MNHQ want money from us

Oh are you saying you choose to post here now Willis?

many posters who have gravitated to FWR also either now or previously have also contributed some or a lot to supporting other MNers across a range of boards

That's certainly the case with me so agree there - started off on the rest of the boards, still do on the rest of the boards but ended up "gravitating" to FWR as you say
I use both and probably a lot of other people do too

Well Vitreous, you're on the wrong thread, then. This one is about the request from MN for money from it's users in the form of a subscription. Perhaps you should start another thread about your disapproval of the women here who have apparently not borne any cost in the past few years. I'm sure you'll have any number of eager takers.

Oh hang on, I think I missed a page of posts when I posted just now. Sorry if any of that's already been addressed.

And just to reiterate, I'm not paying primarily due to the security risk.

The reduced advertising revenue is due to Coronavirus, not FWR, and as R0 points out the subscription model has been in the pipeline for sometime.

I also happen to believe that allowing the debate about women’s rights is a business decision, despite how it’s dressed up. Back in the day, Mumsnet’s USP was the quality of the discussions when compared with Netmums and others. Mumsnetters were better educated, and if they used swear words at least they were spelled correctly. The 2010 election was the Mumsnet election, politicians couldn’t wait to tell us what their favourite biscuit was because Mumsnetters votes mattered.

But the site has changed, accelerated partly by penis beaker. It’s bigger and attracts a different demographic, discussions have changed and most of the original posters are long gone. FWR though retains some of the early spirit. Feisty, intelligent discussion, advice to other women and updates on campaigns and legal proceedings. It’s no surprise that posters - and I’m one - who joined during mat leave have gravitated over here. So yes, I think FWR does matter to brand Mumsnet, because they need the quality of discussion here, and just as importantly, the income, of posters to sell to advertisers.

We are most definitely a product.

given the business model, it should be MN paying its members

What?
You think MN should be paying their members?
Apologies if I've missed something, but why? We're owed nothing

Vitreous, you're using such broad generalisations it's hard to unpick and get to anything concrete. MNHQ isn't one person. FWR isn't one voice. You keep mentioning the 'price' - what data do you have? You're talking about a monetary sum lost in advertising, right? What is it? Who specifically is refusing to acknowledge it, and what would 'acknowledging it' look like to you - mentioning it in every post? I genuinely don't understand what you think the right way is to post on this board.

People are aggrieved when their posts are deleted without warning and having to ask for explanation each time. Sometimes when that is given it's because there was a poor(?) choice of a single word such as 'seem'. Would you be happy to pay if it was your posts deleted each time for a word you had no idea could be offensive? Would you perhaps want to mention it when the request to pay arose?

Gnnn. I'm not talking about investing or donating or anything related to it. I'm talking about a much broader issue, which is that it is axiomatic on this board that posters have a justified grievance against MNHQ. And a perverse refusal to acknowledge that the continued existence of this board has come at a price, and that this price has been paid by MNHQ and not by you.

I brought that up on Justine's thread too. If some of your users would like to give you money but don't feel comfortable doing so via the options currently on offer, it makes sense to find them a different options.

(Or address security concerns, which is the long term issue and needs to happen anyway.)

Quite a few of us have said we are happy to contribute but we dont trust that our personal details would be safe with the subscription method being used

I've said that several times. Spiked, which won't have anything like the readership or resources of MN, takes funding on a one of donation basis. I've given to Spiked several times.

Quite apart*

Quirecaoart from the danger of data being compromised and the banning issues, given the business model, it should be MN paying its members.

Vitreous, you're not getting it. The women who value the site enough to invest are unwilling because they are worried about security, a point which MNHQ seem entirely unwilling to address. If you think that berating them on this thread for having an ungrateful attitude will effect a positive response, your moral argument is undercutting itself, because those who want to invest are not doing so are no more likely to with your superior finger wagging which is beside the point.

But please, carry on if you wish, it's clearly something you feel strongly about.

I have found FWR a very useful resource (although, despite lurking here for 3 or 4 years, don't feel able to add much in terms of posting) and am in the fortunate position that I am still being paid.

I would happily anonymously donate £50 but I don't feel safe giving my details when doing so.

Despite its faults, I can't be alone in feeling that FWR has value and I want it to continue but many of us have too much to lose to take the risk of giving our details. The risk is too high for me personally, despite the value I believe FWR gives.

Please consider some ability for anonymous donation MNHQ.

Quite a few of us have said we are happy to contribute but we dont trust that our personal details would be safe with the subscription method being used

Nobody’s listening to those of us have stated that

Doesn’t fit the agenda

There can only a moral angle - what else is there? I think that this board, as a group, has behaved shittily because they need someone to kick and they don't want to see the bigger picture.

And yeah, someone upthread did say that they could just go off and build another activist community - I wasn't talking specifically about you.

I've tried to demonstrate how this might play from the other side - as I said, it's up to you whether you power forward with your (a general 'your', not FloraBunting specifically) current approach, or stop and interrogate what you've actually been asking MN to do all these years, which is the impossible.

it's not the presence of active feminists that is damaging the site

No, it's not. If anything the public perception of MN is driven by the 'nest of vipers' that is AIBU.

Quite a few of us have said we are happy to contribute but we dont trust that our personal details would be safe with the subscription method being used. We have asked for an alternative method of payment but for some reason that's not being considered.

Oh please. I don't have any plans to set up a forum. Only a fool would now and expect to make any headway, certainly not from a business perspective.

I have no grievance against MN. I'm just realistic that it's not the presence of active feminists that is damaging the site, and I think it's utterly naive to buy this narrative that FWR is still a vital plank. Guess what? The internet has been shifting and changing dramatically for the last twenty years, and plenty of websites have had to drastically change or die.

You can do that manipulative indignant schtick all you want to, but given the stated security issues, I really think it's hugely misplaced to keep working this moral angle. And yeah, you are totally pressing the moral angle.

I'm actually very appreciative of the stance MN has taken in allowing debate - albeit I think there's some seriously craven moderation - ultimately, MN has played a huge part in moving the Overton window for openly debating women's rights.

BUT - MN facilitated this. That's not quite the same as advocating a women-centred position. They just didn't shut us up. Except when they did.

Like I say, I'm grateful. I can afford £100 worth of gratitude as a donation. I can't feel confident to trust MN with my personal data, however, unless I hear some rather more robust explanation of how they will protect it.

And that it's insane to cling to your at best misguided grievance against MN when a fundamental platform/plank in the fight against TRAs is under threat.
And that, if you think you can build anything which has the heft and reach of MN yourselves you are seriously deluded. Your attitude adds to MNs difficulties - it always has - and if MN goes under because you and others fail to value it you will be doing women - all women, not just liberal ABC1s - a profound and unforgivable disservice.

I absolutely did not say that anyone has a moral obligation to contribute. I said that the general attitude on this board to the real hit MN has taken on their behalf stinks.