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.

No it was not with MN's knowledge and blessing Wannabe (about the ex Mnetter who you have just outed). It was a total surprise to them. I'm sure the threads are still there.

Wow. Advance searching other posters on the thread? Hardly good form from the guardians of the site's ethics is it?

Who is Advanced Searching other posters on the thread Livia?

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

⬆️⬆️

It's generally considered bad form to bring previous threads up but it's fairly obvious that you weren't aware of that

Thread about On Mumsnet This Week from 2009 beware, 'tis HUGE

It also says 'by parents for parents' but a lot of people aren't actually parents

Livia

I searched for the word Mail.

I found a thread started by Wannabe.

If anyone bothers to read the linked thread (which I might do later after I've had my dinner) it won't be because Wannabe started it.

You might like to point out to Wannabe that it isn't good form to link a Mnetter's online name to their real name and thus totally out them .

I'm very amused about your stance given your performance on my thread about baby headbands . I believe that's the thread on which you implied I am a cunt.

Anyway, dinner time for me and a browse through Wannabe's thread from 2011 which I'm sure will be interesting.

Back later.

bibbity what was the point of you linking to that thread? To prove that people have been wailing about this issue for years and years and that nothing's changed? Or to show that my position on it hasn't changed over the years I've been on MN? Because the way in which you've linked to the thread makes it look like you're accusing me of something, when actually that thread just goes to prove that this issue has been prevalent on here for at least five or six years, and that there have always been posters wailing about their privacy being compromised etc, and that actually, MN hasn't imploded and is still being replicated in the tabloids, on social media etc.

So that post actually shows that nothing's changed and therefore there's no need to change anything here either. Excellent.

And still you bring up other threads... you can't help yourself can you?

I didn't call you a cunt - I have never implied anyone on here is a cunt. I get that you don't like me so you have to rehash previous threads - it's kind of special having my own special stalker

Fair play for being on here - I would have thought you would be busy PMing all the relationships posters with your helpful message.

WannaBe Bibbity has 'ishoos' with people who disagree with her apparently....

Advanced Search is like Trident, I think. We're allowed to know it's there, we're allowed to know it works, but dear God in heaven we're not supposed to actually use it.

I have just found the headband thread - I had actually forgotten about it because I have a life

You referenced previous threads and my posting style. I said I didn't pull people on their posting style because I'm not a cunt. You took exception to that and called me a liar. All this on a thread demanding that 'HQ pull their finger out' over an issue so trivial that it was ridiculous.

Well, on the whole it's apparently bad form to link to threads from the past, however, by linking to that thread of mine from 2011 was a bit of an own goal really, because the thread brings up points which are being made here. To summarise, and because I can't be arsed to go back and copy/paste, my OP made reference to the fact that someone had posted about a thread on twitter, and then gone back on to the thread to say they'd tweeted it. Calls for the poster to be banned followed, and the point I made was that MN is and has always been a public site where information is searchable if need be. I haven't read the whole thread because it extended into about 550 posts, but there were definitely some who agreed and some who didn't as per now.

But the fact remains that even in 2011 people were sharing mn posts on public platforms, and others were going on about compromising privacy, etc etc, and iirc there was talk about how people would never come here any more, and six years later we've come full circle and surprise surprise, it's the same situation just with different posters.

Anyone can use it but when it's used to reference previous threads, that's a wanky thing to do.

And no I'm not calling anyone a wanker, just to clarify for the hard of understanding.

herewecomewassailing

this, I think, is the big, underlying issue: the veneer; the disingenuous, chummy, 'all mums / sensible people in it together' tone cultivated by the moderators; the tagline... It all, deliberately, sets out to preserve a sense of community and democracy which is utterly false, but encourages revelations and brings in the clicks and the revenue.

Yes, to me, this is an increasing issue.

It's a business though - whatever impression you choose to take, it's here to make money, not to provide a safe space

Yes exactly, Wannabe. The point I was making in linking that old thread is that the big moral dilemma issues are much the same. I just thought it was a funny coincidence that you were the op, nothing more than that.

If I'd said "oh the op of that thread is wannabe and her real life name is x x" then I imagine you might not have liked it.

Wel, I never gave the RL name of the MN'er who was doing journo work for the DM either, but just for reference, if someone is e.g. A part of the bloggers network and has a twitter account which has their RL name on it then MN do share those details. My RL name is linked to my twitter account which is linked to my blog which is part of the network (although i haven't written on it in several months...

There's enough information about me on here, the fact that I am VI, have a guide dog, a child, have recently been in hospital with a virus which attacked my heart, I even posted about schools in the area I used to live in when someone asked the question, that if someone wanted to identify me they could. But I don't post about my most personal issues on here, or post negatively about my ex for instance, because he knows my username anyway and there's just no need.

"You referenced previous threads and my posting style. I said I didn't pull people on their posting style because I'm not a cunt. You took exception to that and called me a liar."

No. All of that is incorrect. You are indeed a liar . But where I do agree with you is that it's kind of funny to have your own special stalker on MN.

I didn't call you a cunt - I have never implied anyone on here is a cunt.

You referenced previous threads and my posting style. I said I didn't pull people on their posting style because I'm not a cunt.

so... you did, then?

OTOH, calling someone a cunt on a thread about baby headbands has got to be one of the most MN things of all time.

I'm confused as to why this thread was started.

If it was to make sure users know that an Internet forum isn't private, that's a little silly isn't it?

Is this a revelation to anyone?

The OP seems more interested in arguing with posters on every single page of this thread than sharing information that is of any use or interest. Very odd.

If this is a perennial problem a warning at the top of the page is a good idea, I'd have thought.

"Well, on the whole it's apparently bad form to link to threads from the past"

I wasn't aware of this ^ at all.