"on MN this week" in the Daily Mail

[StealthBearWipesBumOnDailyMail]

Thread no 2

I find it surprising that apparently intelligent members are bing obtuse about such silly things.

Saintly, I did not say which section of the paper did I? I said being a very small part of a much bigger article is one thing, being the whole article is another.

Why is it obtuse?

If I was quoted in the paper then I don't see that it would make a difference to the likelihood of being recognised whether I was quoted in a big article or a small one. In fact given the topics I post on I would probably be more recognisable in a big article about a particular topic.

I think if you post on a public forum then you have the responsibility to be aware of what you post.

I found out about a year ago that my local social services department read my blog. Doesn't stop me being rude about social services on there, but when I criticise them I do so knowing that they may well be reading (so I tend to criticise systems rather than individuals for example).

If you get a one liner - AMNetter said "bosses who do this suck" in an article about bosses who sack people for being pg then you are far less likely to be found out than if the whole article is about your thread detailing all that happened and the responses to it.

The other thing is that this is not just about you - so you would be happy,you would be recognisable blah blah... well great but what about other people who do not feel that same?

Just because you do not mind it yourself does not mean that you cannot see other peoples POV or see why they might mind about it, or support their rights because it does not matter to you either way.

I think you are missing my point. Yes there are certain things that would matter to me very much if they were splashed across the media.

So I don't post them on an open board. Anymore than I stand in the middle of the school playground or pub and shout them out for gossips to pass around.

When you use an open board the first rule is to only post things you are happy ending up anywhere. Because it may well do.

I couldn't be arsed to trawl through all 800 or so posts on this thread.. but...

If people have only just become outraged at the fact they could be identified from their posts on here, then perhaps the article is the wake up call they have been needing.

The instant you hit "post" button on a thread you are yourself publishing your thoughts/opinions/details of your life, and anyone who wants to read them, can, they don't have to go out and buy the daily mail to do so.

More to the point, yesterday's daily mail will be tomorrow's fish and chip paper, whereas your last year's mumsnet posts will still be there next year, and the year after, and for as long as mumsnet exists..

Ultimately it's simple - don't post what you don't want other people to read. When you post on the internet you might as well go and stand in the middle of town square and shout your business for the passers by to hear. Except that on the internet the passers by could be anyone from anywhere in the world..

oh cross post wannabe

I am the poster who has asked The Towers to delete a thread for me.

The thread in itself is fine, probably right up DM street, but I posted in my normal MN name. I know the MN has appeared in the papers before (Moldiegate being a classic example) but its usually about something unconnected and not identifiable to me. So, for example, if I posted re Moldiegate "bloody bitches, who the hell do they think they are setting up their own site" that doesn't identify ME if it were posted in the paper.

If there is something I have posted which I am likely to talk to friends/family about, they dont really use MN, they dont know my MN name, so unless they were specifically searching mumsnet for somethign I have spoken to them in RL, its not really going to be something that identifys me. But if they saw it in the paper, in a "oh, thats exactly what X told me" which shows my user name, they may look on MN and whilst I'm not fussed at the post, it gives the access to search for all my old posts.

I'm usually fairly careful - any work related issues go under a different username, anything I ever wrote re ttc was under another name. Its just sad that sometimes, any site you use (MN / FB) is no longer separate or an escape (e.g. people writing a comment on FB and getting fired for it).

i'm not going to stop using MN, I'm just going to create a new user name to use for when I post about topics which may make DM journalists salivate!

This is going in circles again.

I can't be arsed to make all the same points over and over.

The major point is, you may have taken that from the T&C, others did not, you may have taken that stance, others did not. The fact that you are all protected by your smartness does not change the fact that others may not be. AFAICS the situation has - potentially - changed and people should be allowed to catch up with that and adjust accordingly.

"I find it surprising that apparently intelligent members are bing obtuse about such silly things."

Oh yes, I agree. Although not in the same way you meant it I suspect.

Mumsnet is the same as going into a pub with a paper bag on your head and shouting something. Technically, no one knows who you are and technically only the people in the pub heard you. However, at least one of those people was a journalist and thought what you said was interesting and lo! You're in the paper.

Someone reads MN and is using it in a newspaper column - given the breadth of experience on the site it really shouldn't have come as a surprise. Journalists have been lifting stuff from MN for years.

Like I said, circular.

Wannabe you are right in very many ways, absolutely

But there are many instances when someone has come on in tears (I've done it) after something terrible (in mine I thought my DP was dead, many years back now) has happened. Privacy is the last thing on their mind in that situation, it's getting throgh the next ten seconds.

It's not that unusual an event if you add up SN, relationships, MH and whilst MN isn't the most suitable place always (support to get appropriate support almost always being best course of action) there was a general feeling amongst many of us that those people were largely protected by the general ethos of MN. So I wonder if it were not this writer,someone who we all (of a certain duration) remember very well, if it would have hurt so well.

People say 'well i'd do it for a few £'- perhaps you would (you not aimed in ant specific diorecrtion), I wouldn't.

There was a risk yes, but people still felt they knew that on balance the chances were low. We now know that someone is being paid to do exactly that every week.

How much you feel that changes things is based on risk assessments and largely individual, for me I would say significantly.

It can't be anyone else's fault though, if someone hasn't understood the nature of an open forum.

As I said yesterday I learned the hard way when I had my very own lurker-stalker who registered purely to come on and quote stuff that I'd said years ago. I asked MN to delete some posts, and I changed the things I posted about. It was my fault for posting too openly in the first place.

It's madness to post something on an internet forum and imagine it is in someway private. Likewise you're probably unwise to post details which could come back and bite you on the bottom!

Lots of people have said 'but not that many people read MN compared to the Daily Mail.' Maybe not, but have you forgotten google? And that MN comes up on google? And google gets a PHENOMENAL number of hits per day. So if you post about a work situation, it only takes someone to google a few choice terms, and bob's your uncle, your employer has found out what you've posted.

So the lesson is, don't post anything you wouldn't be happy about your employer, your mum, your MIL and your partner reading!

THe thing is Saintly, you could ask MN to delete a few posts and hen changed, if it had made it to a national paper in print with 2 million people reading it then it would have been a bit bigger deal wouldn't it?

I still think if you post on Mumsnet, you are posting on a public forum and of course you can be quoted anywhere.

And if someone wants to keep something private, they shouldn't post it on a public forum.

x posted but I agree Lily

Lily, your boss thinking "oh x is unhappy about the way the sticky bun round has been handled at work, I will just google 'Sticky buns in the office' and see if there is anything there about it" is a bit less likely than the boss picking up a copy of the daily mail and reading an article about office sticky buns isn't it?

Dunno, which is more frightening a weirdy stalker who has been storing up things against you for 2 years plus without ever posting on MN or an article in a newspaper. I'd have preferred the newspaper I think.

I can see that either one is a wake up call that you need to take responsibility for what you post on an open forum.

Ultimately no-one else is responsible. However upset you are.

WHy does fault need to be assigned for anyone to be upset?

When someone has been struggling until recently there has been a massive protective field about them- when that gets broken (eg horrid widows thread) the anger has, rightly, been tangible.

But that may not survive in this new light.

OK, there's a certain thread on here atm where Mum is going through something extremely awful- far above anything that most of have experienced. Instead of doing a flag to pile in with help, i've gently mentioned that her security hs been compromised by a few things she has said, with support factored in obviously but I am sad I have felt I should do that.

2 million people reading an article and then throwing it away is a world away from a huge searchable database where you can sit at your leisure and "stalk" someone, piecing together parts of the whole person.

kingcanute- I have often googled on very specific topics and found myself bleating on (on MN). It depends how particular your google is.

And I have no idea how social services found my blog.

Google reveals all sorts.

Google really can throw up all sorts. You can bet celebs google their names to see if they are being libelled, and it just depends on your googling skills as to what you find.

Facebook is also dangerous in the same way. I never post anything on either that I would not be happy for everyone I know to read, or for a potential employer to read!

the 'tomorrow's fish n chip paper' doesn't really hold water in the digital age as newspapers now put their entire content online - which tends to stay there for years.

Well, I think the thing MNHQ needs to take away from this si that some people are very upset by this, and whether that should make them think through their policy on clarity of copyright policy (I'd love to know the percentage of people who actually read everything they agree to when they join a site- I bet it is low (and yes I do in fact, but many do not)).

There may be something to consider about keeping people updated with events before things kick off- a thread explaining that they are aware of the sit. with the DM, have contacted them and are reviewing thier policy started much earlier (and with is as the OP so less easily lost) may have helped.

There is always something to be learned from such a situation. One may have handled it technically well but there are other aspects.

And no doubt it has made a great many reconsider their PoV regarding posts, essentially right but no doubt some will be affected long term in small, subtle ways. I know I already have been.

Nothing anyone can do about any of this, except take it on board and make our own decisions. I always feel dismissing the feelings of others whether they are based on a full understanding of the copywrite or not is a little crass, but worse happens.