To say “I don’t give permission for this to be published in the daily mail” on a post is meaningless?

[AlternativePerspective]

I see this on threads and posts all the time. People saying that they don’t want this appearing in the tabloids so they don’t give permission.

Thing is, as much as I despise the Daily Mail and its ilk, the reality is that as soon as you write and publish a post on MN that post becomes the property of MN, and you lose all right to say what happens to it.

Added to which, you’re posting on a public platform, so again, you have no idea who is sharing it and where and when and to who else.

If people are that afraid of their posts appearing in the DM, then the starting point is probably to not post on a public platform.

Well, it's not so much that they wouldn't cut the line as much as it is that they might not be so inclined to send traffic towards something that's very critical of them. But I agree that if the story is juicy enough (by their standards), someone flapping about over not giving permission for their public post to be reported on isn't going to make a difference. The funny thing is that threads with those disclaimers are never the kind of thing the Fail would be interested in anyway.

What it wants is class war related stuff, and anything that pits women against each other.

@Justcallmebebes

"I don't think it's meaningless.

I mean yes it holds zero legal wait, but what newspaper is going to direct people to a page that talks about how awful they are?"

I'm pretty certain they edit that out

How are they going to edit out an OP in a link? I'm not talking about copy and paste.

I've never seen a thread with this disclaimer in get published. Has anyone else?

They don't care if the link leads to a thread slagging off their publication! Half the comments in their own paper are saying they are bastards.

@letmeadoreyou

I just love when people include it in incredibly mundane posts.

'FUCK OFF DAILY MAIL! Anyway, DH and I can't agree on a paint colour for the living room...'

Yep! Totally!

Totally pointless. As are the user names insulting the paper or their staff. Because the journalist will just write:

An anonymous British woman has sparked controversy on MN by stating she didn't like hummus. The woman posted blah blah blah. Non-offensive user name responded blah blah blah. A subsequent poster took to the forum to argue that the first two were wrong.

I didn't choose my username to repel the Mail (I'd have done much worse to old Geordie if that had been my intention). It was inspired by a poster's completely true story that absolutely definitely happened about accidentally flashing her bum at the entire board of directors over Zoom. I figured if it had really happened, which obviously it had, there was surely only one boardroom that could have been.

But yeah, I agree that the Mail won't care if someone has refused permission for something that doesn't require any, or has told them to piss off. But those stories are never interesting anyway. A general "I hate the Mail" sentiment is not really an issue for them. But driving readers towards an OP with a name like PaulDacreRimsGeese (as there once was, when Dacre had the honour)...ergh, that feels a bit different. It's more personal and more vulgar.

Still, I could test the theory I guess. I could start a thread under this name all about how I've been invited to a wedding and my problem is that I'm seven stone lighter and ten years younger than the bride so should I wear this sexy dress and upstage her? Oh, and the reason I'm seven stone lighter is because I'm a SAHM who married very well so I know how important it is to stay attractive for your man while shopping at Harrods/a working mother with a fantabulous career who earns more than any man and therefore has the time and energy to stay fit and healthy rather than becoming a boring gelatinous domestic drudge. (Either will do for the purpose, it just needs to be divisive and misogynistic.)

They wouldn't be able to resist it usually...

It's just quite funny that people think that what they write on here is important enough to be lifted

@PickleStick

It's just quite funny that people think that what they write on here is important enough to be lifted

It's not that the stories are important, but they do get lifted by the red tops, pretty frequently. We all know this, which is another reason not to post anything that you don't want appearing there. Although why it's OK on this huge public website and not that one is another question.

@GeordieGreigsButtButtZoom

I've seen loads of posts quoted in the tabloids and on the old Matthew Wright TV show where the names were just pixelated out. Mostly because they contain swearwords.

Your last sentence has it. Swear words, pixellated, are fine.

I think you're missing the point, the person replying to you meant they would just pixelate your user name, or part of it, and still use your comment. Your username is not what is preventing them from publishing

I think you're missing the point, the person replying to you meant they would just pixelate your user name, or part of it, and still use your comment. Your username is not what is preventing them from publishing.

No, I got that. But while I don't think the Mail gives a toss about people saying in the abstract that it's a big old meanie (that could be a selling point), I also don't think it will drive traffic towards a thread with a prominent personal attack on the editor, by name and with vulgarity. It could blur the name but it knows many people will look for the thread, and they'll see it right there. That feels a bit different.

Swear words aren't an issue, papers print those with asterisks all the time.

@GeordieGreigsButtButtZoom

I think you're missing the point, the person replying to you meant they would just pixelate your user name, or part of it, and still use your comment. Your username is not what is preventing them from publishing.

No, I got that. But while I don't think the Mail gives a toss about people saying in the abstract that it's a big old meanie (that could be a selling point), I also don't think it will drive traffic towards a thread with a prominent personal attack on the editor, by name and with vulgarity. It could blur the name but it knows many people will look for the thread, and they'll see it right there. That feels a bit different.

Swear words aren't an issue, papers print those with asterisks all the time.

Of course it will and it does.

Names like that have been around Mumsnet for years and it's never made any difference.

The Daily Mail has always been Mumsnet's most read and linked to newspaper and Mumsnet has always been the Dail Mail's most copied and linked to forum.

It was ever thus.

Of course I know usernames that describe editors as rimming geese or mooning directors on Zoom won't stop the papers lifting from the site in general. I do think they will stop them from quoting and screen shotting threads and posts that have such usernames in a prominent position (though that wasn't on my mind when I made this one). Saying in your thread that you "don't give permission" for them to do it will just make them laugh, as will "Daily Mail fuck off" or whatever, but that's a kind of abstract insult that probably plays into their branding anyway. A personal, vulgar one that names the editor is more off-putting, though only to the paper with that editor. It might encourage the competition, now I think about it.

Still, I could test it. If you see a thread that tells a story that plays on misogynistic stereotypes and class war, pitting women against each other, and the OP is called GeordieGreigsGapingAnalFissure or something like that, please participate to increase its prominence and don't report it. It's a scientific experiment, crucial for the advancement of human knowledge.

@GeordieGreigsButtButtZoom

Of course I know usernames that describe editors as rimming geese or mooning directors on Zoom won't stop the papers lifting from the site in general. I do think they will stop them from quoting and screen shotting threads and posts that have such usernames in a prominent position (though that wasn't on my mind when I made this one). Saying in your thread that you "don't give permission" for them to do it will just make them laugh, as will "Daily Mail fuck off" or whatever, but that's a kind of abstract insult that probably plays into their branding anyway. A personal, vulgar one that names the editor is more off-putting, though only to the paper with that editor. It might encourage the competition, now I think about it.

Still, I could test it. If you see a thread that tells a story that plays on misogynistic stereotypes and class war, pitting women against each other, and the OP is called GeordieGreigsGapingAnalFissure or something like that, please participate to increase its prominence and don't report it. It's a scientific experiment, crucial for the advancement of human knowledge.

I’m sorry, but how naive are you? Of course they will use your post, no matter what ridiculous name you call yourself by because you think you’re being clever. It doesn’t stop them at all, they will just blank out your user name.

I wish people would start understanding that nothing they post on MN is confidential and everything is potential media fodder.

@jaffar

I don't think it's meaningless.

I mean yes it holds zero legal wait, but what newspaper is going to direct people to a page that talks about how awful they are?

You sometimes see tweets where the DM have asked for permission to use them, have been denied (often while also calling the DM names), but then have used them anyway. So I don't think they care honestly.