I’m concerned that Mumsnet are not doing enough to tackle misinformation

[Beadebaser]

I might end up getting a ban, or my thread deleted. But I am concerned. I’ve seen more anti-vaxx material discussed here than on any other social media platform.

And the way it is discussed concerns me. A potentially vulnerable person poses a question - and then others appear to ‘jump’ on this post giving advice that is contrary to the NHS guidelines.
I’m all for a debate in ‘normal’ times - but while things are pretty critical for the NHS/schools - shouldn’t we be doing all we can to support them and each other?
Yesterday I reported a post explaining in detail to Mumsnet why it was misinformation. They didn’t respond.
I’ve had a thread removed already saying I’d be messaged personally. I wasn’t contacted.
Mumsnet have a duty of care to their readers. Misinformation and fake news is an online harm.

@samyeagar

Another thing regularly seen here is the overplaying the effectiveness of the vaccine, combined with scapegoating unvaccinated people. That is a dangerous mischaracterization as well, as it could lead to a false sense of security in some people

If you see a post that is exaggerating the benefits of vaccination then engage with the poster or report it

Misinformation on that "side" is certainly a lot rarer than false claims about vaccine safety, downplaying their necessity, or minimising the impact of coronavirus.

I agree mn should do more about those types of posts and posters.

@ollyollyoxenfree

You are one of the posters who I see trying to keep a balanced view, which I admire. And we have previously had some run ins on the threads that shall not be named which I believe the OP was instrumental in having deleted, however, I can accept we agree in some areas and disagree in others - to me that's perfectly fine and I try to keep my personal feelings in check because I value the discourse more.

It's a shame people have been harassed and insulted - it's a sad side effect of having largely unmoderated forums and social media in general. But I still resist censorship. On the subject of false and harmful information around Covid, alot has been done to counter it, and the sheer numbers of vaccinated versus unvaccinated by choice is a testament to that - since the overall efficacy of the vaccines has come into question due to potentially resistant variants, plus the need for boosters possibly on a regular basis to counter that, I'm not surprised people are becoming wearier and warier - we live in a world built on instant gratification, being promised ever more sophisticated services / treatments / entertainment via glossy platforms that do not reflect lived reality for the majority, but who are encouraged to believe in it, and strive to grasp these promises like a holy grail. No matter how hard we try we are all manipulated to various degrees - sometimes the reason is genuinely helpful, sometimes not.

We can regulate some internet content, especially when it seeks to generate profit. However, regulating complex human beings is more difficult. Mostly the consensus is shared that certain things violate our shared moral codes - murder, rape, child abuse, terrorism are pretty much unanimously condemned, rightly so, and they are hidden from the open internet to a large degree.

If it is felt that on this forum, inhabited by a wide spectrum of mainly women, some people are reading comments and taking the minority of harmful ones more seriously than the sourced rebuttals, because their background or psychology predispises them to that, will more censorship help, ir will they seek out other platforms that are less balanced?

Most threads I see on this board now are pro-vax, haven't seen an Ivermectin comment for yonks, but I accept I might not have been on those threads. Most threads are about the minutiae of Covid bureaucracy and how best to effect mitigations, not that none of them are necessary. And even the unvaccinated are generally hesitant in a personal manner (holds up hand) not due to general mistrust. And most also say they don't want to influence others because it's not their place - and it appears the campaigns have worked very well.

We live in strange and interesting times, but I don't think Mumsnet is driving anti vax propaganda by allowing discussion that may be controversial.

And thank you for asking about the shop it did go well then I had to shut for the run up to Christmas- due to being offered minor surgery and needing to recover. Couldn't be helped, but bloody typical - but I'm supremely grateful for the surgery given everything going on. Just re-opened after New Year, so hopefully this year will be better

While that is all true, the situation I was describing was that I have been labelled anti-vax, been accused of spreading misinformation simply by stating my lived experience without putting any pro or con value to it

I suppose the con value comes from people believing that you experiencing those undiagnosed reason palpitations means that the vaccination was definitely the cause. If you had been diagnosed with a heart arrhythmia you would surely have mentioned it as part of your lived experience ?
My lived experience of a certain over the counter and very commonly used 'non-drowsy' antihistimine was awful, visual disturbance, disorientation, nausea, heart palpitations, dizzyness, like a migrane on acid. This doesn't mean that it isn't a very useful medication used by millions of people daily without ill effect.

Took me 2 seconds to find a someone linking to an antivax site.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2876908-Kids-vaccinations-I-would-like-the-view-from-mothers?pg=8

vaccine impact. tut tut
MN is full of AV bullshit.

And I see that thread has been removed, so clearly MN not letting actual misinformation stay up. Still waiting for someone to post a link to actual misinformation that hasn’t been taken down.

Most of the theories branded as “conspiracy” and frequently censored have come true.

Like what? Because someone said this on another thread and couldn’t come up with any, so let’s hear them.

Mumsnet has always had a very hands-off moderation policy on this. I don’t know if that’s because somebody at MN actually agrees with the anti-vax stuff, whether they genuinely believe it is grass-roots “concerned mums” posting all of this and not an orchestrated campaign and so don’t want to be mean, whether they just assume we will sort it out amongst ourselves, or what.

It’s like the trans stuff - as long as it stays on this board and nobody is personally abusive, they don’t really care how batshit it gets.

@Newyearnewme2022

Agree and it’s always the same old names popping up.

Agreed. As others have said. If you've had posts deleted for the same reason again and again why on earth are you still here?

I bet when the first women claimed they had weird things happening to their periods post-vaccination they were shot down as anti-vaxxers. Until the numbers became too great to ignore.

Except that in fact, no link specifically to the covid vaccine has been confirmed. The numbers when taken across the actual number vaccinated is still very low, women can experience menstrual changes for any number of reasons, there is possibly a link to changes being affected by an immune response because women have reported similar after other vaccines and importantly due to viral infection, (a quarter of women with covid have also reported changes) but further research is ongoing. MHRA have stated the data does not support a link, but that research is important to support the vaccine programme. In other words, they want better data to demonstrate the debunking of the myth.

That is why we need to look at the global statistics. Which state -over and over again- that your risk from Covid is far far far greater than your risk from the vaccine.

But this is a classic case of what you are complaining about. And now you’re going exactly that yourself. Globally, across all age groups, all ethnicities and all medical histories this may be true on average. But if you are telling a specific poster that their individual risk of serious illness from COVID is greater than that of the vaccine, without knowing that person’s medical history and without having spent a single hour in medical school then the information could be just as dangerous. Armchair doctors on here are just as guilty of dangerous misinformation as the so-called “anti vaxx” people.

@KentuckyCriedFricken - I agree, which is why I think it’s important for any individual to ask a HCP - or follow the NHS guidelines. But I made that statement on a global level, rather than about a specific poster asking for advice. And I do stand by it.

I said earlier about my issue with anecdotal evidence. I could say that I believe the vaccine to be 100% safe, based on my anecdotal evidence. But I know that’s not true, and it would be misinformation. Likewise, if I had a bad vaccine experience - I do think it’s important to share - but surely that should also be presented in context, and not in a way that could deter a vaccine hesitant individual? Surely the best advice should be - follow what your HCP suggests, and be wary if unqualified advice on Social Media?

Someone earlier stated that a good poster had stopped posting due to abuse/for her mental health. So - should we conclude from that that something went too far, someone was potentially harmed - and censorship could be needed?
Likewise - the post I’m referring to - I think went too far. For example - I’ve seen nothing here that would ‘ring alarm bells’ - and I think the debate is good.
But the post that motivated me to start this thread was linking an unverified, highly controversial, very emotive/ persuasive/ scary case study which is often weaponised by anti vaxxers.
And it’s the response I then got from Mumsnet which was:

1. it doesn’t break guidelines
2. turn off the Covid threads if I have a problem
3. no response when I linked reliable evidence to say why the link was misinformation

What also concerned me was this link was posted on a thread started by a mum, who was asking about vaccine advice for a child.

I watched Ricky Gervais at the Golden Globes the other day - and then a discussion about whether he should have been censored/ had he gone too far.
After watching him - he makes jokes about highly sensitive subjects, but his motivation is good (or at least in my view).
I then thought about Little Britain (which I’ve always hated). They also made jokes about sensitive subjects, but I’m not sure the motivation behind their comedy was good.
Similarly, I do think sensitive subjects need to be discussed/the debate is important - so long as the outcome is a positive one, and the motivation behind those discussions is positive.
Censorship is needed when the outcome is harmful to others.

I’m all for a debate in ‘normal’ times - this is such a problematic statement if you think critically about it

@Beadebaser - In my opinion It's the alarming rise in authoritarianism, the lack of respect for bodily autonomy and calls for censorship from posters like you, that are turning more people away from the vaccine than anything else at the moment.

There has been plenty of misinformation on both sides and that should certainly be challenged and removed. I've attached an interesting article that examines how 'noble lies' have been used in the US throughout the pandemic supposedly for the greater good. They have instead caused huge damage to the trust between the public and scientists / government and are now helping to fuel vaccine hesitancy.

theweek.com/coronavirus/1008155/noble-lies-are-a-public-health-hazard

If you want to change anybody's mind then you need to engage with them on a sensible level and not just try and have their voice silenced.

@Notthemessiah

Took me 2 seconds to find a someone linking to an antivax site.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2876908-Kids-vaccinations-I-would-like-the-view-from-mothers?pg=8

vaccine impact. tut tut
MN is full of AV bullshit.

And I see that thread has been removed, so clearly MN not letting actual misinformation stay up. Still waiting for someone to post a link to actual misinformation that hasn’t been taken down.

It's still there.... And has been for ages. Like I said the place littered with antivaxxers bullshit.

Not noticed this myself.

@nojudgementhere

That’s a good article - thank you.

I skim read, but the just appears to be that politicians have put their spin on the medical science, and potentially lied.

The example given is Fauci stating that masks were ineffective, contrary to medical science - and how harmful that is.

Yes I totally agree - isn’t that pretty much the same as what I’m saying?

I absolutely do think that we should be following medical science - and not spin/propaganda - whether that be politicians, or people with an agenda on social media.

If I decided to go against medical science - and perpetuate a falsehood that the vaccine was 100% safe. If I made a comment to a potentially vulnerable mum stating that the vaccine is 100% safe for her child, and that I believed governments have lied about myocarditis - would that be ok? Do I have a right to state that under ‘freedom of speech’ - or should I be censored because what I’m saying is harmful?

There are a number of options between people agreeing that it is “ok” for you to lie and agreeing that you should be “censored”.

I have repeatedly noted that the place to discuss this directly with MNHQ is in “site stuff” - I like to the board upthread. Have you tried posting there?

I reported a thread yesterday because I felt the title was very misleading, and it was removed quickly. I was emailed to say they’d received a lot of reports.

There was a thread the other day where someone was vax hesitant and decided to get it. It was all very supportive. Think those are in the majority.

What is “medical science” though?

This assumes it is absolute, uncontroversial and unchanging.

@Beadebaser - If you had genuine statistics to back up what you were saying then no it shouldn't be censored. Some of the data makes uncomfortable and conflicting reading but hiding this away and pretending it's not there doesn't help anyone. I think you have to have more faith in other people's ability to make judgements on their own vulnerability and risk, otherwise we will become an autocracy and that's something any of us should be wishing for. The government and scientists have unfortunately chosen to infantilise us and not trust us at times with the correct information as they feel (rightly or wrongly) that they should be making decisions on our behalf. This obscuring or manipulating of the truth instad makes people uncomfortable and creates a breeding ground for consipiracy theories which help nobody. I get that you want to protect people and I respect that, but I think that can easily be misconstrued as controlling or patronising if you are not careful.