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.

I'm not thinking in terms of individuals flouncing but of the site completely changing in character. So you would be editing yourself as you posted, checking you were happy with your story appearing in other places. There are some people who won't mind doing that, who might even make stuff up to try to get a hit, but the ones wanting support will go elsewhere or more likely not go anywhere at all and not get that support.

I think it is very different say asking about information about xyz school or holiday resort - vs a relationship, bereavement etc.

if you google the name of the resort, or the school, then yes mumsnet does come up ridiculously high in the search results so you need to be careful as often info is given which is identifying.

however you can't really google about a relationship?! it doesn't come up in search results.

Also don't forget, Justine and co USED TO BE JOURNALISTS! They are more than likely in bed with the mail online and others. It is probably very lucrative.

Liney oh I know how unimportant I am in the general scheme of things. That's why I don't throw my toys out of my pram threatening boycotts etc

You could look at it as self important posters whining, flouncing, throwing their toys out of the pram and everything else.

Or you could look at it as concerned individuals urging HQ to see if there is anything they can do to prevent the wholesale lifting of sensitive threads onto third party websites that most posters wouldn't touch with a bargepole.

Which they would only know about by reading the DM, despite the most vocal posters claiming they never do....

Someone should email Paul Dacre and warn him that there is a boycott imminent - he will probably shit himself

WannaBe made a good point about Riven - press interest is a double edged sword

Yeah because a boycott has never achieved anything
I have not been personally affected by any "outings" but I've enough compassion to want to stand up for those who have been.

And surely an anonymous thread copied from one site to another is still an anonymous thread? Who is to say that there is more chance of being outed from a DM copy and paste job than MN posting history?

^^^ This

Why does anyone think they'd be more identifiable through the DM and not MN?

Do you think everyone reads the DM over other newspapers?

In a scenario like the recent case, I imagine only the poster and her DH (plus maybe the OW), would be able to identify themselves.

As well as any real life friends that has been told, but then they already know.

I think some users here trawl the mail actively looking for MN posts.

Public Domain is public domain.

And anyone who doesn't know that leftover foods not stored correctly can be unsafe isn't that bright.

Schools spend time educating pupils about esafety and being careful what children put online, because the world can see it ... and fully grown adults seem to be struggling with that basic concept.

Common now . ... it's hardly rocket science.

Boycotts do achieve things but I imagine the ones who are behind it are the ones who claim to never read the DM anyway - it's like me boycotting Boden when I have never bought their products and never intend to anyway

Or you could look at it as concerned individuals urging HQ to see if there is anything they can do to prevent the wholesale lifting of sensitive threads onto third party websites that most posters wouldn't touch with a bargepole.

And, reportedly, MNHQ are looking at what can be done legally.

The OPs on those threads can make a complaint where appropriate, but then it's difficult to argue for mishandling sensitive issues when they posted in an open forum that can be read by millions.
Let's face it, Relationships is just as open to trolls and dickheads as much as the Daily Mail. There's a presumption that people get more sympathy in Relationships, but I'm not sure why. It's just as open as AIBU and can get as wrong.

MNHQ boycotting the DM here could also start a silly war between the two sites. And would achieve nothing to prevent the DM from lifting threads from MN.

Maybe you should write to your GP. It might achieve more.

Ups, I meant MP, but GP would probably do as well. :)

I think that MN the business would be foolish NOT to issue a warning / disclaimer in a prominent place tbh, given its business straplines.

Especially now it is, as a business, demonstrably aware of these issues.

Lweji
When the Mail Online first started publishing threads lifted directly from Mumsnet (written by a journalist who was a prolific Mumsnetter with a long history on the site, which caused a bit of a stir ) - were you here then? Do you remember?

Threads from MN have been appearing in the DM for about 6 years now. It's nothing new.

"Or you could look at it as concerned individuals urging HQ to see if there is anything they can do to prevent the wholesale lifting of sensitive threads onto third party websites that most posters wouldn't touch with a bargepole." except an awful lot of posters do touch the DM. How else are so many posters aware of what threads are being posted there?

And for those posters talking about boycotting the Daily Mail, do people really think that the avid readers are going to do that? The same readers who say "apologies for the DM link/the DM are evil bastards," while reading the website over their morning coffee? Get real.

And in all honesty, the biggest contributor to posters stopping coming here for support would be other posters saying "don't come here for support because you might be re-printed in the DM."

Quite honestly if people aren't already boycotting the DM because of the utter shite that it is, then they're not going to start now, are they?

bibbity, I think collating the legal position - views from lawyers etc who have posted - alongside the posts from MNHQ acknowledging that they are aware of the issues raised, would be a useful 'bookmark', if you have the time.

As for the "mn won't be the same," I've been here for eleven years. And "mn just isn't what it used to be," threads appear at least, if not more than, once a year or so.

The site has changed over the years as it's grown, it's the nature of the beast. But there have always and there will always be new posters signing up as there will be some who leave. And not all of those who leave will have done so because they no longer like posting, many had small children who have now grown so they have outgrown the site.

And then of course there will always be those posters who sign up for the first time having just so happened to have stumbled upon MN in their desperate hour of need..... .

Yes, an awful lot of MN posters do read the Mail Online but for those who DON'T then a warning that their post about their child who died or their failing marriage might end up there wouldn't go amiss?

What is the objection?

Other than "people ought to know better?

What do you base "for about 6 years now" on Surfer?

I'm sure they was a big fuss over threads appearing in the DM when I first joined. & that was about 6 years ago.

bibbitybobbityyhat

I've registered more than 6 years ago, but I've only really been posting here for 5 years, I think.
I don't have a recollection of a long term pp lifting threads to the DM, so I probably missed it.

I think with this new, very public awareness of an issue on the part of MNHQ, the issue is real in terms of both the site's declared ethics and thus, inevitably, its liability to posters on its 'sensitive' threads.

It'll end up being a matter of law, not opinion.

Just like you have to put up clear warnings for all sorts of things in life.

How interesting. I just had a quick search for the word Mail in 2011 and found this thread started by WannaBe.

Haven't read much of it so far but in the first few posts there is that same wishing for a safe space where people can get into conversations about personal stuff.