To think that the Daily Mail should be prevented from using mumsnet thread for its articles

[Atenco]

I am a bit concerned about the number of mumsnet threads appearing in the Daily Mail. IMHO this could end up being dangerous for some posters

[NarpIsNotACunt]

Honey

I think my Cunt stands out a bit more though

[Sparklingbrook]

If you don't want your thoughts in the press don't post them on MN. Simple.

[NarpIsNotACunt]

I also don't think my new name is very clever. It's rather crass, actually

[Buckinbronco]

The stories I've seen the always blank out the user name from the screen shot anyway so don't see how it makes a difference?

[Randomposter]

This is why the name change facility is such a good thing. It's here to protect your identity. I just don't understand people who never n/c, because no matter how careful you think you're being, if you've been posting for years under the same name you've undoubtedly given out info about your RL.
& then - 'Kaboom'! you're in the daily mail talking about your love of anal, or how you happily leave your baby for 4 hours whilst you go & get your hair done.

[WellErrr]

Threads like this don't help.

They love pissing the wimmin off. That's why they're doing it more.

[DameDiazepamTheDramaQueen]

HQ love it,thy won't stop it! All free advertising.

[frikadela01]

I don't see it as lazy journalism.... its just modern journalism. You'd be a pretty crap journalist if you didn't make use of a resource that is accessed by thousands of people everyday.

And if people are worried about being "outed" or whatever then they shouldn't post. It's hardly as if mn is in any way private.

[TrillKitten]

Posting on sites like this is like speaking to a group of friends in a pub, not like chatting in your sitting room. You can be overheard by anyone and what they do with what they hear cannot legally be protected in any way. It's not the pub's fault if there's a journalist DM employee there and something you say gets used. It's rude to eavesdrop, of course, and it's lazy and unethical maybe but remember the DM is happy to hack the phones of dead/missing children so I fail to see why their lack of decency still shocks anyone. TL;DR If you wouldn't say it aloud in the pub, in earshot of strangers, do not post it here. It is not private

[Sparklingbrook]

Random there is such a thing as not namechanging plus not over sharing on MN. You don't have to post your innermost thoughts on a daily basis.

[Oysterbabe]

The wedding thread was on Have I got News for You!

This latest one though, the op might be forced to tell her husband she left the baby now I guess.

[DameDiazepamTheDramaQueen]

I hate NC!

I'm with Sparkling on this one.

[Randomposter]

But you also don't want to be constantly on guard, that's not proper conversation is it?
what's the point of 'joining the debate' if you don't actually say very much?

[HoneyDragon]

No ones cunt stands out on mnet for fucks sake. It's sweary central

Look at the editing top notch journo Tom Peckerhead had to do to our posts to get them to read as suitably ghastly and shockable.

[DameDiazepamTheDramaQueen]

Random- I think it's a good rule of thumb actually, to be on guard when posting.

[WellErrr]

No ones cunt stands out on mnet for fucks sake.

😂😂😂😂

[Sparklingbrook]

YY always be guarded. I can enjoy MN without spilling every detail of my family and sex life. I can never understand all the oversharing and posting of controversial AIBUs, it isn't compulsory.

[NerrSnerr]

I agree with Sparkling. Even if someone did figure out who I was it would be fine because I am not saying anything too personal or mean about anyone in real life.

[Pagwatch]

Random

When I am on MN I'm not guarded about my opinions.
I am guarded about things that feel private of deeply personal.

I think it's entirely possible to be open and engaged and free with your thoughts without ever having to discuss anal. I've managed to be on here for nearly 10 years without ever having to give details of my sex life or anything I'd be embarrassed to read in the DM.
I would probably have to apologise to her for the liberal swearing but that's it really.

[ShebaShimmyShake]

Yes, adding myself to the unpopular view. It is lazy and weak churnalism,but not unethical. MN is a public and very well known website, everything on it is very much in the public domain. It's no different to someone on Netmums mentioning a thread they saw here.

I don't like the Mail, but I can't get worked up over it quoting a public post.

[ThenLaterWhenItGotDark]

Maybe if people stopped inventing the most ludicrous fake stories for the laffs (and a "Classics" nomination), the journalists would get bored.

And some people are so naive they just need their internet privileges revoked. Permanently.

No-one is anonymous, ever. Someone was being a GF on a thread over the weekend, and yes, I AS'd her. A quick perusal of about 10 of her posts told me where she lived, what she did, how many kids (and the dog) and her MIL's age (and the fact that her story bashing her kids' school was completely made up because the school was closed that day for polling ) Obviously she might have changed some of the details to keep her anonymous, but she didn't strike me as bright enough tbh.

Namechanging is also a bit of a red herring. It's usually very difficult to stop writing in a certain way, or using certain words, or being interested in certain topics.

[ThenLaterWhenItGotDark]

(and to be honest, the quality of the trolling on here has plummeted to such depths over the last few years we should be thankful the Mail are still interested. I'd have thought we were becoming more the Sun's cup of tea given the penis-shit-tits "hilarity" which prevails. )

[Pagwatch]

Knowing a bit about the industry I wish people wouldn't keep calling it lazy journalism.
That's like being in a queue in a shop and blaming lazy shop staff.
Newspaper are using junior staff to find articles and click bait. They use unpaid graduate interns. The hours are long. The pay at the bottom is crap.
The trolls of Internet make MN a great site for bridezilla style stories. I blame people who read the side bar of shame type stuff.

[Buckinbronco]

How is employing kids to trawl Internet forums for non stories NOT lazy journalism?!

[Pagwatch]

My point is just that the individual journalists are not lazy in the same way that the sales staff in a shop which has chosen not to employ enough people are not lazy. That's not difficult to understand is it?