Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Daily Mail part 3

253 replies

StealthBearWipesBumOnDailyMail · 15/08/2009 19:31

Just to respond to

"You were at just as much risk of being quoted by a journalist before"

I really don't understand that - please explain how the odd one off is exactly the same risk as a weekly column that will definitely be quoting an MN thread?

There were risks both times but they are not the same - surely that's obvious?

OP posts:
KingCanuteIAmAndTheDMCanFOff · 15/08/2009 20:14

Lily, do you not get that there is a difference between something someone has freely decided to do and what is happeneing here? The things you are citing are totally different.

anyoldDMfucker · 15/08/2009 20:14

maybe they could forma link to the bnp they arent to blame for 1.5 million babies dying and nearly 1mill voted for them in elections

LilyBolero · 15/08/2009 20:14

AnyoldDM - that's not the point I was making. YOu were saying the increased risk was because of increased exposure. So putting some MNetters on THIS MORNING increase the exposure of the site. And therefore increases risk of discovery (sounds so sinister doesn't it!).

MaggieBeauLeo · 15/08/2009 20:14

Disappointed would be a melodramatic overstatement, but I'm pretty surprised by Mumsnet's collaboration with the dailymail. I supposes Bigchris may be right in her synopsis there though..

In light of this new development, would mumsnet please provide a facility where we can delete our own old posts??? I have asked them about this before and they refused. However, I think it is crazy that we can't reduce the trail we are leaving about ourselves. ONe tiny detail here, another there, have a son, have a daughter, have a rabbit, live in Scotland, once owned a vespa...if somebody suspects, then they can do a search and have their suspicions proved right.

theyoungvisiter · 15/08/2009 20:14

"By LilyBolero on Sat 15-Aug-09 19:39:36
In response to whoever it was said I didn't understand risk, I really really do!

But it is my opinion that the risk of being identified hasn't changed much. I think the stats are being manipulated."

The difference here is that the users/google, whatever, are spread over the WHOLE of MN, ie several thousand posts a day. The likelihood of anyone reading any single individual post (let alone a current one) is very small.

The difference with teh Daily Mail column is that a spotlight is being shone on one single OP. The readers of that single post have gone from being, oo, about 50, to about 1million, assuming only half of the DM readership actually turns to that page.

If you are not that OP then your risk of being outed remains very low. If you ARE that OP then your risk is suddenly very, very real. So, understandably, no-one wants to be that OP.

THAT'S the difference in risk. To compare the net traffic across the whole of MN and conflate that to the likelihood of anyone seeing one single post is misunderstanding the point.

BitOfFun · 15/08/2009 20:15

Anyone seen Dude, Where's My Car?

Superb cinematography...

bigchris · 15/08/2009 20:16

i think its great
we can make the DM a great rag

KingCanuteIAmAndTheDMCanFOff · 15/08/2009 20:16

Shiney, I get that you think it is silly, could you not get that other people do not? WHy the silly schoolgirl stuff? Why not go and talk about something that does interest you and leave all us lot to it seeing as you seem to have finished adding your views etc on this subject?

theyoungvisiter · 15/08/2009 20:16

and besides which, as others have said, people posting on MN have weighed up the risk and decided that the value of the info they will receive balances the risk of being outed.

They did NOT factor into the equation the risk of being included in a DM column. Why should they?

LilyBolero · 15/08/2009 20:17

Yes, there is a difference. But people were talking about things with Mumsnet in the headline, and the increased exposure of the site, which happens whether the contributions from posters are voluntary or not.

As far as whether it's ok to publish contributions without permission, I have a feeling that you give that permission when you publish the post on here. And if there is an issue, it is whether MNHQ are happy for a 3rd party to do so, and they have said they are. And my point all along has been that whenever you publish a post on MN then you have to assume it is now in the public domain.

hunkermunker · 15/08/2009 20:18

No, it's linked to the formula not being sterile in the beginning. Babies have died in Europe from this.

But yes, in the Third World, it's because:

Dirty water is used to make up the feeds.

Dirty water is used to "wash" the bottles/teats.

Formula is prohibitively expensive (once the free samples have run out...) - costing maybe two day's salary, perhaps.

Fuel used to heat the water to kill the bugs that exist within the formula is also scarce and expensive - and puts people into the situation of using fuel to heat water for the baby or use fuel to cook for the family - when they could just be using their clean, at the right temperature breasts to feed their baby.

There's a lot more to this than just "make the water clean and it's fine to promote formula".

Did you know, for instance, that in places where formula is marketed, breastfeeding rates are lower? Which gives the lie to the companies saying "oh, we're fulfilling a need" - no, they are CREATING a need by undermining confidence in breastfeeding, bribing doctors to promote the product, advertising on television and in print and in health journals and making outrageous claims for their product which is inferior to breastmilk in every way.

So no, it's not really all about the water. Clean water would help, obviously. But it would help everyone to have clean water, not just ff babies.

anyoldDMfucker · 15/08/2009 20:18

yea theres a few mumsnet headlines and some like the daily garbage one but they werent a regular thing that people would start to recognise.

anyhow looks like noone is going to agree noone is leaving and once were bored of talking bout it mumsnet can sit back and rub their hands in glee at the extra publicit, the threads will become random and dull through lack of details and life will go on as usual

50ftQueenie · 15/08/2009 20:18

Shiney - Who isn't in it! There are flipping loads of 'stars'. The main ones are Jack Black, Robert Downey Jr, Ben Stiller. Then there was Matthew Mcconaughey, Tom Cruise, Steve Coogan all in smaller roles. I'm sure other 'stars' had cameos but can't remember now.

bluebump · 15/08/2009 20:19

Well I better stop venting about the MIL what with her being a DM reader! I've never bothered disguising much of what i've written about her before as she's not got the internet.

HolyGuacamole · 15/08/2009 20:20

Not seen Dude, Where's My Car but I hear it is intellectually challenging. DH is currently watching Taken, you guy seen that? It is truly horrific.

KingCanuteIAmAndTheDMCanFOff · 15/08/2009 20:20

Lily, no we wern't, we were making the same point that TYV just made... again and again...

50ftQueenie · 15/08/2009 20:20

No, not seen Dude, Where's My Car. I'm not a fan of art-house film.

LilyBolero · 15/08/2009 20:20

tyv, yes, I see the point you are making, but tbh this has always happened. And previously posters have been quite excited about being published in the times, or the guardian. But now it's sunk to the Daily Mail people are less excited. But this has always been the way the site has run imo - MN has used the press to build numbers throughout its life (and I think Justine is a journalist?) - but they are very media-savvy, and certainly the media has always been involved in the growth of MN. This is just another branch of the MN-media relationship.

bigchris · 15/08/2009 20:21

which day is this column published btw or is it everyday?

BitOfFun · 15/08/2009 20:21

Honestly though, these are hours of your life you will never get back, you know. It's Saturday night!

I'm going now, honestly, but really, what more can be said?

LilyBolero · 15/08/2009 20:21

by anyoldDMfucker

"but howm any of them was a regular thing with MUMSNET in the headline. "

This is the point I was answering.

bigchris · 15/08/2009 20:21

which day is this column published btw or is it everyday?

KingCanuteIAmAndTheDMCanFOff · 15/08/2009 20:24

thanks BOF...

TBH BOF, nothing new - but we can rehash the same stuff for ages yet
Maybe I should get a boyfriend then I would have soemthing better to do on a saturday?

theyoungvisiter · 15/08/2009 20:24

"And if there is an issue, it is whether MNHQ are happy for a 3rd party to do so, and they have said they are."

Well no, actually they weren't consulted about this and never gave permission. This is part of the discussion - if the column goes ahead, should it be passed by them for their approval or not.

LIZS · 15/08/2009 20:25

so has anyone from MNHQ given an update today ? Presumably legal opinion is on hold until Monday