Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Relationships

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you need help urgently or expert advice, please see our domestic violence webguide and/or relationships webguide. Many Mumsnetters experiencing domestic abuse have found this thread helpful: Listen up, everybody

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Warning about posting in the Relationships Topic on Mumsnet

370 replies

bibbitybobbityyhat · 04/01/2017 16:33

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.

OP posts:
OnTheRise · 04/01/2017 18:56

MN have gotta be in on this, the mail credits the site by name which benefits MNHQ - if it wasn't a reciprocal deal with MNs blessing they'ld just say "on a parenting website" or something to get around it.

I've written for several of the UK's national papers (including the DM) and am pretty certain there's no suggestion of an arrangement between Mumsnet and the DM here. Writers of news stories (I use the term "news" loosely here) do try to cite their sources as it makes a story more believable and credible, so the DM referring back to Mumsnet isn't anything significant here.

Why can't MNHQ put a stop to this?

How do you suggest they do that? There's nothing illegal being done.

I want to know the copyright position.

News sites can report the news as they see fit. Much of what you see online is the result of journalists finding stories elsewhere, then rewriting them. If they make it clear where the story originated (see above re citing your sources), and write the story in their own words rather than just copying the original post and republishing it as is, then the've done nothing which is against the law.

Whether it's right is another issue entirely: but if doing such stuff is made illegal then papers couldn't then legally publish many of the more important stuff that they cover. And that's the problem. It's very hard to draw a line which protects people like us, who post on Mumsnet, while ensuring those who deserve to be in the news receive the attention they deserve.

UnicornPee · 04/01/2017 18:56

Even mums bet post all the posts on their Facebook page as a story.

Example if I say I'm having terrible constipation while pregnant and everyone then agrees
They will put on Facebook a story "mother to be can't poo!!" Then quotes everyone etc

QueenMortifauxcado · 04/01/2017 18:57

Do the t&cs explicitly state you give permission for 3rd parties? Admittedly I haven't read them. I would expect it to be different if mn were publishing. I actually have no idea how journalism works though so don't know whether removing consent would be effective anyway.

JaneAustinAllegro · 04/01/2017 19:01

I'm a copyright lawyer and raised this issue directly about 6 months ago. the reply from MN was a vague thought that they'd look into it. Essentially, when your business revenue depends on clicks and traffic and volume of unique users, any mass marigree advertising such as that which the Mail provides means cash in the bank. Much as there is well meaning and honours for public service at the centre of this site, it's a business and it's a symbiotic relationship. From what I recall, I also had major concerns with the user t and cs / privacy policy attached to the site, which belong to the Dark Ages of social media and are grossly inappropriate in this day / age (got similar brush off on that).

CockacidalManiac · 04/01/2017 19:01

I've never read the t&cs, but I'd be surprised if something in there didn't cover it.

Lorelei76 · 04/01/2017 19:02

The MN t & c is explicit though

There isn't any doubt what you are signing up to.

WrongTrouser · 04/01/2017 19:02

I agree with you OP. This is a very worrying trend and I hope MNHQ change their policy.

I also agree with pp's suggestion about a warning about this being put at the top of sensitive topics.

LauraMipsum · 04/01/2017 19:11

Some other forums I use / have used have a "private" section which you can only see if you've made a certain number of posts. It's not beyond a Fail reporter to make the requisite number of posts and get in for a nosey, but it isn't such effective clickbait as their readers wouldn't then be able to pop over to read the whole thing.

Maybe Relationships, anything to do with special needs, the elderly parents section etc should have a posting threshold like that.

CockacidalManiac · 04/01/2017 19:11

I also agree with pp's suggestion about a warning about this being put at the top of sensitive topics.

I've just posted a thread in Site Stuff asking about it

JaneAustinAllegro · 04/01/2017 19:11

Actually I see the t and cs were updated today. They reserve the right to use our contributions to the site for commercial purposes- presumably originally for the books that were published but in theory covers them if they wished to syndicate content to the DM (I'm pretty sure they don't currently, but the could).

LineyReborn · 04/01/2017 19:14

JaneAustinAllegro thanks for that. How very interesting.

Christmassnake · 04/01/2017 19:14

I have to say...rather admit ,I do look at the daily mail on line every day..and every day there is an article taken from mumsnet...I emailed mumsnet and asked why it was allowed ,they said they couldn't stop it.....from then on I only post on here anything I'm happy with the whole world knowing about me ....

TwoLeftSocks · 04/01/2017 19:19

I posted a thread a few years ago. It wasn't overtly identifying but I was fairly sure the individuals involved didn't use MN so I felt I could at the time. I wouldn't post for the same advice now for fear that it would be splashed about by the Fail or others and potentially put sometime at risk - alot of the issues here are identifiable by their timeline as people tend to post as things happen.

I've also stopped posting on other sensitive boards elsewhere on the site, even with anonymity I don't really want to see my worries or fears pasted elsewhere for fun. So for me the site has changed.

Lorelei76 · 04/01/2017 19:19

Jane, I signed up 18 months ago and it def said that at the time. It might have been reworded?

TwoLeftSocks · 04/01/2017 19:23

I've been on here nine years and wouldn't have a clue about the t&cs if it weren't for threads like this.

TheySayIamparanoid · 04/01/2017 19:24

I might of had a glitch the other night when at the top of a page it said
'Sponsored by netflix'

And that got me wondering how long it will be till we see
'Sponsored by daily fail'

Probably not too long, it is an expanding business after all...

TheCraicDealer · 04/01/2017 19:26

I'm the same Christmassnake. I was always a bit "meh" about the hate for the DM as anyone I know sees it as a bit of a comic and doesn't take it too seriously. This latest stunt, for me, this has really crossed a line. Posters come here in the depths of despair looking for an outlet, often because they're trying to put on a front for small children. And what happens? Some piece of shit researcher plasters it across the newspapers for the sake of a filler article. Whoever signed off on that can go fuck themselves with a rolled up copy of their rag.

Why can't MN make say the OP on each thread and the first five or so comments free to view, then put the rest as readable only to members who sign up to the T&C's which could include a clause about not using member-only content for Third Party publications?

TrollTheRespawnJeremy · 04/01/2017 19:27

I absolutely wouldn't post anything incriminating on here. I know a lot of people moan about it- but Mumsnet is no longer what it was.

It was never truly a 'safe' space as trolls and scammers still exist- but at least it wasn't in the media.

The things that made this website good, or different from other websites are largely no more.

I used to post daily (few namechanges over the last 8 years), I am still on far more than I should be but I maybe only post weekly or every 2 weeks and it's less conversational. I'm definitely not as invested.

LineyReborn · 04/01/2017 19:42

I am advised by other companies when they changes the Terms and Conditions I signed up to.

Didn't happen with Mumsnet.

Original poster
bibbitybobbityyhat · 04/01/2017 19:44

How do you know that the ts & cs were updated today Jane?

OP posts:
LardLizard · 04/01/2017 19:51

THis is why I try very hard not to post anything too deep or personal anymore
And this is why mn is not what it was

Makes you feel like we are being sold out

So sorry that happened to that op

welliesocks · 04/01/2017 19:54

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

PerfumeAndCatsAndBooks · 04/01/2017 20:09

I get all the "the internet is a public space anyway" stuff, but for me, the biggest and worse consequence of the publishing of threads in the press, is the increased name changing.

Along with the hugely increased number of users, it really removes the "friendliness" (for want of a better word) of MN and makes everything so much more impersonal. It also contributes to the troll hunting - I'm fucking sick of seeing "interesting first post" bollocks, which I have also personally experienced when I NCed to discuss a personal issue (ironically already in the local press). It just makes you think fuck it tbh. I've been here more than ten years, yet in the last 12 months I've NCed more than in the previous decade put together.

I also won't post about anything to do with my DC's SN as it's so identifying, and I feel an invasion of their privacy if picked up by the press. I don't mind taking the risk of me being recognised on MN, but I mind very much the risk of my DCs (and their support workers etc) being recognised in the national press.

It's a real shame as the support from MN has been invaluable to me in the past. To my mind, it will just become a run of the mill chat site rather than a support site, which was the whole point of MN previously. It does genuinely make me sad.

Original poster
bibbitybobbityyhat · 04/01/2017 20:10

That's at least 3 of us LardLizard and welliesocks.

OP posts:
JaneAustinAllegro · 04/01/2017 20:24

Bibbety (i hope you are also in a frock coat) - it says "updated 9 hours ago" and I believed it (and now it says "about 11 hours ago"). I don't know which provisions have been updated though - there's no indication of what the changes are, but (without remembering what my specific concerns were 9ish months ago), they're not as out of date as I recalled so I think there's been a general overhaul. copyright in the user content (your posts) remains with you, but they can do whatever they want with it, including editing it and selling it and not crediting the original author. That's pretty standard stuff to enable a site like this to operate