........to not feel happy about children posting on here?

[sallyandherarmy]

Just that really.

I thought this was an 'adult' site.

Kids posting makes me feel rather uncomfortable.

I have replied to a 'child' on another post, although something tells me that it isn't really a kid posting. Which also feels not right. :(

Well if any 14 year olds want to join me on a thread about their memories of the 1980s or the peri menopause good luck to them.

MN can’t stop children wandering the site, browsing and posting unless they bring in pornsite-esq registration.

Wouldn't be a bad thing considering how easy it is for trolls (and children) to sign up to be honest.

MN isn’t a private club. It’s more like a coffee shop.

You might talk about fisting in the toilets at a private club. Not so much in a coffee shop.

I’ve only been here five or six years so I guess I’ve always known it as a very large quite open site fairly heavily infiltrated by trolls.

And I don’t see the need for graphic details tbh. My posting history is predominantly about sexual abuse. I state it happened and the impact on my mental health but I have never gone into graphic / physical detail. Because obviously that is wank fodder.

If you share graphic details you have to accept you’re taking a huge risk. You can argue with me all you like but it’s still true. Anyone can be a member, any old journo or child or pervert can access posts after signing up. They can also copy posts onto their computer and keep them forever.

Of course it can't. But it can stop them from posting while freely admitting to being a child. Which would remove the onus from the posters in the sex topics to advanced search everyone they speak to.

They could also put a massive disclaimer at the top of the topic and threads, similar to the one they have in all relationships threads, stating that MN does not have a set policy on how to handle child posters and so users should be aware when posting that they may be talking to a child.

That was to Boom Boom

No and why wouldn't they post there age? Because they get critized like mad about being on here and being a child. So yeah there kinda is a situation.

They could also put a massive disclaimer at the top of the topic and threads, similar to the one they have in all relationships threads, stating that MN does not have a set policy on how to handle child posters and so users should be aware when posting that they may be talking to a child.

Actually that's a very good idea because I'm sure there are lots of posters who don't realise children are welcome here, by the site owners.

Perhaps you could start a thread in Site Stuff suggesting this?

@PiecesofHate. I think the book advice might have been my DD. She had a phase of looking at the teenagers threads and occasionally AIBU. She has now moved on Modern Family!

Shapely you seem to be suggesting MN should operate a don’t ask, don’t tell policy?

Shapely you seem to be suggesting MN should operate a don’t ask, don’t tell policy

I'm actually suggesting they attempt to moderate the age group of their users like most other sites do. Unless you think the likes of Facebook have age checks, however effective they may be, in order to implement "don't ask don't tell"?

Worra, I may well do that if we don't get another comment from HQ indicating they're keeping an eye on the suggestions and concerns here.

I'd much rather my kid got their education (sexual and otherwise) from mumsnet than anywhere else on the Internet

I'd much rather my kid got their education, especially sexual, from me. Their parent. Because that's a big fucking part of parenting.

Shapely Facebook are engaging in a CYA exercise because of US regulation (as do most US sites). Nothing more. They certainly aren’t effectively regulating the age of their users.

I have been on a forum before where some areas were 'age-limited' (it was a ballet dance forum) and there were sections for young dancers, where adults were not allowed to post (except for moderators), and sections for adults where young dancers were not allowed to post. Obviously there is never a guarantee that someone isn't lying, but it does help a bit.

But then what do people want the age limit to be? Because 16 is the legal age of consent, so that would seem reasonable to me, but a lot of people are talking about not wanting under 18s.

BoomBoomsCousin, should I have added a disclaimer stating that Facebook is an example and that it is commonplace among the vast majority of 'members only' sites to restrict membership based on age?

This isn’t a members only site Shapely. But even so, that is still just an ineffective CYA measure. Teens are all over the Internet.

This isn’t a members only site Shapely.

It is in as much as you must sign up with an email address in order to post and individual users can be monitored and banned.

Regardless, that particular rabbit hole is one I won't be continuing further down with you. Because my point is about removing the legal risk from the user base, not about how to effectively stop underage people doing things we don't want them to.

Why not simply have a box-tick at registration that the person registering is over 18 (or even over 16 if people are worried about young parents). And then remove accounts where the poster is telling people they are underage.

As has been pointed out by loads of people, it's not just what they see by reading threads, it's that announcing that they are 12/13/14/15 is an invitation to the many hairyhanded truckers to engage them in "conversation" and even to contact them by pm.

And if the parents presume that because it's a parenting site, mostly populated by parents, it's safe for their child to interact with all the posters on it, they are extraordinarily stupid.

Shapely, I've reported your post and asked if someone from HQ might take a look at the disclaimer suggestion and tell us what they think.

Yes I'm fully aware of that Motherforking, thank you.

However, not all children feel comfortable talking to their parents about sex. Lots and lots are getting their education from porn (90% have seen graphic porn by the age of 13) so please excuse me for thinking it's likely that teenagers aren't getting all of their knowledge from their parents.

Shapely what legal risk?

See my previous comments Boom

Thanks Worra, I'll report it myself too, saves doing a full post on it.

Shapely you haven’t provided any information on legal risks. Only a hypothetical which for some reason posits that mens rhea will not apply, even though that’s the basis of our criminal justice system.

*rea

Boom, if you have real knowledge of where a poster would stand in the scenario I outlined, please do share it rather than bristling because I posed the question rather than professing to know the answer.

There is no English law that criminalizes you for inadvertently talking about graphic sex to someone you did not know was a minor.