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

Update from MNHQ addressing the recent images posted on the site

487 replies

JustineMumsnet · 04/02/2025 12:13

Hi all,
There have been a number of threads discussing what happened re the posting of CSA images on site and so I want to be absolutely clear: we would never seek to shut down reasonable criticism and we're taking on board all the feedback and will be carefully considering how we can improve our procedures and moderation to prevent this happening again.

As a temporary measure, we have suspended all image posting and will soon be implementing AI filters to flag illegal/disturbing images before they appear on the site. We’re also liaising with external specialists to see if there are any further tools we can employ to help us prevent this from happening again in the future. We reported it to the police first thing the morning after the attack and we have a follow up meeting with them tomorrow.

It's also pretty clear from what we can see behind the scenes that there is an ongoing, coordinated effort from trolls to further inflame these discussions, and cause as much disruption as possible. We are taking steps to remove bad faith actors, but we know this can be frustrating for those who just want to express your views about what happened. If you come across any posts that seem designed to stir up more conflict rather than contribute constructively, please do report them - your reports really help us to act swiftly. Many thanks for your patience while we work to sort this out.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
Whatevershallidowithmylife · 05/02/2025 09:03

MaMisled · 04/02/2025 14:54

I didn't click on a link. They were just there, no link!

Show quote history

Oh god that’s even worse, the link I see was trending in active in the reported thread

Llttledrummergirl · 05/02/2025 09:01

Shutting the site in response should absolutely NOT be a response. If that's the aim of the bad actors involved, then you don't give them what they want.

@JustineMumsnet you do need to get a grip of the moderation though. It's gone downhill over the last 8 months with stuff being allowed to stand that shouldn't be given the time of day. Lies and disinformation are rife with threads by bad actors being allowed to stay even after the op has been banned. This is just another example, but one that has got your attention because it's an attack on you. Please look deeper at what's been happening on your site.

ErrolTheDragon · 05/02/2025 08:59

@cranberrytart - for sure. There's 2 aspects, both of which need addressing - one is the prefiltering, which is a reasonable priority at this point. The other is to improve round the clock availability of mods with the authority and availability to quickly block, stop images or whatever is needed. I don't disagree this should have been done sooner but at this point it takes time to implement.

Newbutoldfather · 05/02/2025 08:37

What I found slightly extraordinary in this whole thing is to discover that there were no member of senior management contactable at night. So people on very high salaries (effectively millions in Justine’s case) thought they could just go home and not think of the business until morning time.

I never really come on at night but occasionally do in the early morning, like 5AM, if I can’t sleep. The site has always been carnage at night, almost unusable, with loads of strange threads and weird advertisements in active.

They could easily just shut the site down 11-6 or similar. It is not compulsory to be 24/7. Of course some may be disappointed, but it is a commercial site, not the NHS or fire brigade.

cranberrytart · 05/02/2025 02:25

ErrolTheDragon · 04/02/2025 23:35

I think she means the illegal images would still have been seen by some posters.

Show quote history

I very much doubt, if there was a paid moderator online, with full powers, able to receive reports directly, rather than relying on the NW to manually receive notice of the images and the threads involved - from the few posters who were even aware of the NW, ie, and remembered to seek their board out - as many posters would have been subjected to this horror, and for a period of close to five hours.

justasking111 · 04/02/2025 23:44

Our reasonably small forum I modded on we do have banners which change. Also on the front page which mods were online. It worked well.

The naughty step. Three strikes and you were out.

I remember when Mumsnet was hacked by a teenager the courts gave him 200 hours community service. That hole was plugged.

They'll have to be fussier who they let in, have a probation period before links, pictures can be posted.

Clafoutie · 04/02/2025 23:41

EducatingArti · 04/02/2025 14:46

@JustineMumsnet

But but but but but ...
I agree the start of the issue was that the images were posted at all and it is totally right that you are taking action to tighten controls on this and prevent it from happening. Thank you for taking these steps.

However once the images were posted (and continuing to be posted over a period of hours), the issue WAS that the Nightwatch were trying to deal with it without adequate tools or training ( eg asking posters to put a link to CSA abuse images in the Nightwatch thread - obviously illegal to do but totally understandable given the limited range of options open to them.

If this happened during the day the images would have been zapped far more quickly and fewer MNetters, including NW volunteers would have been exposed to them. Police could have been notified more quickly and executive decisions like suspending the ability to post pictures could also have been taken and implemented more quickly too.

You seem to be saying that the use of Nightwatch volunteers is irrelevant and this feels very disingenuous. Why aren't you considering paid staff with executive decision making skills and full training being on call through the night? ( Or if you are, why are you not telling us?)

After the awful incident where Russell Brand went rogue and made awful phonecalls on air on Radio 2 (the content was awful but arguably not as terrible as CSA) the BBC decided that a senior producer had to be on duty at all times just in case someone else did something as awful and so that they could immediately intervene/take programmes off air/apologise.

I know that MN is small in reach and size compared with the BBC but can you really not afford to provide some kind of fairly senior paid supervision overnight?

If you are telling is that your filters are enough to totally ensure that nothing really nasty/triggering of this or other ilk can never ever get through, then you really do need to address the Nightwatch issue also.

Thank you, I agree with all this.

AnAlpacaForChristmasPleaseSanta · 04/02/2025 23:35

@JaneJeffer Julia would probably get herself banned after posting many well balanced messages by becoming frustrated by some of the Anne's on this thread and unleashing a torrent of plain speaking.

ErrolTheDragon · 04/02/2025 23:35

cranberrytart · 04/02/2025 23:26

From the BBC article:

"I don't believe this horrible incident would have been prevented had it happened in office hours with our usual moderation team in London," she said.

So... you're saying your usual mods would not have responded swiftly on being notified via the usual report buttons and shut this down instantly, and that it would still have gone on over a period of approximately five hours?

I mean, that is not exactly a glowing review of the paid moderation team.

I think she means the illegal images would still have been seen by some posters.

JaneJeffer · 04/02/2025 23:28

maudelovesharold · 04/02/2025 23:16

I keep thinking of Justine as Amanda (Motherland) with her acolytes - “budge up, Anne!” casting Liz as the ‘bad actor’…

I’m rambling…it’s late.

Show quote history

I think Julia would be the bad actor but Liz would get banned instead

cranberrytart · 04/02/2025 23:26

From the BBC article:

"I don't believe this horrible incident would have been prevented had it happened in office hours with our usual moderation team in London," she said.

So... you're saying your usual mods would not have responded swiftly on being notified via the usual report buttons and shut this down instantly, and that it would still have gone on over a period of approximately five hours?

I mean, that is not exactly a glowing review of the paid moderation team.

ChonkyRabbit · 04/02/2025 23:26

BloominNora · 04/02/2025 22:21

@ChonkyRabbit It wasn't a silly comment - I have not been able to find more than a handful of threads specific threads plus a few odd in the past five years - certainly not 'many' as you claimed - given the number of threads and posts made on this site each day.

More than happy to engage in evidenced discussion but I won't respond to any more ad hominem replies.

Edited

It was silly to assume nobody had brought up a contentious issue before.

It was even sillier not to bother looking before smirkily proclaiming there had been no such threads.

Silly to find the threads for yourself and still stick by the silly statement that there were "none."

Silly to then change your argument to say the number you found with a filtered search didn't count as many and therefore you were still right.

Silly to be an adult and not be able to say "fair enough, sorry."

There was no ad.hom.

maudelovesharold · 04/02/2025 23:16

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

I keep thinking of Justine as Amanda (Motherland) with her acolytes - “budge up, Anne!” casting Liz as the ‘bad actor’…

I’m rambling…it’s late.

JoannaGroats · 04/02/2025 22:58

The issue on Sunday night wasn’t night watch controls or moderation - it was that these images could be posted at all. Even if this had happened during the day, they still would have appeared on the site. That’s why our focus is on preventing this kind of content from being uploaded in the first place.

Come on - you’re making a fool of yourself now. And fools don’t earn personal fortunes or millions of pounds.

I’ve seen fairly innocuous posts zapped within minutes during the daytime thanks to minor disagreements. Your system left images of child abuse live on the site for several hours. It’s embarrassing that you’re trying to claim this all could have happened in the day.

JoannaGroats · 04/02/2025 22:56

It really is amazing how many people are so vocal about the NW volunteers needing to be paid now....after the fact! I would love to see the links to all your previous posts asking staff why they didn't have paid nighttime mods, but I won't, because there aren't any!

The majority of people didn’t know. And maybe, just maybe, those who did thought it was down to the people running the multi-million pound business to sort this out, rather than an issue where site users had to intervene.

carconcerns · 04/02/2025 22:44

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

ForPearlViper · 04/02/2025 22:42

Apologies if I am repeating what others have said, but it appears to me that all Mumsnet's communications are more 'how do we make this go away asap' rather than 'how do we do really effective crisis management to reassure our users'.

For a start all Mumsnet official messages on something so important should be pinned at the of every board. Members should not have to seek them out.

Next, now is not the time to be whining about 'bad actors' on the site. The site has been crawling with bad actors in recent months with all the disenguous threads on Trump/immigration/Southport/grooming gangs/etc. Nothing has been done about it. But we now get the bad actors stuff. There are very suspicious posts asking members to share their (or their daughters') highly sensitive experiences. Then we get photos of people's 'poorly' genitals. Even GPs' practices ask patients not not to share such pictures by their secure systems. But apparently it is OK stick your vulva on the open internet via Mumsnet. The most enthusiastic moderation seems to be reserved for users who criticise Mumsnet.

I think maybe Mumsnet HQ needs to spend a while reflecting what values they want their business to reflect. Right now it is saying unprofessional.

carconcerns · 04/02/2025 22:35

The initial responses read in a really grovelling way,,, I find this attitude on here really odd, similar to how people who are UNPAID volunteer their time freely AT NIGHT to mod a site making the owners millions. Let us doff our caps eh?

JoannaGroats · 04/02/2025 22:34

murasaki · 04/02/2025 18:20

But being insulting achieves nothing. It's totally valid to ask about changes, and criticise what was in place, but personal remarks aren't really in the spirit if improvement. Which is what we want. And are likely to result in fewer updates.

Show quote history

Awwh, is “Justine” going to pout and refuse to let us share her toys?

kittensinthekitchen · 04/02/2025 22:25

BloominNora · 04/02/2025 22:21

@ChonkyRabbit It wasn't a silly comment - I have not been able to find more than a handful of threads specific threads plus a few odd in the past five years - certainly not 'many' as you claimed - given the number of threads and posts made on this site each day.

More than happy to engage in evidenced discussion but I won't respond to any more ad hominem replies.

Edited

"I would love to see the links to all your previous posts asking staff why they didn't have paid nighttime mods, but I won't, because there aren't any"

Yes, it was a silly comment, one which can be proven - and you have admitted - is incorrect.

CalicoPusscat · 04/02/2025 22:25

@crowgift 😮

were they from a war?

Mumtobabyhavoc · 04/02/2025 22:24

kittensinthekitchen · 04/02/2025 21:58

Actually, this is about the images posted. Yes, there are (plenty) other issues also, but what happened here the other night, and the aftermath of it is abhorrent.

Images of Child Sexual Abuse (i saw someone who was forced to view them describe them as Category 1 - do you know what that means?) were hosted on Mumsnet, a leading parenting platform, for a period of time, and the procedure in place to deal with it has been shown to be not fit for purpose.

It is completely reasonable for people to be questioning how the fuck this was able to happen, and expecting the CEO to take responsibility for ensuring that this sort of content is not forced upon their users and staff again.

Justine's lackadaisical-sounding response (or lack of it) to discussion around this, along with her assurance to the press that she has signposted to support for moderators of the site, whilst ignoring the numbers of users who have been affected by this, suggested she continues to see the people who use this forum as the freeloaders she once described them as.

Show quote history

Hi, I was pointing out a co-issue. Either I was unclear, or you misunderstood?

BloominNora · 04/02/2025 22:21

@ChonkyRabbit It wasn't a silly comment - I have not been able to find more than a handful of threads specific threads plus a few odd in the past five years - certainly not 'many' as you claimed - given the number of threads and posts made on this site each day.

More than happy to engage in evidenced discussion but I won't respond to any more ad hominem replies.

ChonkyRabbit · 04/02/2025 22:12

BloominNora · 04/02/2025 20:08

Really - Would be interesting to see them - following yours and another poster's comment about there being threads in the past I did a search for "Nightwatch" AND "paid" (also "Night watch" AND "paid") going from Friday last back to 01st Jan 2020 - there were two or three threads specifically about the subject and a scattering of odd comments on other threads - on a site as busy as MN it doesn't seem like a lot at all!

Show quote history

Just say "apologies for my silly comment" and stop trying to move the goalposts. It's not a weakness to admit you were wrong.

BitchinTwinset · 04/02/2025 22:10

crowgift · 04/02/2025 20:55

@BloominNora we were sitting ducks: the site did not have the appropriate filters. I've mentioned elsewhere that I remember when images of mutilated corpses spammed the site and had assumed that various filters were put in place then. This was preventable.

Was that on MN?
I've been in innocuous comment sections and Facebook posts for online games and seen all sorts of gross porn images posted (nb never CSA) and had been under the impression that without some sort of even very basic filter, any chat thread/ forum/ comments that allow images to be uploaded would see this (porn/mutiltation images) happen immediately, and frequently.

So I guess I'm surprised if there weren't any image filters whatsoever on here already!