Why didn't Mumsnet delete my post??

[Larafromthe80s]

Just curious... I started a thread which detailed a lot of information about a situation I was in, thankfully I'd name changed for it!
Anyway it blew up and got picked up by a regional media outlet
I reported the thread to Mumsnet and continued to do so over the following 72 hours, as well as emailing them directly.
By this point the article was in 3 nationals and around 6 regionals

A family member screen shot the news article from his Facebook newsfeed to me saying as a joke "this isn't you isn't" as he he hadn't actually read the article, only the headline and thought it was just coincidental. And it was me 😖
I was mortified and am living in fear that the people it was about will have seen it.
Why did Mumsnet take so long to delete it, is that normal?

@Sparklingbrook

Erm...no. I'm saying if they get upset that it's going to be deleted if the whole thread gets deleted, THEN they can start their own thread about their experiences if they so desire

Erm well they could I suppose but if they were specifically posting to help someone it’s unlikely. 🤷‍♀️

Well then it doesn't really matter, does it? If they're not bothered enough to post their own thread, then how much are they going to care that their post was deleted from someone else's thread?

It's a pretty weak argument against deleting threads...

CaroleFuckingBaskin:
They probably get paid for a thread....
marqueses:
Paid by whom?
Why would anyone pay to post a link to a free website?

Advertisers. Every time someone loads up a page, adverts are loaded too. Every ad loaded, every click on an ad, every purchase on an ad generates revenue. A tiny amount, but tiny amounts add up.

On the issue at hand, try to think of whatever you write online as being the same as if it were printed in a newspaper or book. Once it's printed and distributed, there's usually no way of recalling it. Especially once copies have been sold.

The difference with writing online is that it's distributed to the public immediately.

Those posting saying GDPR does not apply are like those people who said that Ring doorbells which store images are not covered by GDPR. They are commenting based on what they want the law to be. I remember before this court case multiple people on MN said of course GDPR does not apply as anyone should expect to be filmed in public.

Ring doorbells are a good comparison. Under GDPR CCTV is explicitly covered, but RING doorbells are not. But they are not explicitly excluded either. But like CCTV they record and usually store personal images on public property, so could reasonably be expected to be included. However, only a court case could make that explicit. And a court case has said they are covered, so that is now case law.

Forums are not explicitly mentioned in GDPR legislation, but the identifiable personal information that some people post clearly meets the definition under the act. And MN is clearly the processor of that information. So I don't see how it couldn't apply.

You may think it shouldn't apply because the person themselves is posting that information, but that is not how GDPR works. People can withdraw consent for information freely given in most circumstances.

Well then it doesn't really matter, does it? If they're not bothered enough to post their own thread, then how much are they going to care that their post was deleted from someone else's thread?

That makes no sense.

@MorningStarling

On the issue at hand, try to think of whatever you write online as being the same as if it were printed in a newspaper or book. Once it's printed and distributed, there's usually no way of recalling it. Especially once copies have been sold.

The difference with writing online is that it's distributed to the public immediately.

That is not true. Books are recalled and pulped after court cases. It may be relatively rare, but it happens. It is true that whatever the law, once something is out there, it is very difficult in practice to stop it from spreading. Look at super injunctions taken out in Britain to stop media publishing details of something e.g. affair. Usually if there is interest, foreign press just publish it instead. And then it ends up on social media. Trying to play whack a mole with multiple social media platforms is a herculean task. So legally the British public should not be able to read about something, but making that happen in practice is almost impossible if there is enough public interest.

The whole question of GDPR/ personal data is interesting. I know nothing about it in legal terms, but in general terms, surely anything you post relating to you/your life is indeed personal data. It may not be recognisable to anyone who doesn't know you, or even lots of people who do, but it is still personal data. It may become more identifying paired with other things posted on separate threads under the same username of course, and that could provide a fair amount of information about you that you may be unhappy to remain in the public domain, even though you posted it in the first place. Yes, it's your own mistake, but it is understandable that you may not appreciate at the time and want to remove some of that personal data from the public record.

At least one journalist has been jailed for publishing a series of "hints" about individuals whose identities were protected. I didn't know these individuals and didn't even know of them other than in the context that was being written about, but it was clear to me that the journalist was publishing sufficient "personal information" about them that was easily confirmed by other sources, so I was able to identify them as individuals. (of course, without the media attention on this issue I wouldn't have known and wouldn't have identified them... but that's by the by) This wasn't a GDPR issue - rather a contempt of court one - but it does prove that personal information isn't limited to name/ dob etc in order to be recognisable.

I "willingly" give my personal data to sign up to marketing emails and so on, to get discounts - but am entitled to withdraw my consent from that at any time. And the company processing that data has to remove me from their list. That isn't public data, admittedly, but even if I agreed to make my name available on a list on a website as a condition, and then withdrew consent for that - while I couldn't stop anyone copying or anything while it was still available (fair enough) - I would expect it to be removed if I asked for it.

I'm not clear though whether MN is "processing" that personal data in GDPR terms - publishing it, definitely. Or indeed whether the DM is also therefore processing your personal data even if you didn't give it to them willingly. Otherwise anyone could write to a newspaper with a story they didn't like about them and get it removed on the grounds they are using personal data without consent! There must be a "public interest" (or journalism? ) exclusion to GDPR in that case - if it is even relevant. And MN would also fall under that too, I'd have thought, even though it's a different model. Though I'd have hoped, in good faith, they WOULD remove a post that I'd asked them to... albeit maybe not a whole thread, unless that thread would be unreadable as a result!

I hate that the media take stories from MNs OP. It is really lazy journalism. You have my sympathy. I have often wanted to ask for advice/get objective opinions but I'm too scared to post because of it. I think family/friends often take your side so sites like Mumsnet can be good to get a better perspective.

@ResilienceWanker

The whole question of GDPR/ personal data is interesting. I know nothing about it in legal terms, but in general terms, surely anything you post relating to you/your life is indeed personal data. It may not be recognisable to anyone who doesn't know you, or even lots of people who do, but it is still personal data. It may become more identifying paired with other things posted on separate threads under the same username of course, and that could provide a fair amount of information about you that you may be unhappy to remain in the public domain, even though you posted it in the first place. Yes, it's your own mistake, but it is understandable that you may not appreciate at the time and want to remove some of that personal data from the public record.

At least one journalist has been jailed for publishing a series of "hints" about individuals whose identities were protected. I didn't know these individuals and didn't even know of them other than in the context that was being written about, but it was clear to me that the journalist was publishing sufficient "personal information" about them that was easily confirmed by other sources, so I was able to identify them as individuals. (of course, without the media attention on this issue I wouldn't have known and wouldn't have identified them... but that's by the by) This wasn't a GDPR issue - rather a contempt of court one - but it does prove that personal information isn't limited to name/ dob etc in order to be recognisable.

I "willingly" give my personal data to sign up to marketing emails and so on, to get discounts - but am entitled to withdraw my consent from that at any time. And the company processing that data has to remove me from their list. That isn't public data, admittedly, but even if I agreed to make my name available on a list on a website as a condition, and then withdrew consent for that - while I couldn't stop anyone copying or anything while it was still available (fair enough) - I would expect it to be removed if I asked for it.

I'm not clear though whether MN is "processing" that personal data in GDPR terms - publishing it, definitely. Or indeed whether the DM is also therefore processing your personal data even if you didn't give it to them willingly. Otherwise anyone could write to a newspaper with a story they didn't like about them and get it removed on the grounds they are using personal data without consent! There must be a "public interest" (or journalism? ) exclusion to GDPR in that case - if it is even relevant. And MN would also fall under that too, I'd have thought, even though it's a different model. Though I'd have hoped, in good faith, they WOULD remove a post that I'd asked them to... albeit maybe not a whole thread, unless that thread would be unreadable as a result!

My understanding is that 'processing' under GDPR can be very minimal...Mumsnet converting your typed words into a forum post is processing.

@ResilienceWanker that is a really thoughtful post.
There is in journalism legally a test as to whether a story is in the public interest. This is frequently tested in court when famous people seek court injunctions or sue over published stories. What is in the public interest is a complex legal question.
But I would be hard-pressed to see why a stranger unknown to the public, writing about a personal family issue, would meet the test of a public interest issue.

@Sparklingbrook

Well then it doesn't really matter, does it? If they're not bothered enough to post their own thread, then how much are they going to care that their post was deleted from someone else's thread?

That makes no sense.

Are you quite alright? What's difficult to understand? You suggested people might be put out that they had shared their experiences on a thread which then gets deleted. I said 'that's OK, they can post their own thread'. You said 'they're unlikely to do that'. I said well then what's the issue? If they want to 'pour out their heart' on MN they can do so on their own thread. If they're not inclined to do so, they're obviously not that bothered.

[quote Monopolyiscrap]@ResilienceWanker that is a really thoughtful post.
There is in journalism legally a test as to whether a story is in the public interest. This is frequently tested in court when famous people seek court injunctions or sue over published stories. What is in the public interest is a complex legal question.
But I would be hard-pressed to see why a stranger unknown to the public, writing about a personal family issue, would meet the test of a public interest issue.[/quote]
Exactly monopolyiscrap (I agree, it really is crap ). They will obviously argue that there is public interest, as the public IS interested in it because they are clicking and engaging. And in terms of libel or invasion of privacy or whatever, I'd think we would be unlikely to succeed - mainly because, as many others have said, we've put our story in the public domain - but also are very unlikely to have the knowledge or finances to challenge the paper on those grounds in court!! They may also argue that while the data is personal, its not identifying (apart from to anyone who knows the situation personally - who would already have reached a conclusion as to who was unreasonable or whatever) so you're not suffering any financial or reputation loss as a result... blah, blah... As I think the bar in those kind of cases is different.

But if they are considered to be processing your personal data (as suggestions suggests, even if that is converting the forum post on MN to a newspaper article) then why aren't they bound by the obligation of "subject access requests" etc and people having the right to ask for removal of that data, which I think is a Thing?

I've had an article about me in a paper that I would rather have not been there (there, that's a piece of personal information right there...). It caused a lot of problems, and most of what it said was untrue. The journalist contacted me beforehand and asked for comments, but my employer didn't let me say anything and produced a statement to give to the journalist without my input. The whole thing felt really unfair (and indeed was!) and it was pre GDPR anyway. I weathered the shit show over the following week or so, and then got on with life. I'm not ashamed of it and am happy to talk about it to anyone who's interested (and many who aren't ). I was and am angry at the journalist, but his argument would have been it was in the public interest so the fact he used my personal data without my consent was irrelevant. The fact his interpretation of public interest was due to him ascribing incorrect motive/ interpretation to that personal data is what pissed me off. But hey... these things happen, and I wasn't able to set the record straight/ put my side across even though that was offered to me, as I was scared of my employer and didn't want to make things inadvertantly worse for me or anyone.

I suppose the whole thing is similar to journalists digging round to find old tweets from celebrities expressing "unacceptable" opinions, and using that against them years later... It's their personal data, but used in the "public interest" to discredit them. I appreciate it may not be a GDPR issue (partly as they hadn't asked for the incriminating evidence to be removed from twitter or wherever so the platform still had their consent to process it in that way), but I can't quite see how not!

But in my case I'm reeeeeaaaallly not a celebrity, and also hadn't done or said anything unacceptable so public interest in the situation shouldn't have extended to public interest in me iyswim. Similarly posters who end up in the DM - they haven't done anything wrong by posting, or indeed in their situation (necessarily ), but people ascribe intentions and motives and whatnot to them that they lose control over, which is why it can feel so painful, especially if they can be recognised personally- so to the OP.

@ResilienceWanker which is why I think MN do delete posts when an OP says it has become identifying towards them. But MNHQ does appear to delay deleting a post when it is getting them publicity.
But yes the cost of proving this suspicion and taking them to court is beyond most of its users.

Twitter does allow you to delete your own posts, so probably do comply with GDPR.
The fact that people copy the tweets just shows how difficult it is to erase something once it has been made public.

Ah, I didn't realise you could delete tweets yourself don't use it other than to complain to the council about missed bins Yes, fair enough.

I've had MN posts deleted, but it does sound a bit of a lottery. I've seen people saying "I'll put up a photo and then get MN to take it down in 15 min" which seems especially risky if it's not a given it will be/ has to be removed upon request! But then I suppose those aren't the kind of posts/ threads that people visit the site to see.

Maybe I should just add a fuck to the end of every post I make to have a sort of integrated self destruct button through guaranteed reports. Though I could see that getting me banned pretty quickly.

Personally I don’t get why we aren’t allowed to delete our own comments and posts. Why is that option even taken away from us. It’s ridiculous. Other sites like this allow for it.

Hi all. I'll try and answer a few questions.

@Larafromthe80s - thanks for getting in touch with us about your thread. We noted the concerns and took it down as soon as we became aware that it had been published elsewhere. Feel free to email us if you'd like to discuss privately.

As previous posters have noted, it's one of the downsides of Mumsnet being an open site that stories will be picked up by the press - it's important to remember that this is a public forum, searchable by Google, legally linkable to, and quotable by all. (The plus side of this is that there's loads of easy to find help, advice, support, and discussion on a huge range of issues).

Unfortunately, there's not a huge amount we can do about newspapers using threads, they would likely claim Fair Use and it would be difficult to challenge. We don't feed them stories or receive/give payment.

When someone asks for a thread to be withdrawn for privacy reasons, we'll take a look and more often than not, we'll take it down. We're trying to make parents' lives easier not cause undue worry and stress.

If you have privacy concerns about something you've posted on Mumsnet then please send us a report - we're always fine to take a look and we'll help where we can.

@HotChocolate16

Personally I don’t get why we aren’t allowed to delete our own comments and posts. Why is that option even taken away from us. It’s ridiculous. Other sites like this allow for it.

Because people would have the opportunity to act like nasty arseholes then pretend it never happened when they're challenged.

And because it'd be a lot easier for trolls whose stories just don't add up.

@Hellocatshome

I posted something that ended up being outing (not in the papers thank god) I practically had to beg to have it removed and got a lecture about how they wouldn't do it again etc etc but since then I have seen a lot of threads deleted for seemingly no other reason than the OP feels it isn't going there way.

There was a post earlier this week from a self-absorbed woman who was complaining that her boyfriend of 12 weeks was not replying to her WhatsApp messages straight away. He was in fact supporting his ex-wide who had throat cancer.

I don’t know what she expected, but everyone called her out for being selfish. She then posted she has asked to have the post removed, wait for it in case the DM got hold of the story! It was removed almost immediately, probably because everyone was quite scathing in their responses.

@girlmom21 it is a chat forum. Being allowed to delete our own posts would be far more supportive of parents. If we were allowed to do this I would ask for parenting advice, then when I had some replies after a few hours, I would delete it.
Instead I know if I asked for advice it will stay up. Arseholes may link comments on other threads to my parenting advice thread. I may get negative comments from people who don't read my OP or updates and just attack me.
Dont say this doesn't happen, it does all the time. And it is why I will no longer post here asking for parenting advice. It is not a supportive site.
It is fine for a chat when I am bored at work, but I now would never ask for actual parenting advice.

Are you quite alright?

I’m good thanks @ludocris I just didn’t see the logic of everyone that tried to help with a shared experience on a thread starting their own thread when the original one gets deleted.
But it matters not.

@Monopolyiscrap no you're right about cross-referencing, intentionally misunderstanding etc.

I wouldn't ask for parenting advice here because I've seen the absolutely bonkers responses and opinions people have on parenting!

@phishy

I really didn't want people seeing my posts that publicly 😪

Then you shouldn’t have posted on a public forum.

Well done. I know that now. I didnt expect it to be picked up by national press

Well done. I know that now. I didnt expect it to be picked up by national press

How new are you? It’s been happening a very long time.

The press don't pick up any old threads. They aren't interested in the mundane what's for tea threads.
For them to pick it up there must be something a bit shocking or out of the ordinary about it. Because they too, want traffic to their websites.