MNHQ want money from us

Barracker on 18/04/2018 (it was Barracker who brought it to the attention of MNHQ)

I've now DMd 3 out of the 4 posters who appeared to have been screengrabbed whilst Emma Healey was logged in as a mod with user detail access like IP addresses. The 4th poster can't be reached by DM but I hope she finds this thread herself and can contact MNHQ about it herself.

I obviously have no idea how many other screengrabs Emma took whilst in her role, only the ones she publicised on twitter.

From the thread linked above,

JustineMumsnet (MNHQ) wrote Wed 18-Apr-18 15:47:58
"Hi everyone.
Emma was an intern in the press office for 6 months until March and for a good portion of that time she did have access to the information in our user accounts pages. This is because part of her role involved occasionally contacting Mumsnetters to pass on media requests etc. In February we streamlined the number of people with access to those accounts beyond the community team hers (and others) access was removed.

Her contract expressly forbids the passing on of any third-party data and clearly, she's in breach of contract so we'll be contacting her as a matter of urgency.

Given what she's said on Twitter about this being a mistake and that she's now deleted her Twitter account, plus what we know about her from her time at MNHQ, we believe further breaches are unlikely.

We're really sorry for any anxiety caused and will of course be in touch with the three posters that we can see who are directly affected."

Possibly I misread Justine's comment in the begging thread but I can't be bothered to go look for it.

Just re-reading Barraker's thread raising concern with MNHQ & it includes post about 4 members potentially impacted (this seems to refer to twitter posts rather than the blog)

BarrackerBarmer Wed 18-Apr-18 15:30:40
I've now DMd 3 out of the 4 posters who appeared to have been screengrabbed whilst Emma Healey was logged in as a mod with user detail access like IP addresses. The 4th poster can't be reached by DM but I hope she finds this thread herself and can contact MNHQ about it herself.

I obviously have no idea how many other screengrabs Emma took whilst in her role, only the ones she publicised on twitter."

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3225517-The-MNHQ-Moderation-team

I seem to remember there were, I read all the threads in FWR and Site Stuff at the time. But I could easily be wrong!

Were there others? If so then I think Justine was fibbing a bit in the asking for money thread.

Didn't she post 4 people's IP addresses? The TRA was the one who made the section 28 comment.

Well, Emma intended to post something from an FWR poster, but iirc what she actually posted was a goady comment from a TRA who was trying to shit stir, including said TRAs IP address, because Emma Is Very Clever.

Sorry I hadn’t reloaded .. that comment was responding to Dido...

Ok I’m a bit confused.. my earlier comment was simply responding to Penny’s (directly above) which included a copy/paste from Justine.

(I’m on mobile, can’t copy and paste)

Justine referred to “the received wisdom on the FWR forum that we should be more robust on our stance...” which I paraphrased as “the FWR position.”

Of course, anyone should post on FWR as much as they like - it’s much less hostile or scary than AIBU (imo - I’m not a known poster on either). But for MN-ers who do not like FWR, there are other feminine boards.

It was FWR posters whose personal data was posted online. Justine stressed on the other thread that this data (IP address) was in very small text, and Emma has not intentionally left it visible.

"One thing is for absolute sure though it costs us much more to run FWR (both in terms of moderation effort, legal costs and loss in ad revs) than we make in ad revenue from it. The reason we do it isn't for profit it's because we believe there should be somewhere mainstream where these issues can be debated."

I am genuinely grateful that MN is prepared to take a financial hit in order to maintain FWR. However, this analysis does not tell the full story:

• members who post primarily on FWR also visit other MN Talk Boards where they might well contribute to "ad revenue" (I am much more likely to even notice an advert on a less serious Boards where I lurk but am unlikely to post).

Would "FWR posters" they even bother with MN if FWR did not exist in its current form?

• other members have told MNHQ that a big reason they are on Mumsnet is because they lurk on FWR whilst still posting on other Boards.

Would "FWR Lurkers" even bother with MN if FWR did not exist in its current form?

"Tell MNHQ why you use Mumsnet" Sept 2018
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/3377940-Tell-MNHQ-why-you-use-Mumsnet

"Lurkers of FWR, pop in and say Hi!" Sept 2018
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3380184-Lurkers-of-FWR-pop-in-and-say-Hi

Its an open forum.
People are accused of all sorts of things, sometimes falsely. Its never pleasant when that happens.

By some posters on here

Seems a touch odd that you would assert there’s a “FWR position” on the strength of some posters allegedly flaming you.

There’s no-more a FWR position than there is a MN position.

By some posters on here. Told I am a troll because I disagreed.

Attacked by who?

Okay, I have been attacked for saying there are some threats, but many on here overstate the threat.

What R0 said

The FWR position seems to be that transgender people are destroying all rights for women and is the greatest and main threat to all women.

No
This is innacurate in many ways. Not least that there exists 'an FWR position'

The FWR position seems to be that transgender people are destroying all rights for women and is the greatest and main threat to all women.

Mner2000 I have taken a leaf out of your book and posted a new thread in "Site Stuff"

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/3878378-Premium-Membership-Privacy-and-Data-Protection-MNHQ-please-clarify

MN hasfourother feminism boards. Blocking FWR would not leave you “nowhere to go” but with 80% of MN’s “official” feminist space - and the rest of MN

Firstly why are you quoting "nowhere to go"? or referring to "blocking FWR". I did not say anything like that in my posts. Please do not invent things I have not said.

Secondly - so far as the 4 other feminist boards - almost nobody posts on them- as I'm sure you very well know. No-one seems terribly clear what the difference between "Feminist Activism" "Feminist Theory" and "Feminist Support" "Feminist Book Club" barely gets off the ground, even when a new thread is posted in FWR.

Thirdly- your post is really more of the same isn't it? Any one who doesn't go with the "FWR position" should go elsewhere.

You said But of course notallmumsnetters agree with the FWR position ..

What is the "FWR position?" Who was appointed to decide it?

But I agree that donating (rather than subscribing) should be an option. I’m sure this will become available, who would turn down a free, no-strings cash injection?

@DidoLamenting I agree feminism affects all women. Its great that so many visit FWR (third for traffic after AIBU and Relationships).

Some MNetters dislike FWR though, which is to be expected. Women are not a monolith. Hence MN has four other feminism boards. Blocking FWR would not leave you “nowhere to go” but with 80% of MN’s “official” feminist space - and the rest of MN.

So, for those who do not like, need or use FWR... why would their views on its moderation matter (genuine question)?

Mner2000 thanks. I've posted on it.

Mner2000 I agree the number of people with access to the information needs to be controlled. Maybe more to process the initial influx, but surely 2 or 3 people (to cover sickness etc) can cover general ongoing maintenance etc.