It's starting to look like it.

The next FOI response is due tomorrow, I think. It'll be interesting to see what that says.

The only reference I've found to deleted posts is The last but one line in this bit:

"The data chosen for analysis must satisfy the following criteria:
• For the ‘time’ analysis, posts and comments will be collected within the boundaries of each of
the three timeframes: (01/01/2008-01/01/2013; 02/01/2013-01/01/2018; 02/01/2018-01/01/2023).
• For the ‘identity’ analysis, posts and comments will discuss one of three transgender identities transgender women, transgender men, and non-binary people). The date the posts were created will be irrelevant.
• Posts and comments consistently must discuss transgender people or transgenderism. The thread will be removed if it significantly diverges from this topic.
• The posts and comments together created at least 30 replies, with any fewer constituting a thread too small to analyse.
• In a selected thread, all comments (and thus participants) will be used in the corpus, unless:

• The comment has been deleted or banned for breaking Mumsnet’s Terms of Service
• The comment was posted after the timeframe for that corpus has ended"

But does she realise that mumsnet can go back to a post or a thread years after and delete? As she'll have to be checking every post right up to the day she publishes!

Christ what a shitshow.

Yes. I think a direct complaint to the ICO is probably the only way this is going to get sorted, isn't it?

As we are considered alongside other online extremist groups" such as incels and Islamist extremists.
its difficult to have any sympathy for Eden.
However, I still do and am angry at the university for putting her at risk.

I blame mumsnet

They are a bit! (Hugs)

I don't know if the photos are as blurry to everyone else as they are to me now I've posted them 🤷‍♀️

Have skim read so sorry if I've missed it but can't see that Eden's addressed the issue of MN deleting data on the site - due to user request / safety concerns - which she's scraped for use in her research.

So she'd be breaking DPA 2018 and GDPR right there, even if the rest of it was ok. WHICH IT'S NOT.

They are breaking the law, it's quite clear.

That is very weasely weasel language, any Mustelid would be proud.

Could we reword it as 'Overall it will be likely that poster's true identities will be deliberately revealed during the project'.

If not, what does it mean?

What does 'unlikely' mean?

What does 'accidentally' mean?

What does 'discussed at length' mean?

Very rapacious little carnivores, weasels.

And the last one

Having read how Eden intends to do her phd, and the assumptions she is starting from, plus adding in one poster having maybe even hundreds of usernames, deleted posts, that sometimes just talk about cake, the heavy use of sarcasm on mumsnet etc etc I can't help feel that if Eden does go ahead with this PhD then it truly will be a case of

GARBAGE IN GARBAGE OUT

and she will have spent a good two/three years of her life working on something that isn't worth the paper it's written on

It's laughably incompetent.

'We're soooo super special and great we'll be able to protect people being targeted and abused as a result of our work so we're not going to bother thinking about this' vs

'oops, we appear to have released an employee's phone number to those she has libelled as 'extremist''

Actions speak louder than words, Aston. Your actions are very much failing a GCSE in data protection and ethics let along being worthy of being a University.

Edited to add - yes, the women on MN ARE lovely which is perhaps why they've not bothered so much. I'm guessing if there was any chance of actual extremists obtaining information in this way they'd be a bit more careful. You'd hope anyway.

Aston is not fit for purpose.

Split screen photos of how the pdf version and html version differ.

I have blanked out Edens' phone number for obvious reasons.

Oh god! The poor sod.

Eden get a new mobile number asap. Whilst most people won't be arses, there will be people out there, not us lovely women on mumsnet, that will use that. And also you may wish to put a complaint in yourself about what the University has done to you here. They should have redacted your personal contact details on both copies.

17. Could participation cause discomfort (physical and/or psychological – e.g., distressing, sensitive or embarrassing topics), inconvenience and/or danger beyond the risks encountered in normal life?

Well I find this whole thing extremely threatening psychologivcally in that Aston appear to be acting like the Stasi. Eden is labelling us as people committing 'hate speech'(with no justification for this summary 'burn the witches' judgement) then laughably goes on to claim Edenself will be 'objective'. Hah!

Woman HAVE lost their jobs for being sex realists - remember Maya Forstater, Eden?

FFS, this is piss poor.

Please can some journalists report on this?

It does make me wonder about the governance at Aston Universaity that allows such a piss poor fuck up to happen with regards personal data whilst trying to persuade us they are as ethical as ethical can be whilst they unethically steal all our data!

What a monumental fuck up

If as a university they can't even redact both versions of one document how can they be trusted with redacting pertinent information in a thesis?

Oh dear, Aston are a bit shit aren't they? It shouldn't have been possible to 'unredact' s.21 comments as they were hidden on the version I downloaded.Yet here they are making Eden 's personal information freely available.

The person releasing the info had fucked up. On the pdf they redacted the above information. On the html they didn't redact!!

Poor Eden, forcing herself to read things posted on mumsnet. A torture akin to A Clockwork Orange.

This is interesting. There were issues flagged up by the Ethics Committee:

'From: BSS Research Ethics Committee

'...there were a few things to flag to you so that we can move this forward quickly for you.

'The first is that your data storage does not appear to be adhering to the Research Data Management Policy (2023) with use of Aston’s Box for your data. This will be an essential as the Chairs will be looking to ensure you’re adhering to all Aston policies and keeping data safe.

The second is just to flag the possibility that any direct quotes you may use (I wasn’t sure if this was a possibility) could be googled and lead back to the Mumsnet user which MAY including identifiable information (as we can’t guarantee pseudonymisation via username e.g. if I was [BLANK SPACE I ASSUME INFO REDACTED - Arabella] , someone could work out it was me!). It would be great if you could discuss how you’re mitigating this a little more to demonstrate that you’ve thought about the possibility (even if remote) and what steps you’re taking to ensure accidental identification doesn’t take place. This might be via paraphrasing quotes instead of direct ones, etc.'

And there the FOI ends. No response from Eden is recorded.

I'll be honest having read the document I'm more appalled than when this broke! They are literally the polar opposite of ethical.