Emma Healey was subject to a data breach

in terms of the software she absolutely was a moderator

OK, fair enough

But my point was that she was not part of the mod team, the people who make decisions about what threads and posts should stay up or be pulled, whether someone is sock puppeting or being a GF, whether to ban someone.

The reason I think it's important is that there have been some inconsistencies in the past, as well as some odd decisions, but by and large the mod team do a good job in what must be difficult circumstances on occasion. It's only a few days since we were told that the admin burden of the FWR board on the mod team meant that it was being taken out of "Active".

I think it would be unfair for people to make an erroneous connection between EH and the actual mod team

I think that's a very misleading narrative you are portraying. A forum is a standard bit of internet software that has been online for literally decades, and in terms of the software she absolutely was a moderator.

Her responsibilities were not as a moderator, but her account's user role on the site was moderator.

Facebook for example has five different roles for pages: www.axiapr.com/blog/facebook-page-roles-explained Facebook staff would have a whole another set of roles on top of this.

The mumsnet forum software appears to have had grossly inadequate permissions graularity/insufficient variety roles to reflect the jobs actually done by staff and/or insufficient care was paid to granting the minimum necessary permissions to users to allow them to do their jobs.

I feel like shouting "EH was not a moderator" on every thread running at the moment, as the narrative that she was is running thick and fast. She was, as I understand it, an intern in the press office and for some time she had - as did everyone working at MNHQ - access to the behind the scenes bit of the MN platform. Then changes were made a couple of months ago so that far fewer people at MNHQ had this access and EH, along with others, lost the access.

I mean I have had 'media requests' from other users and NEITHER of us are moderators, so it's a bit bizarre as a justification for giving her moderator rights.

oh yes you're right, the reason was to be able to 'contact posters for press requests', not a very good reason really as I see a 'message poster' button next to every post here, and I'm definitely not a moderator!

What's that I hear? Someone cacking their pants?

I feel a data protection issue cropping up here...

" Just want to clear one teeny thing up tho' ... EH was a press intern. Not a mod."

What do you mean she wasn't a mod? She had moderator rights, it's shown in the screenshot.

If you're saying that she wasn't employed as a moderator but merely as a 'press intern' and that this is somehow less serious as a result, well then you need to explain why your 'mere intern' had user access rights. (I can guess why, that your site lacks/lacked basic user roles such as 'content publisher' or 'forum moderator' or whatever, and just gave everyone everything, but I'm not sure why you think this clarification in some way makes this shit smell any sweeter.)

Why does a press intern have access to the comments?

You need to choose your internship a little more carefully.

But as my mum used to say, if you pay peanuts and you get a monkey. 🥜🐵

I hope MN is taking action against her.

I'm not sure what to make of this when EH's details, and photos, are still out there publicly available on the Internet and any time EH does something to draw attention to themselves, it's there to be found readily by Google. (At least they were last night.)

I don't get why EH, if they're worried about this, hasn't made more use of privacy settings.

I can't understand that article.

Weird isn't it that MRAs were big news (at least in feminist circles) just a couple of years ago and now they've faded so much? Absorbed by the alt right I heard.

Doesn't it just? I really hope she doesn't support the use of the same tactics by TRAs.

The treatment she describes in that article sounds eerily familiar.

Oh my MN, you have been so lovely to me, a huge for HQ.

I am beginning to feel a wee bit sorry for the ex-mod, she's clearly a bit daft or easily led.

It is a weird time we live in. I think the ex-mod wants a social media voice, to be known/famous. Oh dear.

Emma Healey was NOT subject to a data breach, what happened was that the subject of her article compiled her details (which she had posted online publicly, so there was no breach) in a manner intended to intimidate.

This is different from what Emma Healey has done, which is to make private data public.

There's obviously a similarity in that she is big on trigger warnings, safespaces and what not, but doesn't respect these things in respect of those she disagrees with.

and what a time to be alive!

Isn't it just.......

to Mumsnet mods right now.