I'm out - adblocker policy

[nameXname]

Mumsnet already make a great deal of money from us and our visits to their website. (Just look at their Companies House accounts.) Now they won't let us look at their site if we use an adblocker.
Apart from all the annoyance, almost all the ads that appear are totally irrelevant to me.
Goodbye, Mumsnet. Good riddance to the ads.

You were the one who made the statement that people were called "bad faith actors" because they objected to CSA. Up to you to justify what you said, I think

I said, as I remember it. I can't provide evidence of my memory of events.

You stated it as a fact initially. Now it's what you remember. I'll take that as a no then.

Just use DuckDuckGo browser. No adverts!

As I remember it, the inference was quite clear that a number of the concerned posters trying to draw attention to what had gone down were being viewed as "bad faith actors" and "trolls", stirring up additional trouble. Multiple threads and posters were disappeared.

Update from MNHQ addressing the recent images posted on the site | Mumsnet

Thank you. So some people were described as "bad faith actors" because they were deemed to be causing trouble, not simply for objecting to CSA. That's my memory too.

Is this the level of quality content you think you are generating for Mumsnet?

Ooh, burn.

Maybe you can provide names, time stamps, and a photographic memory replication of threads that were deleted a month ago, but sadly I can't.

The post from Mumsnet clearly says they are struggling to distinguish the trolls and bad actors from those with legitimate concerns, not that those with legitimate concerns are bad actors.

I don't think anyone wants you to.

Is this you?

Z

Great to see the quality of what you're providing.

Doesn't the site's terrible history with data breaches and security issues worry you? I pay for sites I use a lot but nothing would convince me to give card details to MN.

Okay, I don’t recall seeing MN calling people freeloaders in their update on stopping ad blockers.

I agree that the handling of CSA images could have been better on their part but the two issues are unrelated. They didn’t change the policy on ads in response to that incident.

They didn’t change the policy on ads in response to that incident.

Just days after that incident, they changed the policy of ads. It certainly diverted the discussion.

Hear, hear.

They take money via Stripe I believe.

They could take it via the pope and I still wouldn't trust it

Really? My adblocker is working fine?

When I'm on my phone I barely notice the ads. So I don't care at all.

In fact, I've been a member for ten years or so. If I pay for a year of Premium, that averages out at what, £3 a year for a site I've probably used almost daily?

That might be one conspiracy theory.

The reality is that it takes a long time to develop a feature that would be compatible with every type of browser and every type of device as they all use different codes as well as getting this signed off within the company, so this would have been planned way before the incidents.

It may well have been planned for a year before CSA images were posted on MN - but the announcement of implementation was made within a couple of days of the horror and trauma for some of those who saw those images, and the poor unpaid Nightwatch left to try and deal with them appearing over a period of four hours, and while posters were understandably upset and asking many questions, which to this day remain unanswered.

Genuine question- when was the last incident? I thought these happened a couple weeks back in quick succession.

look, I get the upset and the fact that it was a horrific experience. But nobody could have predicted this. If the users didn’t expect to be bombarded with these images, then the owners likely didn’t expect that either. It was a crime first of its kind. So we can only focus on what’s learnt and how to move forward.

From what I remember the criminals posted pictures, then once pictures were disabled, they started using links etc. all of that stuff is really hard to screen and a feature won’t be built overnight. As to hiring night moderators, the process for that also wouldn’t happen immediately - hiring takes a long time. I don’t know what questions specifically haven’t been answered but I can probably guess it’s about the ins and outs of what they are doing to prevent this from happening again but they can’t share a lot of that information publicly as it’s giving away to the perpetrators how to overcome the next blockade and also they all need to get to the drawing board and come up with solutions.

anyways, I realise this is completely derailing the OP so I will leave it there.

Genuine question- when was the last incident? I thought these happened a couple weeks back in quick succession.

How is that relevant? The initial images appeared overnight on Feb 3.

URGENT please remove asap | Mumsnet

This was considered reasonable to announce on Feb 5.

Introducing Pay or Consent on Mumsnet | Mumsnet

If MN do want to go down the maximise-profit-at-all-costs model, perhaps they should change their tagline. Instead of "by parents, for parents", it could read "by parents, for shareholders".

Catchy.