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

I agree you can be kind and honest. If you have an ounce of insight you can also perceive when "tough love" or "bluntness" is not going to generate a sudden epiphany in the OP that she is being exploited/abused/an idiot. Unfortunately some people feel it's more important to grandstand to the mob than help a fellow woman in need out.

I'm not going to tell a financially vulnerable mother of 5 that she should continue to tiptoe round her controlling, abusive husband, but neither am I going to say "why the f**k did you keep on having kids with this dickhead?" like some posters do.

The acronym 'PARD' used to get thrown around a lot, and i think it needs a resurgence in use.

Polite and Reasonable Discourse

People seem to have forgotten how to do polite or reasonable.

Yes I never understand this - when I explain free speech to my kids I explain that when your plump friend models an outfit and asks ‘does my bum look big in this?’ You can chose to say, ‘f*ck yeah, humungous’ or you can say, ‘well those stripes in that fabric aren’t very forgiving - but that navy one you tried on a minute ago was really slimming and made you look sexy’… same message conveyed, but one is brutal and rude, whereas the other come from a place of compassion and respect.

People forget that all rights - such as the right to speak freely - are always counterbalanced by an equally significant obligation. In this case to be respectful and considerate in how you couch your speech.

Another development…https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/sitestuff/5446284-x-number-of-people-viewing

Interesting reason given by MNHQ! Is MN really worried about lack of traffic…(and revenue)?

The viewing count is designed to give users a sense of how busy a thread is in real time and to help highlight where conversations are most active. We hope it will make it easier to spot lively discussions and encourage engagement across the boards.

I agree. There is no need for nastiness, or even being rude to people.

Sometimes I think that some people have stopped thinking about what they are saying. I remember vehement ‘anti racists’ on a thread using nasty racist slurs themselves with zero self awareness.

Some people also seem to think that they are so much on the ‘right side of history’ that they have free rein to be nasty to anyone who doesn’t wholeheartedly agree with them. The amount of times people have made up things I haven’t said and called me awful names in the course of a conversation. I try to be civil to everyone but the nastiest people I’ve come across are the trans activists and ‘anti racists’.

I’ve noticed the feel of a thread and subsequent responses are often affected by the tone of the first response.

Only sometimes. Kindness is in any case a relative concept. Part of the reason the BBC is in its present pickle is that Tim Davie imagined his own view of what kindness is to be a duty on the BBC, to the detriment of the BBC's obligations to honesty & accuracy.

I think others gave examples - you don’t need to be aggressive or rude to give someone an honest answer

and I would argue it isn’t kind to lie to someone or give them advice that is counter to their best interests

It always amuses me that people get so frothed about disabled people getting benefits to allow them to work and earn and pay tax.
If they earn enough to buy a top end car
but use the Motability allowance to have hand controls fitted
(for those with non functioning legs)
is that ANYBODY elses business ?

Sorry to be pedantic about Motability scheme and mobility allowance, but those who get so frothed often do so, partly because of getting different schemes and allowances mixed up. (as well as just nastiness)

You can't use the Motability Scheme (a charity - not funded by taxpayers) to BUY a top end or otherwise, car, and then get hand controls fitted.

You can buy a top end car, and use a mobility allowance (PIP) to get hand controls fitted.

Or if you have higher rate mobility allowance (PIP) you can put down a substantial additional payment (AD) which is non refundable, and trade in the mobility allowance in it's entirety, to LEASE a higher end (or otherwise) Motabillity car, for 3 to 5 years from the charity, and it will be supplied with hand controls, if that's the assessed adaption need.

The charity keeps the additional payment, and needs to sell on the car before it devalues too much, and that's the optimal second hand selling point for a new car. Adaptations are usually but not always, removed and reused.

When it's shown to people that it costs them as taxpayers exactly the same for the exchanged allowance for a disabled person to have a top end Motability scheme charity car, as it does for the cheapest possible one, they still insist either the disabled should only have access to cheaper cars, or that PIP should be means tested because disabled people shouldn't be assisted unless they're poverty stricken and kept out of the jobs market, etc.
(Disclaimer: I have neither Motability scheme car or electric wheelchair - old banger and manual wheelchair only)

They froth because they feel those of us who need assistance to be able to work, earn and pay tax, shouldn't be considered 'proper' taxpayers like them, shouldn't benefit from working beyond not being on Universal Credit, and it's their business because they're taxpayers.

@Elleherd Sorry to be pedantic

Don’t be. It needs repeating loudly and frequently when there are so many people who know perfectly well they are talking bollocks but push deliberate misinformation.

See also the fudging of the clear distinction between PIP and sickness benefits (in both directions by the same person when it suits the misinformation they are spreading) and claims about most PIP going to fund Motobility cars for people with broken finger nails.

Its not a new phenomenon, there has always been a faction who simply hate anyone with a disability, especially if they do not conform to a narrow stereotype. I’m sure many of them have disabled friends 🙄

@Elleherd
Your clarification is valid.
I know more than most about Motability, the DDA, Radar and the former DRCs

Personal Independence Payments
were designed to enable those able to work to do so
and to allow those unable to work to lean less on their families
allowing them to work

My views of those who are against those aims
would probably get me banned again

My mind drifted back to this thread recently while on a couple of threads (different username) on which the OP had been upset and asking for advice, and were ripped to pieces by a group of posters who stayed just within guidelines - I think the same group you refer to here, interestingly.

I've seen so many really mean but just inside the guidelines by a whisker type posts donce this thread started - you could spend your day reporting them if you were so inclined, there's so many of them.

On this topic, a poster attempted to doxx me by revealing my child's school on a very sensitive thread about racism and bullying, putting my child in danger. I had clearly explained why I didn't want the school named, as it was a safeguarding issue for my child.

Not only was the poster not banned (they had a history of racist posts) but I had to ask repeatedly for the thread to be pulled, despite the safeguarding concerns.

What is going on with the moderation?

I am all for robust discussion on threads about general things, politics, policies

But the threads I am thinking of were personal, and about half of the comments were so unhelpful that the threads were removed. Meaning all the valuable advice was lost. So the MNHQ decision to remove the thread was probably right for the OP concerned, and also there may not be a feasible alternative - the only alternative would be going through page by page and removing all the unjustified personal comments, taking a judgement call each time which involves time.

I think that the elephant in the room and the more difficult thing to address is the possibility of there being groups of posters who track specific thread subjects and then dive in together

I agree, doxxing is very dangerous.

I didn't post on that thread but was reading it.

That poster didn't doxx you, it's not doxxing when you yourself post enough information for others to identify the school. And there were many posters speculating over which school it was, it wasn't just one.

I hope your DC is now in a better, safer environment (or will be very soon).

It is doxxing when they name the school. That was completely inappropriate, and would have meant it would have come up in search engines as well. I had clearly explained the safeguarding issues with this.

As I stated on the thread, I have no option of moving my child out of this school. If I did, I would have done. This is exactly why naming the school puts them at danger.

Only one poster named the school. No one else. This was a poster who has repeatedly posted racist remarks on various threads, and inexplicably, has not been banned.

After October 7 I reported a number of explicitly antisemitic posts (not criticising the Israeli government, although it hadn't begun its response at that point yet; I mean posts that spoke in nasty terms about Jews themselves). The posts were deleted but the posters were not banned.

Yes, it is bewildering. Some posters are repeatedly posting racist statements related to Jews, yet they are still here. I don't think systemic racism against any other ethnicity would be tolerated.

But are you reporting them @Kittlewittle?

I have done many times. Like @ThatCyanCat , they are removed, but the posters are not banned. I have contacted MNHQ directly to raise this, and they have refused to engage on the topic.

Only removing posts when they are reported is just fire fighting: these posts are still there for all to read before deletion. There needs to be a more proactive approach of zero tolerance for racism, and banning racist posters.