Warning about posting in the Relationships Topic on Mumsnet

[bibbitybobbityyhat]

Don't do it if you don't want your personal stories lifted and splashed all over the Mail Online.

The DM used to restrict themselves to copying and pasting mainly made up (Penis Beaker), lighthearted or neutral threads.

But now they are quite happy to publish deeply personal and very identifying threads too from people posting at crisis point.

I do actually foresee Mumsnet's inability to prevent this being the end of the website tbh. Or MN as we know and love it, anyway.

I know we've had a zillion threads about this already, but I just want to remind people again:

Don't post on Mumsnet if you don't want your thread to be reproduced in the Mail Online.

bibbity - would that be for threads that are already up? In that case I'd probably put a line in about how to contact MN to remove identifying details etc.

The trouble is bibbitybobbity by the time you're PMing the poster has already started the thread.
I think MN are going to have to say, whatever you post on here may be picked up by and dramatised by national newspapers who can add photos and invite comments from their readers.
I for one was aware DM picked up threads from AIBU and chat but thought relationships was not fair game tbh, I don't consider myself to be thick but just didn't realise journos would stoop that low (naive admittedly)
So sad because for some MN really does feel like the last place to turn

Agreed, bess - but I don't think HQ are going to start posting warnings about this.

So if I or anyone else pms and the poster decides they've made a mistake in being so public, they can contact HQ and ask them to take down the whole thread.

TBH, if you are not aware that the DM picks up on MN threads, then you are not likely to see it on DM, unless someone mentions it here.

Ignorance is bliss.

In fact, people who notice any thread on the DM would probably just not mention it here at all.

And do you really want to take it up on yourself to be a thread police and scare people that their thread might end up on other sites?

It might bring MNHQ more publicity but I wouldn't be surprised if one day it bought them a lawsuit

If you need to apologise twice in your friendly yet incredibly patronising reminder its a good hint you shouldn't be sending it.

It will change what is posted, inevitably. Some years ago a post I made on another site was lifted and used in their email sent to millions as the dilemma of the week kind of thing. It was possibly identifying, and as it included details of stalking and online abuse, could have put me in serious personal danger. I only realised what had happened when someone messaged me to let me know. Thankfully the thread was pulled, but I had a couple of hours of feeling terrified and physically sick before that happened. I hate to think of anyone going through anything like that.

A simple tip to remember is public domain = quoting's fair game.

It doesn't make it right morally but a public forum is public domain and MN is a public Forum and always has been. As long as the source (in this case the site) is quoted as the reference they can print whatever they like. Mumsnet tells you it's a public forum all over its t&cs. It isn't their fault that people don't understand what that means.

It's also not just mumsnet that gets quoted across the media. How many articles do you see about viral videos or funny social media posts for instance or "this great thread on Reddit"

All public content is quotable. This includes: but is not limited to:

Social media posts, YouTube videos and comments on articles/videos which have a pubic setting. It also includes posts on
Public forums as well as anything published in a book, newspaper, magazine or published research paper.

All public content falls under the same laws. They are the laws that allow newspapers to quote each other, books to reference other books etc.

What makes it worse are people who constantly start threads about specific stories. If they include links it basically just chucks money at the fail etc as other posters follow the links. Even if they don't it still chucks money at the fail as people read the thread and go trawling for the story "to see how disgraceful it is"

The very best thing you can do is ignore it all and remember EVERYTHING YOU POST IS PUBLIC.

WrongTrouser I agree. Can't see what there is to object to, really. It's just letting people know what's what.

Yes because RL and Bereavement are the same aren't they?

You can see a difference between RL and Bereavement - that's good.

But you can't see any difference between sharing your problems on a relationship thread on Mumsnet and your problems becoming a story on Daily Mail?

O-kay.

Ah it's lovely to see that being sarcastic has never died out as a form of wit

It wasn't meant to be witty. It was intended to show the inconsistencies in your argument.

I do think that with the supportive, community feel here can make people forget the sheer size of the audience and the fact that it's completely public.
Unfortunately lazy journalists will pick up on salacious or controversial threads. Doesn't make it right though.

What happened to the thread then? The one about husband leaving of NYD? Was it zapped?

I just read the DM article comments. There are no words!

"So sad because for some MN really does feel like the last place to turn" mn should never be considered as the last place to turn for anyone. and neither should we be encouraging it to be. MN is a website like any other website. Anyone who is genuinely desperate should be turning to RL help, not to anonymous strangers on the internet. Yes it can be a sounding board, but no more, because the reality is that there is no way of knowing who the people you are interacting with even are.

And if someone is in danger by talking to people in RL, then they are in danger by talking to people on the internet. Or do people really think that controlling partners only extend their control to actual people rather than online activity?

And I am by this notion that the daily mail somehow has a different audience. Given the number of MN members who read the daily mail, it really doesn't follow that the audiences are different. In fact it shows that the audience is very much the same. And let's be honest here, if you're aware of what threads are being posted on the daily mail then it is because you are a daily mail reader. Do those MN'ers who are such avid and regular readers turn from empathetic supportive feminists to misogynist arseholes at the click of a button then? No didn't think so. In fact I suspect that there is likely a bit of middle ground, and that there are plenty of unsupportive posters here as that there are somehow supportive DM readers. In fact it's highly likely that some negative comments posted on the DM are posted by people who also post here. Anyone looked at AIBU lately? Let's not kid ourselves that MN is a fluffy, all supportive place, because it isn't. In fact AIBU was set up about six years ago in order to discourage robust debate, and there are many posters here who post here because you can call someone a cunt without being judged for it. These two facts do not go hand in hand with supportive......

bibbity by sending DM's to posters you are in danger of becoming a poster who is seen as there to discourage people from posting here. That may not be your intention, but it's how it comes across. because a DM firstly gives the assumption that you don't believe that people are able to take responsibility for what they're posting, and secondly that posters are like children who need protecting from themselves. People are responsible for what they choose to post online. It's not for anyone here to start deciding who needs to be warned and who doesn't.

in order to encourage robust debate.

And I am by this notion that the daily mail somehow has a different audience.

Why? There are people who read MN and don't read the DM. There are people who read the DM and don't read MN. There are people who read both, but that's not the same as saying that the audiences are identical.

Or, to give a more concrete example: let's say I want to complain about my mother-in-law on AIBU, and I know she reads the DM but doesn't read Mumsnet. It would be relevant to me that the audiences were different, because that particular person is in one audience but not the other. I wouldn't care about some other random MNers also reading the Mail.

(disclaimer: my actual MIL is an angel, doesn't read the Mail, and I'm not going to be complaining about her on AIBU or anywhere else!)

But you can never be sure that someone who knows your MIL wouldn't read the MN thread and wouldn't mention it to her.

In all cases it's best to assume your post could be found.

There was always a chance that anything you post on here could be seen/circulated elsewhere. But that chance is now much higher. People who were willing to take the chance with low odds might be a lot less willing to do so with higher odds. Many people who've posted here have said they are less willing to post about sensitive matters because of this. Presumably some people who don't know about it would also appreciate a warning.

No the chances really aren't that much higher. We have thousands and thousands of threads posted here daily, and yet only five have been lifted to the DM this week according to a PP. People have always shared threads from MN, on here, on FB, on twitter, MN has a FB page and a twitter account from which they regularly share threads.

Back in the day we had discussions of the day, and people complained then that they could be outed. This really isn't a new phenomenon. And assuming your MIL doesn't know you read MN chances are you don't know that she doesn't either. Hypothetically speaking obv.

As for people not knowing. You seriously would have to have been living under a rock not to know that the DM is lifting threads, given that we have a thread about it on here almost on a daily basis. There are in fact three currently running in active alone. In fact it's more unbelievable that someone would set up an account on here, know where to post, and only post one particular thread in their most desperate moments without ever looking at any other portion of the site.

Or do you genuinely believe that a woman who is apparently in fear for her safety to the extent that she cannot share in RL would randomly happen on MN, find the relationships section, and without reading anything on here ever to know what the site is about, join up and post here in her desperate hour of need? Given that this is mumsnet for parents and not a relationship or DV helpline? I'd say those types of threads are far less likely to be genuine in the first place...

There are people on this thread who've said that they didn't know the DM was lifting threads from Relationships. So yes, plenty of people don't know. In previous discussions on this lots of people have said "oh but it's just AIBU and Chat, they don't take threads from other boards". So clearly lots of people don't know. You can say those people should do, but the fact is they don't.

MN already warn people about trolls, regularly. I have no idea how people who've been on the internet for more than five minutes don't already know about trolls, but clearly, again, some people don't. And trolling has been around a lot longer, and happens a lot more frequently, than the DM lifting threads.

I would say that the chances of a thread ending up in the tabloids is indeed much higher now, when they're doing it multiple times a week, than in the past, when that wasn't happening. Yes.

HelenaGWells I think you're confusing 'public domain' with 'published' or 'publicly available' - they're not the same thing.

For a work (image, text, video, music, software ...) to be in the public domain, either the copyright has expired (70 years after author's death in UK) or the author has specifically placed the work in the public domain and chosen to surrender their rights. For anything else, the copyright will be owned by someone, usually the author but sometimes their employer or a hosting website.

Copyright can be difficult to enforce online but that doesn't mean that everything online is in the public domain.

MN terms of use state:

By submitting User Content to us, simultaneously with such posting you automatically grant to us a worldwide, fully-paid, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, fully sublicensable, and transferable right and license to use, record, sell, lease, reproduce, distribute, create derivative works based upon (including, without limitation, translations), publicly display, publicly perform, transmit, publish and otherwise exploit the User Content (in whole or in part) as Mumsnet, in its sole discretion, deems appropriate. We may exercise this grant in any format, media or technology now known or later developed for the full term of any copyright that may exist in such User Content.

Subject to the rights and license you grant to us under these Terms of Use, you retain all your right, title and interest in your User Content submissions. This means that copyright in your User Content will remain with you and that you can continue to use the material in any way, including allowing others to use it.

So, we are granting MNHQ a licence to use our posts as they see fit, while at the same time retaining copyright of them ourselves. MNHQ say they haven't given permission for the DM to lift posts from here (so they haven't been using their licence). Therefore the OPs of lifted threads could theoretically pursue the DM themselves for copyright infringement as they retain ownership of their posts.

There are a couple of problems with this -

1. as KateMumsnet says, DM would likely claim 'fair use'. I haven't seen the DM stories myself and am not a legal expert so I don't know how reasonable it would be for them to do so. The guidelines, according to The UK Copyright Service are:

News reporting - Using material for the purpose of reporting current events is permitted provided that:

<span class="italic">The work is not a photograph.</span>
<span class="italic">The source of the material is acknowledged.</span>
<span class="italic">The amount of the material quoted is no more than is necessary for the purpose.</span>

2. in order to take action, posters would have to reveal their RL identities and, while highly personal and sensitive support threads are NOT NEWS, forum users taking legal action against a national newspaper for copyright infringement probably is news. So, if the concern of posters is the possibility of being outed in RL, pursuing this would not be helpful.

If anybody fancies it though, there's some useful guidance here.

I'm glad MNHQ are looking into this, even if it turns out there's nothing much they can do. It's restored my faith a bit. Meanwhile I can't see the harm in putting a gentle warning at the top of the page, next to the one that says, 'Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here ...'

I think the real point is that the fourth estate is supposed to play a pivotal role in our liberal democracy, and it is no longer doing so, for a whole host of reasons. One of the symptoms of this is the fact that stories like this are getting published even though they serve no purpose other than to provoke prurient curiosity and allow a few damaged specimens of humanity to vent their spleen in the comments sections.

This is a feminist issue. It's a democracy issue. And it's a basic decency issue. I say we go after them back.

shove How is it a feminist issue? Or a democracy issue?

And how do you suggest we 'go after them back'