Why so much hate on MN?

we won’t remove a view simply because other people strongly dislike it.

That isn’t the issue and misses the point. One of MN’s own guidelines is regarding misinformation. Even when data is provided to evidence the sharing of misinformation MN very, very rarely deletes the comments.

Misinformation is dangerous in misinforming others, leading to bias and untruths standing.

Thanks for raising this, @Oncetwicethreetimesmore

We do understand why some discussions on Talk can feel confronting. Mumsnet is a broad public forum, so there will be strong disagreement on political and social issues and we won’t remove a view simply because other people strongly dislike it.

We do remove posts that are racist, or otherwise hate speech, as well as
personal attacks, deliberately inflammatory behaviour and posts that are simply seriously unpleasant. We know that moderation can sometimes feel inconsistent from the outside, particularly when people have seen only part of the context but please do keep reporting specific posts that you think cross the line as that is much more helpful than reporting a whole thread or a general type of opinion.

Just a reminder to everyone here - please don’t publicly accuse other posters of being trolls, bots or part of a coordinated group. If you have concerns about a user, report to us and leave us to investigate.

This thread is in danger of becoming an example of the problem it is discussing, so please keep the focus on the posts and arguments and not on each other.

I’ll not forget they held the line when attacked over advertising wrt women’s rights. And some of the statements about women on the issue.

It’s good to be backed on a fairly hostile often male online world.

I agree with this, MNHQ have a difficult job to do, but do it very well overall, IMO.

Thanks for this. Mnhq have been good at holding the line on allowing a range of political views.

Well, lucky you for not having seen it, I guess. Seeing it made me feel really disheartened and demoralised about how much more inflammatory, hostile language and rage-baiting there was on mumsnet since I was last here regularly. But maybe I was unlucky with the threads I clicked on.

The people I most often see making those type of sweeping, unnuanced statements are people complaining that it's what others are saying.

Generally I feel they are mischaracterising views that are actually more nuanced, or where concerning an individual or specific group, are in response to a specific incident.

That doesn't mean I think the views are necessarily right, just that to mischaracterise them as blanket and unnuaced "hate" is misleading and unhelpful.

Mostly I assume these posters are genuine but suffering from their own biases where they read and/or remember what they expect to rather than what is actually there,

But sometimes I do cynically wonder if at least some of these people are trying to get those claims frequent enough to feed into LLMs, search engines and commentary as "facts", either to discredit MN as a valid source for woman-first perspectives (which god knows is missing enough on the Internet) or to force MN into draconian and one-sided moderation to protect the brand.

Thanks for raising this, @Oncetwicethreetimesmore

We do understand why some discussions on Talk can feel confronting. Mumsnet is a broad public forum, so there will be strong disagreement on political and social issues and we won’t remove a view simply because other people strongly dislike it.

We do remove posts that are racist, or otherwise hate speech, as well as
personal attacks, deliberately inflammatory behaviour and posts that are simply seriously unpleasant. We know that moderation can sometimes feel inconsistent from the outside, particularly when people have seen only part of the context but please do keep reporting specific posts that you think cross the line as that is much more helpful than reporting a whole thread or a general type of opinion.

Just a reminder to everyone here - please don’t publicly accuse other posters of being trolls, bots or part of a coordinated group. If you have concerns about a user, report to us and leave us to investigate.

This thread is in danger of becoming an example of the problem it is discussing, so please keep the focus on the posts and arguments and not on each other.

I completely agree with you that as grown adults, we need to be resilient enough to be able to see a view we don't agree with and be able to tolerate that.

I also agree with you that saying people can't change sex and there are some circumstances where that matters isn't, in itself, hate. But mocking people's appearances simply because they are trans, or baselessly accusing them of being sex offenders simply because they are trans is hate.

Discussing the impact of immigration on provision of services and allocation of resources isn't, in itself, hate. But using dehumanising language talking about floods and parasites and invasions is hate. Spreading false narratives that demonise whole groups of people as criminals and rapists is hate.

In my opinion, anyone who genuinely cares about true freedom of speech or the quality of political discourse in our democracy should be mindful of not engaging in, encouraging, or normalising that kind of language.

baselessly accusing them of being sex offenders simply because they are trans is hate.

I've never seen this. I've seen discussion of actual transwomen who have been convicted of sex offences, eg Katie Dolatowski. That's fact, not a matter of baseless accusation.

I've seen discussion that allowing men into female single sex spaces increases risk of women being attacked. I've participated in those myself and agree with that view. Given 99% of sex offences are carried out by males, it's not rocket science to see a risk there.

What I haven't seen is anyone accusing a person of being a sex offender 'simply because they are trans'. The posters on FWR are well aware that trans is a broad umbrella and includes, for example, autistic children.

But using dehumanising language talking about floods and parasites and invasions is hate. Spreading false narratives that demonise whole groups of people as criminals and rapists is hate.

I agree that terms such as 'parasites' are dehumanising. I've not often seen posters 'demonise whole groups of people as criminals and rapists', though I have seen a small number of posts that would amount to that and are clearly racist. Those are usually deleted, thankfully.

I have seen discussion of statistics from other European countries that seem to show that certain offences are disproportionately high amongst migrants from some geographical areas. And discussion around cultural differences relating to the treatment and status of women, amongst some people coming from certain parts of the world. Where this is fact, it has to be ok to discuss it. In a democracy, free speech and access to accurate facts and data are vital. It cannot be the case that the potential for increased risk to women should be hushed up and made taboo. Women matter as much as men. Yet I have seen posters try to do that. Discussion should not cross any line into racism, of course.

I completely agree with you that as grown adults, we need to be resilient enough to be able to see a view we don't agree with and be able to tolerate that.

I also agree with you that saying people can't change sex and there are some circumstances where that matters isn't, in itself, hate. But mocking people's appearances simply because they are trans, or baselessly accusing them of being sex offenders simply because they are trans is hate.

Discussing the impact of immigration on provision of services and allocation of resources isn't, in itself, hate. But using dehumanising language talking about floods and parasites and invasions is hate. Spreading false narratives that demonise whole groups of people as criminals and rapists is hate.

In my opinion, anyone who genuinely cares about true freedom of speech or the quality of political discourse in our democracy should be mindful of not engaging in, encouraging, or normalising that kind of language.

Go into your account settings, then talk settings, and in there you can manage which topics you see. There's the option to hide different topics.

I completely agree with you, OP. And what's really been getting up my nose recently is the inconsistency (and possible subjectivity?) of moderation.

Certain sentiments that a lot of people wouldn't consider too terrible routinely get deleted, meanwhile a post last weekend saying (seriously, not in sarcasm) bring back the workhouses and maybe we have to get used to seeing children starving in the streets is allowed to stand because it 'isn't breaking Talk guidelines'. (Personally I think Talk guidelines have been in dire need of an overhaul for a long time now.) Older/disabled people are being subjected to outright bile, ableism and ageism are running rife and much of it is allowed to stand. And that's before I even get started on the trans stuff. And leaving the site on principle is routinely jeered at as 'flouncing'. Says a lot. I honestly believe that certain people (humans, not bots, depressingly) are on MN solely to spout hate, whatever their warped reasons for doing this may be.

Feeling very disillusioned with Mumsnet in general at present, in other words, and probably won't be on the site much longer, one way or another. Obviously MN and its admin team aren't going to care about a solitary poster and I don't expect them to, but I predict many departures if things continue as they are. I guess it's up to MNHQ whether they're happy for the toxicity to spread and MN to become not much more than a couple of steps above a hate site. Personally it saddens me.

This may get deleted, but if it does I really don't care at this point. I'd certainly consider my point proven if it was, though.

Discussing the impact of immigration on provision of services and allocation of resources isn't, in itself, hate

I have never seen anyone on MN suggest it is.

The word 'hate' should be a word used only to denote exactly that, but its usage has been so watered down lately that it's starting to become a bit meaningless. It seems that every second poster has started to throw it around as a term to mean 'an opinion I don't agree with'.

There are some posters who are unpleasant on all sides of every argument on here, but MN have to tread the line between freedom of speech and removing comments that cross a line. Where there is actual racism, ageism, ableism, etc, then of course MN should be removing those comments. Some posters don't seem to understand where that line is or should be drawn, however, and start shouting 'hate' and reporting comments that fall well short of it.

Saying people can't change sex and there are some circumstances where that matters isn't, in itself, hate.

Discussing the impact of immigration on provision of services and allocation of resources isn't, in itself, hate.

These are both factual issues that can be discussed factually. Some of it depends on how views are expressed, of course. But as grown adults, we need to be resilient enough to be able to see a view we don't agree with and be able to tolerate that. If you can't, then best to stay off the internet in general until you've been able to develop the necessary coping skills to hear opinions that differ to yours.

The word 'hate' should be a word used only to denote exactly that, but its usage has been so watered down lately that it's starting to become a bit meaningless. It seems that every second poster has started to throw it around as a term to mean 'an opinion I don't agree with'.

There are some posters who are unpleasant on all sides of every argument on here, but MN have to tread the line between freedom of speech and removing comments that cross a line. Where there is actual racism, ageism, ableism, etc, then of course MN should be removing those comments. Some posters don't seem to understand where that line is or should be drawn, however, and start shouting 'hate' and reporting comments that fall well short of it.

Saying people can't change sex and there are some circumstances where that matters isn't, in itself, hate.

Discussing the impact of immigration on provision of services and allocation of resources isn't, in itself, hate.

These are both factual issues that can be discussed factually. Some of it depends on how views are expressed, of course. But as grown adults, we need to be resilient enough to be able to see a view we don't agree with and be able to tolerate that. If you can't, then best to stay off the internet in general until you've been able to develop the necessary coping skills to hear opinions that differ to yours.

The word 'hate' should be a word used only to denote exactly that, but its usage has been so watered down lately that it's starting to become a bit meaningless. It seems that every second poster has started to throw it around as a term to mean 'an opinion I don't agree with'.

There are some posters who are unpleasant on all sides of every argument on here, but MN have to tread the line between freedom of speech and removing comments that cross a line. Where there is actual racism, ageism, ableism, etc, then of course MN should be removing those comments. Some posters don't seem to understand where that line is or should be drawn, however, and start shouting 'hate' and reporting comments that fall well short of it.

Saying people can't change sex and there are some circumstances where that matters isn't, in itself, hate.

Discussing the impact of immigration on provision of services and allocation of resources isn't, in itself, hate.

These are both factual issues that can be discussed factually. Some of it depends on how views are expressed, of course. But as grown adults, we need to be resilient enough to be able to see a view we don't agree with and be able to tolerate that. If you can't, then best to stay off the internet in general until you've been able to develop the necessary coping skills to hear opinions that differ to yours.

I agree with this. It now has the feel of Twitter just before it became X - which is sad, I think, because at one point when my kids were small (a long time ago!) I did find both Twitter and Mumsnet a fun, interesting way to get out of an echo chamber and hear differing opinions - but hearing differing opinions shouldn't have to mean normalising prejudice and misinformation.

I completely agree with you, OP. And what's really been getting up my nose recently is the inconsistency (and possible subjectivity?) of moderation.

Certain sentiments that a lot of people wouldn't consider too terrible routinely get deleted, meanwhile a post last weekend saying (seriously, not in sarcasm) bring back the workhouses and maybe we have to get used to seeing children starving in the streets is allowed to stand because it 'isn't breaking Talk guidelines'. (Personally I think Talk guidelines have been in dire need of an overhaul for a long time now.) Older/disabled people are being subjected to outright bile, ableism and ageism are running rife and much of it is allowed to stand. And that's before I even get started on the trans stuff. And leaving the site on principle is routinely jeered at as 'flouncing'. Says a lot. I honestly believe that certain people (humans, not bots, depressingly) are on MN solely to spout hate, whatever their warped reasons for doing this may be.

Feeling very disillusioned with Mumsnet in general at present, in other words, and probably won't be on the site much longer, one way or another. Obviously MN and its admin team aren't going to care about a solitary poster and I don't expect them to, but I predict many departures if things continue as they are. I guess it's up to MNHQ whether they're happy for the toxicity to spread and MN to become not much more than a couple of steps above a hate site. Personally it saddens me.

This may get deleted, but if it does I really don't care at this point. I'd certainly consider my point proven if it was, though.

We either have free speech or we don't.

That's the bottom line.

And what can be deemed 'hate speech' is often just an opinion that clashes with far left ideology (such as women not having penises or men not being allowed to partake in womens sports - both those things aren touted as hateful by many)

So we need to allow all opinions how ever uncomfortable they may make us (as long as they are not inciting violence or encouraging physical harm to people)

Words are not violence. Opinions are not violence.

And we seem to be losing the ability to accept that our own views can (and should) be challenged in order to mentally grow and learn. An echochamber is not a place in which you can grow.

Charlie Kirk was murdered for encouraging debate and standing by his opinions.

Censorship is a very dangerous tool.

And I am disabled, bisexual and Christian btw! And I do not think that people's opinions about any of those things should be silenced, negative or not.