What actually is Mumsnet?

[sonicbook]

This is possibly a bit flouncey and I'm sure I'll come to regret posting but what actually is Mumsnet? What is its ethos or its purpose? Why are the powers that be so keen to shut down certain conversations while letting others which may be as equally toxic or inaccurate stand?

I find their rules so strange. Why do they allow people to spread potentially dangerous misinformation and pseudo science on coronavirus threads but people can't discuss certain celebrities or figures in the public eye? Why are politicians okay for bashing but not other high profile figures?

It’s a business

The people who run it do so as they see fit.

HTH.

It may be a business but it’s an increasingly angry and hostile one.

I'm honestly not sure what I thought it was. A monetised chat forum I suppose.

What staggers me is the way in which they are so controlling with the narrative which is interesting on a platform that relies on the speech of thousands and thousands of strangers.

I also don't fully understand the hostility and aggressiveness it seems to generate.

Here you go ; )
About us

Thank you!

However I would say that this still isn't clear. What motivates you to moderate what you do or, perhaps more importantly, what you don't.

OP UK unsure what your point is

Every business controls their brand and their narrative. You’re not always going to agree with how they do it.

If you’ve been warned for posting something in particular that’s to take up with the mods.

UK??

Should say I’m.

Personally, I think the anger you see on the site now reflects how everyone feels since life after Covid 19. All of us are angrier, more frustrated, more anxious and more fearful than before. Unfortunately, some people's only outlet for that anger is being a keyboard warrior, which I think explains the rise in the angry, hostile and nasty behaviour on here this year.

If you don’t like it you know you don’t have to click on it right? You can just carry on past

[quote]What motivates you to moderate what you do or, perhaps more importantly, what you don't. [/quote]
We moderate against the Talk guidelines.

The coronovirus won't sue if untruths are written about it - a celebrity/public figure can and will. (Although I bet the bastard would if it could.)

@sonicbook

This is possibly a bit flouncey and I'm sure I'll come to regret posting but what actually is Mumsnet? What is its ethos or its purpose? Why are the powers that be so keen to shut down certain conversations while letting others which may be as equally toxic or inaccurate stand?

I find their rules so strange. Why do they allow people to spread potentially dangerous misinformation and pseudo science on coronavirus threads but people can't discuss certain celebrities or figures in the public eye? Why are politicians okay for bashing but not other high profile figures?

Do they allow misinformation? I've reported a few conspiracy theory threads recently and they've been deleted. Not because I reported, but because lots of others did too. That's happened more frequently lately or that's my impression, but maybe that's because there are more dodgy threads to delete.

I agree my post may not have been clear as my thoughts surrounding this aren't particularly clear either truth be told.

Yes I've seen clear misinformation. Poor legal advice, inaccurate science surrounding Covid/ vaccines etc. In theory that's all fine. We are as they say grown ups. This is a chat forum. We accept that we cannot accept information as fact.

Why are some things so very clearly off limits though? Like Megan Markle for example. Is it purely an advertising decision? Is it a legal thing? Why could I dish out false vaccine information for example but can't have a totally subjective moan about someone's article that they chose to publish.

It's difficult isn't it. I went mad after the Brexit vote because so much obvious schilling was allowed on here, or not deleted anyway.

But Mumsnet as a business and maybe its directors as individuals, not sure, can be prosecuted for what is said on the boards. So it's in their interests to delete stuff about public figures who are known to be litigious. You can't just say 'this isn't our opinion' unfortunately. It's the flip side of being able to have what WE say published in the Daily Mail and whatnot without us being able to sue them for copyright infringement.

Someone on here once said 'we are the product' about Mumsnet because our eyes are what the advertisers pay for, and I think it's worth remembering that.

Nineteen years later and who'd have thought it would come to this?

I think it's got something to do with the demographic that mumsnet attracts. A lot of mumsnet users (not all of them of course) are middle class and/or affluent.

Mumsnet users by large tend to hold more liberal views than the general population. That's why you would get a lot of flack if you for example posted a thread praising Trump or Boris Johnson.

Likewise, if you came here to criticise Megan Markle, you would get a lot of negative responses as this contradicts the feminist/progressive viewpoints that a majority of mumsnet users hold.

I think the moderators on mumsnet are doing a fairly good job. I haven't seen them trying to censor people.

From what I've seen, they only take threads down if someone is obviously trolling or positing inappropriate stuff (e.g. pornographic stuff, inciting people to violence, revealing the real identity of people)

I personally love mumsnet, it has been a massive lifesaver for me during my pregnancy, my postnatal health problems and surviving the first 4 months of parenthood in a global pandemic.

A good question for a Media Studies exam.

The way it's moderated means there has to be a report before anyone at MN sees it. I like it that way, I would hate for the moderators to be micromanaging every comment.

MN Talk isn't a place to go for accurate/factual up to date information on anything there's the whole internet if you want to find some proper facts.

@sonicbook

Why are some things so very clearly off limits though? Like Megan Markle for example. Is it purely an advertising decision? Is it a legal thing?

Threads/posts about Meghan Markle tend to be deleted because they very quickly descend into racist threads/posts. Although all the racists deny this vehemently, of course

You only have to look at the threads that have sprouted up today since her piece about her miscarriage to see that.

I think moderating a lively and busy site like mumsnet without the resources of a Zuckerburg must be a nightmare OP, and personally I think they do a really good job. I love mumsnet. My grown up daughter who has very strong opinions thinks it's the devil's spawn. I really can't get to the bottom of why though, so we don't talk about it.
Mumsnet brings me huge joy, much amusement, and lots of really good discussions to engage with. Of course there's lots of shocking, racist, misogynist, controversial posts and a fair bit of cruelty. I really think the mods do their best to keep it all as fair and healthy as poss without being heavy-handed. But one of the people I love best in the whole world really disagrees with that assessment. So there you go.

What they choose to delete is presumably partly self-preservation. They don't want to be sued. Some people in the public eye are much more litigious than others. As for the other stuff... it's a matter of a opinion what constitutes 'toxic', and even what constitutes 'inaccurate', considering the amount of disagreement there is even among experts. Anyone who bases their decisions on what some randomer on MN said has only themselves to blame.

In any case, I think dressing up the question of what MN does and doesn't delete as a philosophical question about the nature of its existence is a bit of a stretch tbh, since the vast majority of 'what Munsnet is' is uncontroversial chat.

Such a non-thread.

Bit like saying 'what exactly is the internet?'

It's the sharing of information. We used to have the Town Crier and now we have MN