the tickbox options really effectively covered my report reason but I just ticked any one and then clarified in the comment box. The post will be moderated by a real person against the site rules so the box ticked by the reporter isn’t necessarilly going to always align with the reason for deletion, and obviously hate speech is a real thing so it’s not unreasonable to offer it as an option just because some might use it mistakenly?

Again I will point out that to some people, biological reality is considered hate speech, and they have targeted benign posts before.

So this idea that only genuinely hateful things will be targeted is naive at best.

MN knows damn well that the activists are out to take it down. Why give them a helping hand?

It is fucking bizarre.