Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Site stuff

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

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

MNHQ

The Sex topic - an update on moderation

465 replies

YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet · 01/03/2023 09:43

Hi everyone.

Thanks for all your comments over the past week regarding the Sex board. It’s become clear from the discussion that we needed a rethink about our approach to this part of the site and so we’re going to introduce some rules to help ensure that posters can get the support and advice they need from the board and that everyone has clear expectations of the behaviour we expect.

Posters must be at least 18 years of age - Mumsnet has always been a site for adults but we want to be crystal clear about this for this board.

The board is text based - we don’t allow NSFW (not safe for work) images.

We don’t allow links to any NSFW sites or personal profiles on other sites

We will not tolerate creepy or harassing behaviour in particular from male posters

We’ve also had concerns raised about the ongoing ‘sex chat threads’ including the risks involved with allowing users to PM each other. Our approach has always been to allow consenting adults to make their own judgement when it comes to what they’ll share and, broadly, that is still the case across the site - but we acknowledge there are additional vulnerabilities here that we ought to consider.

With that in mind, we will no longer allow users to ask for or to offer to send PMs for the purposes of sex chat. For one thing, we can’t guarantee that the person you’re chatting with is who they say they are and we can’t realistically safeguard these kind of off-board discussions. We’ve looked at the moderation principles of similar boards on other sites and this is indeed the policy on several others.

We’d also like to address some of your other comments if we may. Last year we reduced the time required from joining to posting on Sex from 90 days to seven. We’ve no plans to change this at the moment because this timeframe has proved to be a sufficient deterrent to bad actors and we believe that 90 days is too long if you’re a new user with a genuine concern. We’d also like to be clear that our commercial partnerships have had zero bearing on any changes we’ve made (nor did anyone ask us to make changes) and MNHQ does not (and would never) post affiliate links to products under the guise of a regular MNer. We may be many things, but we are not underhand!

As with everything, we’ll continue to monitor the situation and we hope these new rules will go some way to reassure you. If anyone has further questions, please post here and we’ll do our best to answer them.

Thanks.

OP posts:
MeganTheeScallion · 04/03/2023 15:33

@TangledUpInDreams I'd like to think so

TangledUpInDreams · 04/03/2023 15:23

Yes it is an important query, and of course the same standards need to apply across the board on that sort of content.

MeganTheeScallion · 04/03/2023 15:03

@YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet I keep making reference to a current thread containing description and discussion of CSA but am being ignored? It is not on the Sex board so it also speaks to my previous query regarding whether your new policies would be site-wide or confined to the Sex board. I think it's an important query.

beastlyslumber · 04/03/2023 13:52

It's so frustrating. My teenagers can understand why publishing accounts of child rape and abuse on a public forum is wrong. Pretty sure most people if they thought about it for a moment could understand why it would be triggering, attractive to abusers, used as wank material, exposing victims to further abuse etc etc. The fact that this is being hosted on a parenting website makes it ten times worse.

It shouldn't need your users to explain this to you, MN. You're a huge business. Pay people to help you understand.

BIWI · 04/03/2023 13:46

It doesn't seem like there's much sense of urgency about any of this Hmm

monsteramunch · 04/03/2023 13:28

YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet · 04/03/2023 12:44

@beastlyslumber sorry - I missed your questions. Yes we do understand the distinction and recognise it's something we need to discuss with the whole team.

It sounds like there is a desperate need for some independent, external experts to come and do a deep dive on safeguarding and moderation at MNHQ.

We keep hearing that things are being discussed internally but those discussions have led to many members having issues and haven't been dealt with confidently and definitively.

The issue of safeguarding is too important to be reliant on internal discussions IMO and it would be reassuring to get a sense of whether you are going to be investing in some independent expertise on this, as that seems lacking.

monsteramunch · 04/03/2023 13:26

We'd most likely ban anyone who is sending unwanted PMs

This was your answer to a question specifically about PMs from men about intimate issues such as sex / ejaculation.

So surely this should be 'we'd ban anyone who is sending unwanted PMs'?

Why the 'most likely' qualifier?

LucyLeave · 04/03/2023 13:06

Seems MNHQs Moderation policy is to protect the men on the sex board at all costs.

Mistymoonsinastarrysky · 04/03/2023 12:57

YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet · 04/03/2023 12:44

@beastlyslumber sorry - I missed your questions. Yes we do understand the distinction and recognise it's something we need to discuss with the whole team.

So it stays up until that discussion is had?
What is MN’s moderation standard regarding uninvited PMs from men about intimate issues such as sex/ejaculation
We'd most likely ban anyone who is sending unwanted PMs

Most likely!!? Surely it should be a given?

I’m honestly starting to wonder why MNHQ can’t see the damage that’s happening because of the tardiness in acting on expressed concerns including safeguarding.

MNHQ
YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet · 04/03/2023 12:44

@beastlyslumber sorry - I missed your questions. Yes we do understand the distinction and recognise it's something we need to discuss with the whole team.

OP posts:
TangledUpInDreams · 04/03/2023 12:19

@beastlyslumber I have to say it is quite maddening. Feels a bit like wading through treacle. These are really very basic principles.

I’m almost out of patience tbh and the only reason I haven’t already left is that I’m absolutely not going to just slink off and let MN off the hook on this. I’m staying until it’s been properly addressed to my satisfaction (or not!).

beastlyslumber · 04/03/2023 12:14

YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet · 04/03/2023 12:03

@HaroldsHoodie we may not understand absolutely everything all the time but it's absolutely not the case that we don't care. We care very much. In this case we want to fully discuss this with the moderation team so we can approach it in the right way. This is not a fobbing off and we're really sorry it's coming across that way.

Do you understand that the concern is not about the genuineness or otherwise of the OP, but the content itself?

I'm asking you directly because from your previous comments it seems you don't understand that, and also you seem to be unable to respond to me for some reason, always addressing your responses to my questions to another poster!

TangledUpInDreams · 04/03/2023 12:10

Ah well there’s one of my ‘usual nickname for MN threads’ gone - HH is my recently taken up name for discussion of more serious/personal issues! Never mind, it’s not likely I’ll need to make a distinction between the two for much longer.

TangledUpInDreams · 04/03/2023 12:08

@YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet thanks for replying! Flowers I wasn’t referring to your comments here just to be clear. I was actually referring to Justine’s mealy mouthed original reply on a recent thread on this issue. I don’t want, and won’t accept, an answer in that vein.

MNHQ
YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet · 04/03/2023 12:03

@HaroldsHoodie we may not understand absolutely everything all the time but it's absolutely not the case that we don't care. We care very much. In this case we want to fully discuss this with the moderation team so we can approach it in the right way. This is not a fobbing off and we're really sorry it's coming across that way.

OP posts:
HaroldsHoodie · 04/03/2023 11:59

beastlyslumber · 04/03/2023 11:35

@YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet this is difficult because you clearly don't understand the problem.

You don't have to have suspicions about an OP to delete a CSA thread. Any description of CSA is a problem. It doesn't matter if the OP has been posting every day for ten years - descriptions of child rape and sexual assault should not be published anywhere on the site.

I think what might be most needed here is some high quality safeguarding training. This seems very basic to me and many others who have posted, but clearly MN doesn't understand.

They clearly don’t understand. Or worse, and quite likely, I’m beginning to think from the way this is playing out: the boss(es) do understand full well but they just don’t care.

I’d like the bosses to answer this directly. And not with some fobbing off attempt.

For example, if the honest truth is that you’ve consulted with your lawyers and been told that it’s unlikely that descriptions of rape/sexual assault/abuse
of minors meet the threshold for publishing illegal material, so you’ve decided you don’t actually GAF about issues of morality around hosting that kind of discussion on a parenting/ historically predominantly women-centred site, I’d like you just to say that straight out.

I would also like to see a direct answer from the bosses as to why you apparently don’t think there ought to be a clear and unambiguous warning on the sex topic that such descriptions are not allowed (even if the OP is/seems genuine; this really is not enough justification to let it stand in my view and that of many others). There will by now be many non-genuine participants on that topic. Moderation needs to take account of that.

Of course what the bosses do (or don’t do) is ultimately their choice. Fair enough, but I want to know exactly where MN stands with me - I do not wish to engage here if its values no longer broadly align with my own.

These are hard lines for me.

AGreenProblem · 04/03/2023 11:57

For example in retail if you handle a device that you suspect contains evidence of CSA you are legally required to immediately call the police. There is no thought process about it, it’s beyond that.

MeganTheeScallion · 04/03/2023 11:46

@beastlyslumber @YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet yes this was my issue with the thread I reported (still there with no MN interventions at all). I don't actyally doubt the OP is genuine but it's all about CSA and has detail, minimising, others sharing their experiences. Again, I do not think this is troll behaviour but I do not think it should stand without proactive modding, TWs etc at the very least, and a reach out to the OP.

beastlyslumber · 04/03/2023 11:35

@YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet this is difficult because you clearly don't understand the problem.

You don't have to have suspicions about an OP to delete a CSA thread. Any description of CSA is a problem. It doesn't matter if the OP has been posting every day for ten years - descriptions of child rape and sexual assault should not be published anywhere on the site.

I think what might be most needed here is some high quality safeguarding training. This seems very basic to me and many others who have posted, but clearly MN doesn't understand.

AGreenProblem · 04/03/2023 11:30

….just create a satellite website where MN men can hang out and wait for female MNers to come along when they require dick picks and suck such. Perhaps they can develop digital pheromones while they wait to speed the process along.

MNHQ
YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet · 04/03/2023 09:26

@HaroldsHoodie thanks for your questions.

What is MN’s moderation standard regarding uninvited PMs from men about intimate issues such as sex/ejaculation.
We'd most likely ban anyone who is sending unwanted PMs.

Will you put up a clear and unambiguous rule that descriptions of CSA are unacceptable and will be immediately deleted.
We've removed posts like this in the past when we've had concerns about an OP but we'll be discussing how we moderate this in the coming week and will get back to you.

OP posts:
LucyLeave · 03/03/2023 20:26

It's still full of sleazy men. So nothing much has changed.

Rogue1001MNer · 03/03/2023 19:51

Mermaidparades · 03/03/2023 18:08

@Rogue1001MNer it’s tricky yknow, I guess no one has really bothered with us before. Now the spotlight is on, the chat thread has been removed already, maybe there are fears of further infringements

To be fair, the sex chat thread might have stayed if you guys hadn't blatantly ripped the piss out of the new guidelines
"Please DON'T pm me 😉😉😉🤣" was the kind of post that started appearing before the thread got zapped

And you're (plural version of you) now suggesting you'd be the right people to moderate?
Kinda counterintuitive, dontcha think?

HaroldsHoodie · 03/03/2023 18:14

Rogue1001MNer · 03/03/2023 17:54

I think the regulars on the sex boards think they're the correct people to.be moderating them.

Well no. We don’t get to moderate our own threads on any other subject, so they can think that all they like; I absolutely don’t think that’s the right course for the sex topic and MNHQ will agree I’m sure...

MeganTheeScallion · 03/03/2023 18:14

I guess it would be difficult at this point to find people who were aware of the context, fully understanding of & on board with the new rules and completely "neutral" (for want of a better word. I don't mean to use binary language or further fuel the unhelpful notion of there being 'sides', sorry).