Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

"on MN this week" in the Daily Mail

1001 replies

StealthBearWipesBumOnDailyMail · 14/08/2009 11:13

Thread no 2

OP posts:
wotzy · 14/08/2009 18:33

Anyway
feckers

TeamEdward · 14/08/2009 18:37

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

quoteTHISyafuckers · 14/08/2009 18:40

it's going to fecking get fecking tedious though wotzy, if you have fecking well have to feck punctuate every fecking word with fecks.
'can anyone give me fecking advice on whether my fecking boss can fecking well sack me for fecking being fecking pg? The fecking knobjockey has fecking well tried to fecking get rid...the fecker. Thanks for any fecking advice you fecking pack of feckers.

TheHeathenOfSuburbia · 14/08/2009 18:41

Not for a second do I believe MN got paid for it, newspapers will not pay for anything unless it's absolutely unavoidable. It's been mentioned before, but 'Flat Earth News' gives a good overview of the ethics of their dealings.
If you ever sell your celebrity-marrow-bumsex story to a tabloid, make sure you get the cheque BEFORE you spill, as you won't get it after.

Saggarmakersbottomknocker · 14/08/2009 18:42

Everyone will sound like they have Tourettes.

Feck.

vonsudenfedhatespauldacre · 14/08/2009 18:43

There's an underlying assumption here that I'm not sure is quite right which is that increased traffic from DM = good. But I'm not sure it's that straightforward.

MN has a fairly niche set of advertisers/partners (Boden, White Co, etc) and my guess would be that these people advertise here because MN has a fairly 'upmarket' AB profile - people who are notoriously hard to reach with advertising otherwise. But if MN is happy to increase traffic from any sources (including the Baby Fair and Daily Mail), does this profile change? And if it does, will these advertisers be as keen as they are to advertise.

I would have said that MNHQ had considered these options and decided growth of any kind was better; but having discovered the rather ad hoc nature of their legal advice, I am not so sure!

Jaquelinehyde · 14/08/2009 18:43

This is and always has been a public forum. Anybody, anywhere in the world can do a search and find out anything they want on here.

So what the DM have realised it's an easy way to fill space (The Times have done this on and off for ages).

Why has the whole of MN decided to become hysterical about it now?

Everybody appears to be concerned that they are going to be outted and identified by friend and family etc. Surely for this to happen their friends and family have to be reading the DM in the first place?!

Justine I am so glad I'm not you. Just go home and have a large vino, this will blow over soon. Lets just hope the sun doesn't start covering us

Saggarmakersbottomknocker · 14/08/2009 18:45

Tourettesnet.com

Feck

(With apologies to people with Tourettes)

Goblinchild · 14/08/2009 18:45

Or the Sun will put in a bid instead.

Greensleeves · 14/08/2009 18:45

YES what Jaqueline said [points]

and all this about not changing our names - well, they're not our names, are they?

I haven't seen the articles in question as I don't come across the DM in my everyday life

but can somebody tell me exactly what posters are objecting to in terms of reduced anonymity/privacy?

vonsudenfedhatespauldacre · 14/08/2009 18:47

GS - the issue is not whether or not a poster is recognisable, but whether their situation is.

This week's column is a woman who was sacked for being pregnant under quite unusual circumstances. It would be v hard to google that scenario and find it, but her boss could quite easily read it in the DM and recognise it.

JustineMumsnet · 14/08/2009 18:49

"I think you just need to decide that you are content to have every word/post (that doesn't get removed) subject to MN use and further use by any blog, FB or twitter user."

Yes Wotzy you do! No one is trying to pretend otherwise - that's what we explicitly make clear in all our notices - you post on here, it's our liability (not yours) and you share copyright of your posts. We have the right to delete your words and/or use them for MN books and publications. Other people have the right to search your posts, link to them, cut and paste them selectively.

(Though it seems the Daily Mail may not have the right to copy whole extracts at least.)

It's the downside of a public board - the fact that folks can search and quote your nicknames. It's a downside of MN that we may use your words and nickname offline in our books - it's how we pay the bills. It's up to you whether you are happy with that - whether you think we're going to be sensitive to your posts in our books etc. It's up to you whether you can live with being searchable and the risk of a journalist using your words to illustrate their articles.

On the upside - Mn provides for free what only an open board can do - volume, speed, immediacy of answers. Lots of new blood, no heirachy of poster, a democratic open to all spirit.

But whether all that is worth the downside, only you can decide.

Until we've built our private boards, though, that's all we can offer.

TheFallenMadonna · 14/08/2009 18:49

Blimey. I'm pretty surprised at this, but more by the author than the article (which seems so obvious I can't believe it hasn't been done before). But the MNetter aka Leah Hardy seemed to me to be a rather, well, high-faluting moral person, so to find her parading other people's posts in the Mail - yikes!

She also posted some reasonably personal, and also some pretty inflammatory, stuff. Which presumably she would be happy to have published in that paper.

Am a bit gobsmacked.

TheHeathenOfSuburbia · 14/08/2009 18:52

Why is the privacy issue different? Because it is the paper of choice for the evil MIL!!

How are any of us meant to complain about our MILs when they're going to be reading it over their cornflakes the next day?

Seriously, Daily Mail circulation 2.2 million. Number of people reading a post on MN: maybe about a hundred, I don't know? Must depend on the topic. Could be two or three. So your audience - and the chance you will be recognised - leap vastly.

flashharriet · 14/08/2009 18:52

I think it's a shame that MNHQ won't consider a subs only site. I don't think I'm being hysterical (thanks for that one ), just private. If privacy is incompatible with the seemingly unstoppable juggernaut that is MN (and I'm sorry but I honestly thought that only MNHQ had the right to use or publish posts - I guess you're all a lot more internet savvy than me) then that means I don't have a place on MN any more and that makes me feel very sad. But as this thread proves (and Moldies as well tbh), there comes a point when you need something...else, either as well as or instead of. And I don't see why that can't be an extension of the MN brand too?

TheHeathenOfSuburbia · 14/08/2009 18:53

Anyway, it doesn't really matter if they've pissed all over copyright law, does it? It's not like MN has the cash to take on Associated Newspapers. And even if you won the case, they'd then be running articles saying the site was run by lesbian communist immigrant paedophiles or somesuch.

JustineMumsnet · 14/08/2009 18:57

FlashHarriet - that's exactly what we're working on - we just hadn't thought of charging for private groups tbh because in our head they were based around need and we didn't want to exclude anyone... but it's a thought...

JustineMumsnet · 14/08/2009 18:58

I'm going to catch my train now folks, so not ignoring anyone - back laters.

TeamEdward · 14/08/2009 19:00

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ComeOVeneer · 14/08/2009 19:00

Sorry flash, but if you wanted to be "private" posting on any site like this on the web is a bad move!

LeninGrad · 14/08/2009 19:01

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LuluMaman · 14/08/2009 19:03

ok, don;t have time to read 1200 posts, so oculd i have a general breakdwon of what has happened and who is flouncing?

thank you

CrapJournosCopyMe · 14/08/2009 19:04

Justine: Just a point of reassurance to avoid any more red faces please. Could you please advise how we can get old posts & comments deleted?

sarah293 · 14/08/2009 19:06

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

StinkyFart · 14/08/2009 19:07

CJCM email MNHQ with your request and they will consider it

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread