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

@noblegiraffe you raised the issue of posters goading across a thread (or in fact multiple threads) and the difficulty in reporting them. It's hard. There are some longstanding and prolific posters who've become skilled at skirting round the guidelines while deliberately goading others and that is very difficult to address because it's a modus operandi. They know they can post disingenuously and it's just about impossible to challenge them.

My son is 23 soon and I joined MN when he was a baby. I thought it was vicious then and left for years before I came back.

I am not sure it has changed that much. But I guess Justine is the boss and will have a better idea of the tone.

But if you stay off AIBU, it is generally ok (although sometimes I will l say "this isn't AIBU so please be kind". AIBU shouldn't mean being nasty and personal attacks but by definition it should be ok to say "yes you are unreasonable!".

… which is why it’s critical that moderators take posts within the context of the thread. And sometimes (often?) beyond that one thread, to see a pattern of posting.

Not sure what the outcome will be but I'm glad they're trying to do something about this.

Ok, I take your point. Your comment re PBP is fair.
I just don't think any of us should have the right to snoop into other's posting history like that.
If I needed some support with my dc for example, and started a thread, I'd be quite upset if a poster started posting about an argument I had with my dh three years previously.
Where I've seen it used on threads, its felt like an invasion of privacy.

I have never, and would never use AS on a poster. Even if someone is a PBP etc, that should be for MN to decide in my view.

How can a poster be identified from AS if they change name?

Just leaving this here…. 🤣

Being concerned isn’t goady. The style of lots of the posts are goady.

I have done nothing to attempt to silence you and suggeating I have just feeds in certain narrative about anti immigration posters.

17 posts on the admiral thread so obviously no real interest (although comparisons with concerns around 'stolen valor' used to be made wrt to some male demands for women's rights).

'the filling-threads-up-with-recipes tactic' - I don't think that happens now. I wonder if it ever did - it sounds utterly pointless, what is the point of filling a thread?. Sometimes people have side conversations about food, the scrapers used to object because it disrupted them.

Can you give an example of this, using the subject matter as the example, or the opinions which you think are goady, rather than naming names?

I'm going to agree with you about Reddit. I'm finding the Strictly threads far nicer than the ones on here, for example. Very accepting of both the celebrities and the views of others about the dances.

The problem with accusing someone of goading is that I’ve seen it done where the person just doesn’t agree with the point

it’s a tough job being a moderator and there’s a risk MN ends up with a political bias if the mods tend to agree with one side over another

Advanced search is really useful for researching particular things whether to do with parenting or politics or anything else, finding posts you have read before, finding advice you have read or given before. It is only the posters who are wrongdoing or wanting to close down debates who would not want advanced search.

It is ironic how many of the posters I would consider to be part of the pile on groups who are posting on this thread.

I don't think the point is to get rid of people who have different political opinions from you, instead the point is, or should be, to stop vile personal attacks and stop pile ons, surely.

I’m sure most famous people will never see the posts about them, but I don’t think that matters. Should mumsnet allow, and therefore normalise, people posting and making nasty comments about an actresses appearance for example? I don’t think so. Mumsnet continue to allow it though.

Apart from it being nasty to the famous persons appearance, how are others here who may also have those features that are being ridiculed, or who are having their child bullied at school for those features meant to feel. A poster would rightly get sympathy and kindness if they said their child was being bullied about their ears, but it’s fine on a thread about an actress, for posters to make nasty comments about her ‘horrible ears’ ‘pointy ears’ or ‘unfortunate ears’. Make it make sense.

There's no denying it's an extremely problematic area of the site and frankly I think it's a crying shame that it's become what it has

I disagree, Along with the Times it was the only place you could actually say "I think female sport should be for female people". At least with the SC decision those views are considered a little more mainstream now!

Like we had to have a Brexit section and a Covid section because people can't scroll past the thread titles they didn't like, It's very annoying when things get hidden away because people can't use a really easy to use site function.

Agree, I've noticed the last 6 months especially MN has become a much nastier place. It's always been a bit blunt but I've noticed more people making assumptions or jumping to conclusions that paint the OP in a bad light, not giving benefit of the doubt, and threads being derailed by total nastiness and it's becoming so common

The "troll hunting is against the rules" thing is really frustrating sometimes.

There's a returning troll who consistently posts that their husband is a headteacher at a school where he makes the teachers do cleaning and serve up lunches and that this is a good use of school budgets.

They've been posting this shite on and off since covid.

Every time they post it, people will rush to point out that it's totally unreasonable to expect teachers to do this and the actual thread gets derailed. Last time was a couple of weeks ago. I reported the post as a returning troll and got the brush-off email and the post remained. People continued to respond as if it were genuine and I had to then try to tell them it was a troll to stop wasting their time while being conscious of the fact that I was risking a ban to do so.

If the moderators actually knew who the trolls were, and they were actually dealt with properly this situation shouldn't happen where lots of people know it's a troll but the mods don't.

Yes true - but then also - why would be someone be waste time on a post they think is fake … and then take that out on a post they feel is genuine? Surely a genuine person would ignore the trolls/AI and comment in good faith on ones they felt were real rather than just a half assed bitchy response?

OK being nasty about someone's appearance isn't on. But if you are in the public eye and you do something unpleasant, you can't expect people to ignore it and not criticise. The issue is where it turns from justified criticism to sheer nastiness. But then the sheer nastiness says more about the posters than the people concerned.

I tend not to read the celebrity gossip threads as I often don't even know who the person is unless it's someone like Gregg Wallace or Meghan.

Well there are many posters who just seem to go on threads to be deliberately negative and ott to the op or the discussion under the guise oh it’s just the mumsnet vipers. It’s a different and deliberate undercurrent to being straight talking and telling a poster the truth or an opinion.

It disrupts threads and they go off topic v quickly or the op never returns.

but in the other side - an op posts about their DH being a knob and before you know it he’s been torn to shreds and should be in prison and divorced because he didn’t take the bins out (same with friends and family - not just men who are the victim here).

it just always seems so extreme and a baying mob of people telling the op they’re stupid for not cutting the person off when there is so much more nuance in personal relationships - particularly ones you’ve only heard one side of

I can understand why you're asking, but I think I might find myself in trouble if I were more specific.

No I don't fall into either of those categories. I just don't think posters should be able to search other poster's history like that. Some posters name change regularly just to maintain some privacy.