Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

mn is a public website. We do not sign up to terms and conditions that say threads may not be discussed outside of mn, on twitter etc...

551 replies

wannaBe · 21/02/2011 09:55

yep, thread about a thread... big deal.

so - thread started on mn. Another poster tweeted about said thread, came back to the thread and said she'd tweeted about it.

Subsequently posters called for her to be banned for tweeting about a sensitive thread, followed by lots of other nasty name-calling.

Thing is, the thread was public anyway. You don't have to be logged into mn to view it. You don't have to have a button next to each post to tweet about it - all you'd have to do is copy/paste the link into twitter. Once you put your private business on a public website you lose control over what happens to it/who talks about it/tweets about it/potentially writes about it in the press.

To suggest that a poster should be banned for talking about a thread that is on a public website, on another public website is ridiculous.

Mn has hundreds of thousands of hits a day. People are very naive if they think that their private, sensitive business is limited to the few people that post on the threads in question.

And people do discuss mn on twitter. Both in terms of threads/the potential genuineness of posters/the outcomes of threads. It's just that they don't come back on to mn to talk about having done so.

OP posts:
ScaredOfCows · 21/02/2011 10:13

DB - the difference is that sometimes it is just morally wrong to go around spreading someone's distress around further, just so that the one has something 'interesting' to tweet/FB

LadyintheRadiator · 21/02/2011 10:14

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

JamieLeeCurtis · 21/02/2011 10:15

Eleison - I think I have to agree.

Blackduck · 21/02/2011 10:15

Agree with Lady..

JamieLeeCurtis · 21/02/2011 10:16

Lady - I think I have to agree

DuplicitousBitch · 21/02/2011 10:16

but i hadn't even noticed that there were not tweet buttons on relationships. tbh that is a fairly crude way of policing social media usage.

ScaredOfCows · 21/02/2011 10:17

Eleison - I agree with you too.

Original poster
wannaBe · 21/02/2011 10:17

but if the poster hadn't posted that she'd tweeted the thread no-one would be any the wiser as to who had tweeted it.

Posters tweet sensitive threads all the time. threads from relationships section where the buttons are removed. They can't be banned because mn hq have no idea who they are - they might not even be members because anyone can copy/paste any thread into twitter without having to even be logged in.

So why should this poster actually be banned? for tweeting about a thread and doing something that dozens of other people (including mn hq) do all the time? or for admitting to having done it.

OP posts:
cyb · 21/02/2011 10:17

I hadn't noticed the buttons weren't there either. But am rarely on Relationships

ScaredOfCows · 21/02/2011 10:18

Social media usage wouldn't need policing if people just acted with common sense and decency, instead of falling over themselves in their rush to overshare and gossip

FreeButtonBee · 21/02/2011 10:18

It's not obvious that MN don't want threads from Relationships to be tweeted though. I certainly hadn't noticed that they had removed those buttons and my DH would reckon that I live on here...

Plus I haven't a clue how those buttons work so if I were going to share a thread from here, I would prob just copy and paste.

ambarth · 21/02/2011 10:20

YANBU.

LtEveDallas · 21/02/2011 10:20

Hence the reason that even when I have really needed to speak to someone, I haven't.

The fact that within that board there are no Twitter or FB links should say volumes to the posters within.

MN removed those links for a reason - but until all posters can understand that (and I really wouldnt have thought it was that hard to understand) then I will continue to post on inconsequential matters only.

Which is a shame, because maybe I havent got the kind of support / advice I could have done with had I been more open. I could be 'found' via MN, I've no doubt, but not for anything that would make me more than just 'cringe' a bit. Some of the things I've been dealing with recently would destroy me (in a personal way) if they became public knowledge.

I dont understand why anyone would defend that posters actions.

DuplicitousBitch · 21/02/2011 10:21

i thought mn was based on oversharing and gossip?

LoopyLoopsHulaHoops · 21/02/2011 10:21

Here we go again...

In the relationships topic, as well as bereavement and a few other areas, it was decided that the FB and Twitter links should be removed as it is not appropriate to bring extra attention to sensitive, advice-seeking threads.

Yes, it is in the public domain. But is there any need to bring it to the attention of people who are not simply trying to offer advice?

As for "nasty name-calling", most of that on that thread has been directed at Dittany, who is on the other side of the fence from you and the person who tweeted, and also has had very little to do with the Twitter fallout.

Peopl should think about the OP and others (children especially) involved before taking sensitive subject matter into the bigger public domain. OP's kids won't be on MN, but they may well be on Twitter. Imagine coming across your family business like that? Do you think it is fair? Would you like your kids to go through that? Then try and treat sensitive topics with a little sensitivity.

RailwayChild · 21/02/2011 10:22

I think your post raises a wider issue wanna be

You are right it cannot be policed and you cannot rely on people to be sensitive/kind or thoughtful (the opposite of that tbh!)

I think 'whoring out a thread' for attention sums it up well

I'd just say posters should be made well aware that this will happen......to protect themself

TheShriekingHarpy · 21/02/2011 10:23

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

JamieLeeCurtis · 21/02/2011 10:23

I've decided to leave MN. This is kind of the last straw

DuplicitousBitch · 21/02/2011 10:23

actually i think it is the op's responsibility not to share delicate information about her family if it makes them identifiable.

Original poster
wannaBe · 21/02/2011 10:25

"Yes, it is in the public domain. But is there any need to bring it to the attention of people who are not simply trying to offer advice?" and you think that everyone who reads threads on here only wants to offer advice? As far as I could see most of that thread was about people wanting to voice their personal opinions on the rights and wrongs of the porn industry, and were far from wanting to offer advice.

OP posts:
squeakytoy · 21/02/2011 10:26

I think you will find it was Dittany and her support team who were doing the nasty name calling actually!

LaWeasel · 21/02/2011 10:27

I have no idea what any of you are talking about.

BUT - I had no idea the tweet/fb buttons were not on some topics, and I spend a lot of time on MN! Afaik, there was no public service announcement and it doesn't say at the top of those topics.

However I do think it is unnecessary and mean to tweet about something sensitive.

TheShriekingHarpy · 21/02/2011 10:27

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ScaredOfCows · 21/02/2011 10:27

Loopy - it seems that people really couldn't give a toss whether it is fair or not.

RailwayChild - yes it does sum it up well.

MyGoatsBeenGot · 21/02/2011 10:29

I don't get it? Confused

I don't use twitter or FB anyway, but I fail to see why anyone would share a thread from here on either of those?

Or am I missing something?