Justine says MN is too mean and will tighten-up moderation

[noblegiraffe]

Justine posted this on a low-traffic thread in AIBU and I think it deserves a wider audience than it is currently getting, especially as it is asking posters to report low-level sniping and pile-ons. Perhaps a bigger announcement is planned, I don't know.

"Thanks for raising this - it's something we've been discussing internally as we've noticed the same shift you’re describing and we agree it’s something we need to get a much firmer grip on. Debate is part of Mumsnet’s DNA, but unnecessary meanness isn’t, and it helps absolutely no one.
We’ve already put a plan in place to tighten things up. It’s not just about deleting the really obvious personal attacks, but tackling the low-level sniping and pile ons that drain the life out of threads and discourage people from posting in the first place. That means more proactive involvement from us earlier in a thread, not just sweeping up afterwards.
One thing that really helps is reporting. There are around 25,000 posts a day on here, so we really don’t see that much in real time. If something feels off, please do report it. We promise to read things in context and we’d much rather step in early than let a thread spiral.
Most people on here genuinely want to give support or perspective. When that gets drowned out by needless nastiness, everyone loses. So thank you to everyone who’s raised this. We hear you, we agree with you, and we’re working on it."

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5442610-the-current-state-of-mn-and-how-do-i-stop-reading?reply=148524522&utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share

100% this

Mumsnet has become progressively meaner. I think they should have a system/rule that if your comment is deleted from a thread you are no longer able to post on that particular thread. @justinemumsnetcan you make that happen?

I have reported posters who have belittled, insulted and berated women going through very difficult relationship or parenting issues, it is painful to read. There’s “tough love” and there’s just plain nastiness.

I also think there are quite a few men on here, masquerading as women, who take pleasure in kicking a woman when she’s down. It helps me to assume some of the less “sisterly” replies are men propping up the patriarchy.

I think the problem is that there has been no investment in the platform. It still relies on the idea it is a helpful, supportive, safe place to discuss issues for women'. It's simply Redditt, Tattle, X, Blue Sky with non existent moderation.

I think the adverts are just too much now.

MN is really a money-making machine and it's just got so obvious now. It comes over like reading the Mail online with a bombardment of adverts.

Some posters are clever, they will use language that in itself isn't offensive but can make the poster feel awkward or uncomfortable and is designed to shut them up.

The proliferation of threads that support only one view aren't great either, usually just a few regular posters who will round on anyone who dares to argue a different POV, imho they shouldn't be on here, its not supportive or inclusive, there is even "unspoken rules" where regular posters aren't supposed to go on the alternative threads..... its bonkers.

MN should have cracked down on this problem long ago.

All of this.

I agree that some sort of dynamic feedback on posts would be useful but I think it would be more productive if that feedback could come from the posters who gave an issue with particular posts themselves.

For example in a recent thread a poster said to me “you are a racist” but then declined to explain why she or he thought what I had posted was racist. I was then accused of ‘spamming’ by someone else because I had been responding to people quoting me.

I had been mainly posting government stats or information from trusted sources so I couldn’t work out what I said that was supposed to be racist and attracted such a bald accusation.

I have also seen responses to requests for an explanation of an racism/islamophobia/transphobia accusation shut down by a comment along the lines of ‘if you don’t like being accused of racism/efc, maybe stop being racist’ which imo is not a very productive or adult way to converse. If a poster has an issue with something that he been said, why can’t they just explain why? Sometimes it really feels like PPs have no idea why they think something is racist but make the accusation anyway which as we’ve seen just has a chilling effect on free speech and is a negative force in society.

People have different sensibilities around racism/islamophobia/transphobia and not everyone gets it right but that doesn’t mean that the people with the most sensitive racism detectors are correct.

I think using AI to put words in people’s mouths is a step too far though. We already see bias in AI and we want to encourage free speech, not suppress it to groupthink. That’s how we’ve ended up where we are today.

I'm thinking of deleting my account for that very reason, plus the non-stop advertisements, which I could pay to avoid, granted, but paying to read nasty put-downs? No, sorry.

Are all threads supposed to be supportive, though?

People are allowed to disagree. Sometimes, a lot of people will disagree. Is it "rounding on someone" if a person posts an opinion that isn't popular within a particular space, and lots of people respond to it? MN was never intended to be a perfect cross section of society with no biases and absolute blind justice in everything, and the only reason people think it should be is because it's largely female. Some views won't be popular in a forum comprised largely of women, mostly 30+, with children.

This is one reason why I think the reactions should be public if we're going to have them.

I have reported a particular long running thread that accepts only one political view point. Posters round on anyone who tries to offer a different perspective. MN is not interested, don't reply - the thread still stands in Chat, MN are even reluctant to move in onto the Politics board.

There are two of those with opposing views. It’s not obligatory to read or post on either of them.

I was heartened to see an obvious racist rage bait thread was immediately deleted when reported this morning.

I think we also need to accept that people are allowed to have different views and just because you don’t like them it doesn’t make it wrong

a thread for people who agree is fine as well as one for discussion

Like in style and beauty you might have a thread of people who love a certain style - you don’t need someone coming on telling them the style is ugly etc etc. but then you can also have a thread ‘what’s your style and what looks do you hate?’ That doesn’t have to be taken personally

Talking about FWR, I don’t usually go there but last week there was a thread with ‘teacher’ in the title so I was on it. A query about how to appropriately address a trans teacher if one didn’t want to use ‘Miss’. There was no suggesting that students would be punished for non-compliance.

The thread had multiple posts accusing the unknown teacher of being a perverted fetishist bullying pupils, and that they shouldn’t be around children. These posts were unchallenged.

So I challenged them. And then later returned to the thread to find claims that because the posts had been deleted, there was no problem with transphobia.

Except the posts were deleted after I’d read them all. My experience, and that of many others of reading that thread, was horrendous, particularly as everyone else seemed to be ignoring it.

And I guess that’s a problem, where Justine refers to needing to be more proactive instead of mopping up messes later. People on the thread at the time don’t go back to read threads a second time, so don’t see the sanitised version, they see the awful version.

Agree. AI certainly doesn’t always get things right.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd11gzejgz4o.amp

@noblegiraffeinteresting because I read that thread as well and I thought the posts that suggested autogynaphilia was real provided balance and context to the “be kind” replies. I didn’t read any that said the teacher was definitely a predator/pervert, just that the fetish angle could not be ignored.

It does show there’s a fine line for MN to tread.

Generally though I am mostly concerned about the women in shit relationships, or with parenting challenges being piled on. That is not in the spirit of the site, IMO.

No it isnt obligatory to post. However is it okay for MN to support threads where people who want to offer a different view point are actively discouraged from posting?

There are many political threads on which to post. Posters who want to discuss a particular issue can start a thread about it. For some reason both those threads - which have built their respective communities of regulars - seem to have got under the skin of some posters. It’s easy for posters who don’t like them to hide them if they annoy them. I know I’m unwelcome on one of them so I don’t go there, it’s not hard.

No worries.

But I think that in many situations, goady for one is informed opinion for another which is why I asked, to be honest. And sometimes will be reported simply because they go against opinions.

Whereas personal attacks, troll hunting, which go against guidelines, can be assessed in a more objective way. These should be reported.

Challenging opinions is better than trying to drown them out or remove them, from a transparency point of view most of the time. Not all the time, but most of the time.

Name changing is important can help prevent doxing/being id'd and help reduce online bullying and people being chased off MN simply for having differing (while equally legitimate) opinions.

It isn't about hiding or being keyboard warriors.

Yes, I absolutely agree about name changing. My argument wasn't against name changing, but was more saying that AS is a useful function because name changing is allowed.

For example, if a rather rage bait-y thread pops up and OP only has a couple of posts to their name, it is often a useful indicator of OP's intentions.

I am not sure what you are saying here - do you see all criticisms of Isreal (as in Israel acting as a state) as being antisemitic - even if coming from Jewish people - and do you see all comments which are concerned about illegal or out of control immigration as being racist and if someone says that biological men shouldn't be able to compete in all women sport do you automatically see that as transphobic?

For example, if a rather rage bait-y thread pops up and OP only has a couple of posts to their name, it is often a useful indicator of OP's intentions.

I am not sure about this - people who name change for other reasons may still have views on politics etc which may or may not enrage others (on the basis that the "left" and "right" will often be enraged by eachother) yet still be genuine posters without any hidden or goady intentions. So sometimes it might be the case but not always.