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?

I saw a discussion about MM on another forum and it made me quite glad Mumsnet tend to zap threads about her. Accusing her of outright lying or cynically timing the announcement etc. She seems to bring out some really nasty discussions. I can see why Maddie stuff is banned too. There's honestly nothing else that can be said about that topic other than speculation and conspiracy theories.

Mumsnet is a forum which is free to post on. However, MNHQ are the publishers of that post. As such, they can be sued for publishing defamatory/libellous posts. Generally, in that situation, they are asked for the identity of the poster, then MNHQ approaches the poster and says 'They want your details, shall we give them the details or shall we withdraw your post?' However, there are situations where they make the decision to delete any negative post/thread about an individual because they have been threatened with legal action they can't afford.

Re. politicians, it's accepted that individuals will react strongly to the people who make policy. When posts stray into personal attack, they are more likely to be deleted.

At the end of the day, MNHQ are aiming to make money. They don't want to be sued.

There's a big wide internet out there and all of us are free to make use of it. MN has good points and bad like everywhere else.

I'm not sure why you wanting to discuss something means MN must provide a platform to do so? That smacks to me of people whining about cancel culture. We have (within certain limits) a right to say what we want- that does not translate to a right to say it via whatever medium we want. Just as I roll my eyes at spluttering right wing twats screaming about cancel culture when a particular establishment does not wish to give them a platform, I roll my eyes at whining about this particular board not wishing to provide a platform for certain conversations. No one makes us post here and I guarantee whatever conversation it is that you want to have which MNHQ are not happy to host, you can have somewhere else.

Our local area Facebook group regularly has people posting similar questions OP. People aren't happy with admin decisions about which posts to delete. I think it's fair enough to ask because it's really annoying to be deleted. However, it's strange how often people invoke the idea of 'freedom of speech' as if they had a right to say certain things.

I think because MN or Facebook or similar are such a huge part of our lives we tend to think of them almost as public services like the BBC. In the case of MN there's a cosy community feel to it as well, almost as if it were a type of third sector organisation. But (obviously) it's not. It's a business. That means protecting income and avoiding bad publicity at all costs. It also means the business owners can decide to do whatever they like. They are under no obligation whatsoever to be fair or balanced or representative at all.

I don't think @BIWI was bitchy, just stating the facts.

I have been here for 9 years and as a newbie I possibly didn't know what was what but you soon pick it up and know when it's best just not to post about certain topics.

Also wanted to say that not only is MN a business and under no obligation to provide free speech or balance but also, we are not customers. We are the product.

I love MN and have been in here for more than 10 years. But I know it's not a community service.

@Sparklingbrook

I don't think *@BIWI* was bitchy, just stating the facts.

I have been here for 9 years and as a newbie I possibly didn't know what was what but you soon pick it up and know when it's best just not to post about certain topics.

I agree.

I also think MN is not "Just a business". It is a business, sure, but they have, on many occasions stuck to their principles, even if it means losing revenue. I'm thinking, for example, of not carrying Nestlé advertising, consulting us about Babylon Health (and not promoting it, when we said 'No way') and being one of the very few places where it's possible for Gender Critical arguments to be put forward.

Thanks all! Lots more really helpful comments. I actually do feel I understand it all a bit better.

@BIWI yes I don't understand it. 'In the spirit' isn't a complete sentence. In the spirit of what? I would love for someone to explain it to me and I don't think my using MN should be dependent on my understanding of a deliberately vague statement.

Also to everyone who assumes I want a MM pile on. I genuinely don't. I have no personal feelings about the woman one way or another. I am fascinated however by how the media, social media and other online platforms work to build representations of these people and think that's interesting to talk about.

@ThePlantsitter

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.

What do you mean by obvious schilling[sic}?

Mumsnet is the place to arrange a yoni massage if you are in Hull, or nearby.

@DynamoKev, Schills are people with a vested interest or an agenda, who lie about who they are and how the topic affects them, whilst posting comments supportive of a controversial political move or an election result.

Brexit and Jeremy Corbyn had quite blatant party activists posting back and forth on election, Brexit or party business.

Schills are planted in auction rooms to drive up bidding or in audiences at political gatherings to ask soft or manifesto oriented questions of their candidate.

Is this a “I want to discuss Megan Markle” thread

Yes.

’I am fascinated however by how the media, social media and other online platforms work to build representations of these people and think that's interesting to talk about.’

So start a thread about public figures in general.

Well I was going to ask what the OP wanted to discuss that she was being stopped from discussing but she isn't being very forthcoming about it.

@ilovesooty I have explained.

@AuntyPasta yes in a way it is. As I have explained.

OP, in the spirit is an old fashioned British phrase used about behaviour that adheres to a basic moral standard, the opposite being 'below the belt'. Often personal attacks against real people are seen as a bit low (or 'off' or 'not cricket') because that person isn't here to stand up for themselves and they're often a parent (and supporting other parents is a raisin d'etre of MN, according to MN). An ridiculous statement about vaccines is part of a debate that will be deconstructed by better informed posters and perhaps everyone ends up understanding more. Saying personally venomous things about a real person doesn't lead anywhere helpful. It's a bit like playing netball at school. You might beat the visiting team fair and square but you can't tell them they're ugly-one is fine, the other is a bit low. Or at work, you might do everything you can to beat the competition but you can't make them feel rubbish once you've succeeded, if you want to keep in the spirit. I don't know why MN uses boarding school, Boris style euphemisms to describe values that transcend class, possibly because it would sound more priggish otherwise and not cool.

I do think it's a bit sad that this phrase has to be explained.

Well I'm sorry you think it's sad. Maybe not everyone is British ? Or old fashioned ?

Thank you for your explanation though and this makes sense. Except for the fact that countless posts are 'not in the spirit' and are left to stand.

People come on here seeking support and instead are offered judgement, pile ons, sometimes outright abuse. Mothers told that they are making poor decisions with their children and money in exceptionally harsh terms. Well known posters offering utterly bullshit legal advice and sounding so wonderfully confident while doing so that it would be very easy to believe them. How is that 'cricket'?

So I get what you are saying but my main point/ question still stands - why are MN so inconsistent with their policing of posts? Why protect MM but allow random users (their product) to be spoken to poorly.

To be fair though many people on this thread have offered answers that do help me understand the situation a bit better and many more have given wee bitchy passive aggressive comments which make me chuckle. I actually wonder if that's the spirit of MN . I get it it's a business and I very naively did think of it as some kind of freedom of speech platform. Silly of me really! And I mean that genuinely.

Don't want to get this zapped but there's a current thread about a brand of soap and the first response sums up MN perfectly!

OP it’s obvious what you are asking is why Megan Markle can’t be ‘discussed’ (criticised.)

The reason is simply that a lot of people hold racially based prejudice towards her, perhaps not even consciously so. And your desperate want to discuss this suggests you do too.

And before anyone starts with the but it’s the same as it isn’t. A discussion about Kate Middleton might be critical and say something like that dress she wore was absolutely hideous and unflattering. OK, no issue with that. Apply the same to MM and it’s something like That dress was hideous. Who does she think she is wearing it? I thought she wanted to blend into the background.

MN’s history is not the best with racism. Good on them for trying to address it. With MM, no one is going to come out and say she is an (N) word, she has ideas above her station, who does she think she is ... but it’s constantly inferred. When that’s permitted, racism seeps in, and when racism seeps in, well, look at the events of the summer.

I hate the MM threads, when they turn a bit nasty, as they always do! I'm glad MNHQ moderate the shit out of those.

But as to the question "what is Mumsnet"? I do get why you're asking. I've been here for about 7 years now, with a few 'detoxes' along the way, but I feel as if I know my way around by now. I have had to report a poster who used to frequent this site. An older lady, childfree by choice and extremely proud of that fact, who used to post nasty messages on the conception board to people who were TTC. She said anyone who has children is selfish. I have also reported a poster who said she is also childfree and believes anyone having a baby, ESPECIALLY anyone with a MH issue, is an awful person. She said the reason she stayed on MN was because she liked to see parents struggling with parenthood; if she ever began to doubt her choice to be childfree, she made herself feel better by looking up threads where parents were having a terrible time. I don't think HQ did much about these sorts of posts and I am in mo way exaggerating btw, these were explicit posts.

I'm not saying nobody who is childfree should be on here. Far from it! Some of the most interesting posters are childless / childfree, BUT they are supportive of other women who do have children.

MN is a lot of things, but claiming it is "for parents" is extremely rich. It isn't. Parents are not protected on here at all. Something I always bear in mind when posting.

Oh and some of these posts I've just mentioned did break guidelines and were deleted, but the poster is prolific on here. And an extremely nasty piece of shit.

Dee is that poster still posting? That's absolutely outrageous behaviour.

I do feel bad sometimes when I see a deletion message that says they're a previously banned poster or a previous troll. It must be like a completely thankless groundhog day for MNHQ.

I think there are a few of those actually ... the ‘I hate being a parent’ threads roll round regularly and they always get waylaid by childless people triumphantly saying they made the right choice. I do wonder if some aren’t genuine for this reason, to be honest.

@Xiaoxiong

Dee is that poster still posting? That's absolutely outrageous behaviour.

I do feel bad sometimes when I see a deletion message that says they're a previously banned poster or a previous troll. It must be like a completely thankless groundhog day for MNHQ.

I did a quick search and believe she is. She is very nasty. I have no idea what she gets out of being on here. I think she must actually probably a very sad person IRL. Why MNHQ tolerates and therefore forces us to tolerate her, I have no idea.

Everyone is now desperate to know who it is! (I won’t ask, don’t worry!)