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.

53rd I wasn't calling people thick for posting sensitive stuff, I was calling them thick for not realising it's a public website accessible by anyone.

"I'm surprised that people need to keep being reminded - there is a thread like this every week!"

A. There are thousands of threads every day on MN. It may be difficult to spot the "one thread a week" about this issue

B. Not everyone is on MN that often or regularly hence it may be difficult for them to spot the "one thread a week " about this issue.

Everyone knows it's a public website, Livia. What many people don't know, and don't expect, is that threads from this website get lifted, screenshotted and loudly broadcast to the world by the tabloid press (and the Independent, and HuffPo Parents, and whoever else).

People who post on here needing support are often in tough situations where they can't talk so openly to anyone they know in real life, and they're really struggling with whatever they're dealing with.It's not unreasonable to suggest that MN stick up a warning saying that threads from here are reappearing in the DM or whatever. You are free to privately believe people are thick for needing that if you like, but there's no need to loudly call them so on the Relationships board itself.

And every time a thread like this is started it potentially increases clicks for DM (people googling DM and MN etc) - I'm sure HQ and DM appreciate it a lot. So yes I find it mildly ironic that people ranting just makes the problem worse.

So no I am not gleeful but those of you with children presumably talk to them about internet safety? So you understand the concept of a public forum?

You don't even have to log in to read posts. In fact a google will come up with any number of MN posts

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?

I personally think that even people that might not be all that bright or don't have much common sense deserve the consideration of a warning; all sorts of people post on here. In fact, they might need extra guidance to not post identifying material.
Plenty of pretty much sneering at 'thick' people going on here.

I could be wrong (natch) but I don't think NetHuns has the same issue as I've never seen anything of there's elsewhere. Maybe because I don't notice, but I do see Reddit in the media too and it's not a site I use.

The point I'm trying to make is that they are no more or less identifiable from DM or MN - it's a cut and paste job

At no point do I agree with the press doing it but I think perhaps people need a sense of perspective

Then what exactly is your objection to the OP's proposal that MN stick up a warning, Livia?

Only that I think it's akin to one of those 'may contain nuts' warnings on a pack of peanuts.

Perhaps it's me being thick but why are people more likely to be identified in the DM than a google search bringing up a MN thread?

"During a scathing response to the article, there was a chorus of outrage at the Daily Mail. One user chimed, 'that poor woman', as a show of support towards the unlucky mum. It is unknown what the now-single mum and her tot will be up to next."

Hi all

Thanks for drawing our attention to this. None of it's ideal, of course - but it does seem particularly grim to lift a thread in which someone has posted for support at a dreadful time.

We've said this before, but just to be absolutely clear: we categorically do not have any kind of arrangement with the DM. Nor are we turning a blind eye in pursuit of traffic - we don't, in fact, see much of a lift in our stats when the DM runs one of these pieces, and interestingly they use what's called a 'no follow' link when they link to us, so there's no search benefit either.

As many posters have pointed out previously, however, this is a tricky area legally, and it's quite likely that the DM would claim Fair Use. We are currently investigating our legal position, though, and we hope to have a clearer picture soon.

But the truth is that, whether or not the Mail pick it up, Mumsnet is an open site. On the upside, this openness means volume of users, which in turn means Mumsnet is available for free to anyone who needs advice, 24-7. It also means a variety of points of view, and the wisdom that comes from a considerable crowd.

But it's always worth remembering that this is a public forum, searchable by Google, legally linkable to - and quotable by - all and sundry. It's worth making use of the name-change facility if you're posting personal stuff (perhaps with only a small tweak, if you don't want to start afresh); another option is OTBT, which isn't crawlable by Google, and 30 Days Only (posts disappear after 30 days).

Thanks all,

MNHQ

I think a warning on relationships is a good idea. Why not? It makes sense. and doesn't do any harm. Not everyone who posts uses the site regularly so they may not be aware.

Only that I think it's akin to one of those 'may contain nuts' warnings on a pack of peanuts

Okay. So to you, it is obvious that posting on MN means a fair chance of your thread/post appearing in the newspapers.

It is not obvious to everyone, though. Many people won't be aware. (And I know you're going to say "but it's a public forum!", but once again - it doesn't follow that people should therefore expect "public forum" = "reprinted on DM website on regular basis".)

As someone who clearly knows so much about how the internet has always worked, you'll be familiar with the concept of the Eternal September? This is like that. There will always be new people who don't know how things work, and that's even more true when things change (and the tabloids reprinting threads like this is a new thing).

So, we have a situation where many people a) don't know and b) would like to know before posting and c) in this particular forum are likely to be posting in a time of crisis on a sensitive subject.

OP's suggestion was to stick up a warning letting them know.

Your suggestion is.... what? To tell them they're thick?

But why are they more at risk of being outed from a DM C&P? Nobody seems to be able to answer this?

Anyone can wander into here and see an emotional post. Anyone can look on the DM and come across the same post. What's the difference?

Your suggestion is.... what? To tell them they're thick?

Yes because that's exactly what I suggested...'

"So I like threads like this, people need to be reminded- frequently that it is not a "safe" place." no, they really don't. It's not rocket science is it? People find this site through searching for it online, you know, through the public internet. They read threads before they sign up. So if they really need to be told time and time and time again that this isn't a safe space then they need to think hard about whether the internet is for them.

summerville it really isn't possible for MN HQ to know definitively whether a poster is genuine or not. Yes sometimes a poster may have multiple acccounts on the same IP address, or multiple name changes on the same user account, in which case it's fairly simple. But changing an IP address is easy. Posting from a different IP under different usernames is easy. If someone posts as a first-time poster then HQ would give them the benefit of the doubt.

For context: I was a moderator on a different website a few years ago. A poster was outed as a troll who had been trolling various parts of the internet for over five years. she had had four different persona's on this particular site during that time, three of whom she killed off in order to gain sympathy, and she had also had at least one other persona who had befriended a member away from the site who had also died. And the worst of it was that she was a long-time, well-known poster.

Ok, so try this scenario.

Someone comes on here desperate for help or support or advice. They type a post out, venting all the way, posting personal details that could put them.

Slight pause- sense check/grammar/spelling

They read a warning that their thread could be lifted.

That warning should give the op an opportunity to pause before finally posting.

Perhaps instead of a warning at the top of a thread it would be better for a box to appear after hitting "post" to confirm that a poster wants to go ahead- the warning could go in this confirmation box.

Warning: not a technical person!

But why are they more at risk of being outed from a DM C&P? Nobody seems to be able to answer this?

Because the DM has a different audience, for one.

Also, because it's not just about being outed. Sometimes people don't like the idea of having a thread of theirs on a sensitive issue (a dead child, etc) being used for entertainment somewhere else. Or they like knowing that they could always ask MN to pull a thread if it became too identifying - but once it's on the DM, it's there forever. Or they don't want the bottom-feeders who inhabit the DM's comment section to rip their situation apart.

Again, you might not care about any of these things. But it surely doesn't take a massive leap of imagination to understand that other people care about things you don't, and vice versa.

@Chris1234567890

" theres a higher probability that the DM lifted threads are HQ generated in the first place, thus avoiding any possible litigation from any individual impacted. The only posters pissed off are those who take the time to reply and provide the saleable fodder, not the originating author. So for me, if its in DM, its been a fake all along and MN know that.

This is absolutely not the case.

Some people just love conspiracy theories. :)

The only warnings that should be given are in the T&C's which users sign up to when they join the site. The same t&C's which stipulate that MN owns everything you post and have the right to do with it whatever they choose.

The t&C's could state as kate said upthread, that "mn is a public site, searchable through google and shareable to all and sundry.

As for people asking what the objections are, the objection is because we are apparently all adults who are responsible for what we post online. It is not MN's responsibility to warn people that they're posting on a public website which is searchable by the world and that if you make yourself identifiable you might be identified.

And this has nothing to do with the DM or similar. I've been identified in RL from my posts on here, by another MN'er who walked up to me in my local Tesco and said "you're wannabe from MN aren't you?" nothing overtly personal, just information about me over the years which meant that someone might be able to identify me if they'd read it and taken it on board...

MN is no less identifiable than the Daily Mail. People like to claim that it is but it isn't. There are over a million hits a day on here iirc, this is the biggest parenting site in the country. And the chances are that more people read a thread on here than read one on the Daily mail site. Added to which, threads on here stay here indefinitely, and stay active for as long as they're being posted on, whereas today's DM lift is tomorrow's virtual chip paper as it makes way for something else to spark yet another "the DM are bastards preying on the vulnerable" post on here.

53rdAndBird anything you post on any internet site ever is there for ever once you've posted it. That includes pictures you might put on FB, Instagram, YouTube video's, all you need is one person to share your FB picture to a public FB profile for instance and what you thought was private suddenly could go viral. We teach our children this, and if people don't then they should be.

Potential employers routinely sift through applicants' social media to find anything incriminating. Not necessarily moral but it happens. This is the nature of the internet, and the sooner people wake up to that fact and start to realise that as soon as you open up your private life to public websites you are identifiable to anyone and not necessarily with your knowledge the better.

No a poster may not have chosen to write about a sensitive situation to the Daily mail. But by posting about it on MN they do choose to make their sensitive situation public property. And to some, MN is just as much entertainment as the Daily Mail. Given that a significant number of mumsnetters do in fact read the Daily Mail as well as MN shows clearly that to many there is little distinction.

I think, on the whole (not in every case, obviously), that people who log on to Mumsnet to either become a member or browse for advice/information, will be more sensitive to difficult relationship issues than the bigots who read the Mail. And the Mail still has a wider readership than Mumsnet, I believe.

Since the idea of a warning or general reminder threads like this causes so much offence to Userwhatsit from last night, Wannabe and others, I am just going to carry on pm-ing people and reminding them about the Mail Online's current prurient interest in threads on all sorts of subjects. I am grateful to the poster who did same for me not so long ago. I haven't posted anything remotely identifying since and nor shall I, namechange or not. I am only one of thousands who feel the same way, clearly.

Name changing brings it's own problems - namely constant, absurd levels of trolling. So that can only get worse too.

People read threads on here just for entertainment - it's naive to think otherwise! The point is that an OP hasn't a clue who will read it on here or on a news site - plenty of threads have provided wank fodder for various weirdos over the years, without having been near a national newspaper site