to think people should stop whining about the FB Like button, especially those who don't understand it.

[NeuromanticisedVisionsofXmas]

It changes nothing.
MN has been linking to FB for a long time. People have been posting threads to FB for a long time. If anyone likes the thread it appears on their wall but it does not identify you in anyway.

And the main point...everything you write here is already on the internet for the entire universe to read.

There is an FB like button on everything now. Everywhere you look online. If you don't like it, don't click it and your life will go on exactly the same as before.

The foot stamping and moaning about a minor insignificant change is really getting tedious.

Neuro But if that is your worry, just set your FB not to accept any posts from Mumsnet on your wall. Then you can flail around your keyboard/touchscreen all you like without the paranoia worry that you will be winkled out.

Many people wouldn't have a clue how to do that. As others have said many times it is ok for posters who have no worries, who understand what is going on. For vunerable posters going through a shit time, the linklike button is a real worry.

If a someone posts about their H's aggressive behaviour, has one too many and accidently links likes some thread onto FB, which makes them recognisable. Said H could then trace their patner on MN and then search other posts they have made. It could put people in danger.

The fact you have always been able to link like does not stand up as an arguement because most people didn't know about it. If they had done they would have complained.

Just read your last post Neuro.

MN is supposed to support parents. Including those who are anxious and vunerable.

Of course not, that was just an example, but there was already a way to link for the people who wanted it.

What was the daily mail farce?!

MN is meant to give a shit, surely?

mn collaboration with dm,shared topics from mn appeared in the dm
cue a
huge amount of harrumphing
mn gorn to dogs
not like ole days
...threats of deregistering and folks threaten to go offsky

then it all petered out,few rattles out pram then mn as usual

Some people shouldn't be allowed the internet, really.

I also want to know about the Daily Mail farce, c'mon someone!!

as i said dm and mnhq collaborated on topics
thats all
dm dipped into mn ran copy about topics
many got hysterical and over reacted. few folk dereg apparently
are you a dm journo replaced is you a troll,as insult du jour

They ran a tiny feature for about a fortnight, tucked away in one of their supplements, saying "This is what Mumsnet is talking about this week" or somesuch. Which was things like "Are packed lunches too healthy nowadays", or "Is there really such a thing as an ideal school run dress?". However, lots of MNers got terrified that the front page headline about that day's teaching strike would be replaced with 'JANET FROM GRIMSBY HAS PAINFUL PILES (and we can tell you all her usernames so you can search for the cystitis incident too)'

HTH.

Well I can completely understand why that would have been terrifying.

usual mn histrionics about change and predictions of doom from a few
usual mn gorn to dogs comments
fuss about nowt really

Oh, and some people flounced on principle, as the Daily Mail is a hateful rag, despite it's constant linkage on here, on the grounds that it was a pact with the devil (despite it being done without MNHQ's permission or endorsement), and thus breached Justine's presumed agreement in 2001 to emulate Gandhi in all things.

HTH also.

actually mn was aware of the collaboration and acquiesced
in fact the quip was plenty rl journo would have bitten hand to do collaboration witha newspaper. mn suggesting sour grapes from others

Anyone can moan about anything - tis a free country, allegedly.
It's naive to presume that MN will refrain from doing whatever fits in with their business plans though.... although they do a very good line in appeasement and lip service,

So, it's all a bit of a waste of froth and affrontedness.

Not initially, they weren't. They stepped in and negotiated veto of topics. Because the Mail could print whatever they liked, because this is in the public domain, excepting extended chunks of directly quoted texts under fair usage/copywrite law. So it was damage limitation.

And it was a shit and boring paragraph or two, and was swiftly dropped. If Aitch struggles to make the round-up funny because of the general level of obscenity etc here, the Mail were never going to manage it.

*text under copyright, sorry.

An ex Mnetter who is also a Daily Mail journo reproduced an entire thread from Mumsnet as her column for the week. A straight cut and paste job. In the first week it was a thread started by a woman in a very difficult situation job-wise after maternity leave (iirc) which had lots of pretty unique information about her and her case in it. I think (although I can't quite believe this is true) that all the usernames on the thread were printed in the paper too. This went on for a couple of weeks, then Justine got back from holiday and was evidently completely unaware that this was going on.

Thank you for putting the terrifying saga of Janet from Grimsby's piles into context.

So that's why it's good to swear on MN ...

Some of us don't want it because it's really a bit thick.

Mn were not aware of the collaboration, but had a think about it and then proposed a more formal one.

yes intellectual copy right etc is tricky but mn were collaborating with dm,and from recollection the mnhq line was pretty much so what

Quite a few people changed their names to sweary ones to stop getting published in the Daily Heil.

I think they'd probably just asterix the sweary bits out anyway.