Why so much hate on MN?

Blimey, some people believe MN pulls rank favouritism - in the form of deciding whether to delete posts flagged as possible hate or not - for the sake of a fiver a month ?! Really??

Why would they choose to spite people who don’t pay for premium in the form of deliberately not bowing to their assessment of what constitutes hate?

Fwiw, I don’t pay for premium and I don’t remember any times where I’ve
reported hate and it’s been ignored. I don’t report everything I see mind you - often the misogynistic hate from TRAs posting on the FWR boards is really useful to leave standing, so casual observers can see it and make up their own minds. MN are still making money off me from all the ads - and given how much the site is stuffed with them now, I wouldn’t be surprised if they earn more than a fiver from what I view per month anyway.

I think it’s just rounding on someone for no reason. It’s obviously not true.

@LuckyHazelFoxhang in there!

Nobody is rounding on someone, it was just an observation.

Some posters agreed, others disagreed.

My username was generated randomly by MN. No I'm not laurence fox. There are some failed Colombos 😆 🤣

I never imagined you were that Fox. He wouldn't make money by posting here so probably wouldn't be interested.

I won't be hounded off. I'm just ignoring silliness x

To be clear, I'm not saying that I think MNHQ does consider premium membership status when making moderation decisions. I have no evidence that either substantiates or disproves that suggestion.

I merely observed that this was not a possibility that I had even considered previously when trying to understand the very inconsistent nature of their approach to moderation.

I have heard it referred to as mumsnet royalty. No idea if it's true though..it can feel that way though.
I used to report things thats were extremely nasty and personal and never got removed. That was a long time ago though it does seem a bit better compared to what it was.

Now.and then something would get removed. But on the other hand with some nastiness towards me I sometimes wasn't sure weather to report because it could get removed but I have already seen it so the hurt has already been caused and it gets removed and the person has what they said covered up by the removal of the post. I did often just leave it so others could see the nastiness. It felt logic at the time but probably wasn't really. Possibly made it worse because others would join in.

Just in general terms it isn't always a case of different opinions there is some real nastiness on here.

Whats a bit gutting for me is i used to get a bad time from people for how i delt with things. Now i have seen several threads with people being advised to do exactly what I was doing.

Anyway just from my point of view and my own experience.

Well I've learned that you can quote a poster in a derogatory way, who's not part of a conversation and it's not seen as a personal attack. So I can be posting away with somebody and choose to randomly quote another poster on MN to make a sneery point. Interesting.

If you sneery point was a personal attack, you would most likely be deleted.

I understand personal attacks and take great care not to make them. What I don't understand is why it's acceptable to drag somebody's username into making a point when the referred person hasn't contributed to the discussion. That, in my eyes, is a personal attack. However, the mods deem otherwise so I will accept that.

I don't know, I only tag people when addressing them

I have seen people doing it without tagging too, maybe in the hope it isn't spotted?

Using someone's user name is clearer than referring to them as pp, as they could be anyone.

So there is that too.

Oh this was most definitely meant for me to see. Thanks anyway 👍

You had a few mentions, nothing resembling a personal attack. All is good 👍

What so i reply something unkind to an op. But tag you on that message. Even though you wasn't on the thread? If i have that right I think that could cause a planned pile on. But saying that people can just PM and alert other's anyway.

MN royalty has nothing to do with the paid option.

I don’t think anyone uses that term anymore anyway.

It died when people started using Lighthearted in the title and using asterisks in the word cunt.

And tagging is stupidly passive aggressive.

I think it depends. I'm on a long running series of threads on the Alcohol support board - it's for people who have an alcoholic in their lives. We @ each other a lot, because much of the time what we want to say is addressed to one specific poster's situation. In that context, tagging just makes sense.

If you're tagging just to have an argument it's better to not - but then again, if a poster says something particularly egregious or is spouting overt misinformation, a fair challenge should be allowed.

Yes, I suppose at the beginning of a new thread it can be appropriate, but yes, in the middle of a discussion it is annoying.

The mods are only inconsistent because they are human.

What looks like a personal attack to one person is just robust discussion to another. Though when posters are consistently nasty and get endless posts deleted, I do wonder why MN allows them to keep posting (financial reasons I guess).

I agree there is a lot of hate on MN but that’s online forums. In real life I find people a lot more polite and mature in debates.

I believe that goes on as well. It's all so childish.

The mods deleted the latest Jewish support thread then.

And yet the post saying that Jewish people have this air of outraged entitlement is still up after multiple reports.

Doesn't surprise me. I have no end of posters zooming in on my posts and making pointed remarks such as they're surprised I'm still here. They know they can't post they don't understand why I've not been banned. I see them for what they are.