Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Reply to Justine

776 replies

TheOriginalFAB · 18/12/2011 18:46

The first objection I'm afraid I can't really buy - Most of the UK population uses Facebook. Most Mumsnetters use facebook. It's a bit mad to object to facebook on principle - it's like objecting to people.

This is just daft and is irrelevant whether you buy it or not. Just because "most of ths population" use FB doesn't mean everyone on MN is going to like it. It is like saying you don't buy that some people won't eat meat as the majority of the population are not vegetarian/vegan. And it is nothing like objecting to people Hmm

The second objection I just think is misguided, as I've explained. Users' privacy is no more compromised by this button than it ever was.

It might not be "no more compromised" than before but the point is it is much more visable now and before people might not have been aware of the link button but now they are and they don't like it.

So should we change something because some people on this thread dislike it even if we think they are mistaken to dislike it? Even though what they are objecting to is already in place?

You may think we are mistaken not to like it but we are part of MN and without posters you just have a website with adverts no one sees. And the fact that it is already in place is not the issue. Before lots of posters weren't aware of it so couldn't object.

I've been doing this long enough to know that new things are never well-received - but it doesn't always mean they are bad.

That comes across as patronising and lots of posters are telling you this is a "bad" idea and lots of people don't like it.

For me this is a huge loss as I feel unable to discuss something I would have appreciated help with and that makes me feel sad. And namechanging doesn't work for me as someone always guesses who I am and outs me.

OP posts:
wannaBe · 20/12/2011 09:32

yes but BR the function has always been there.

And it still comes down to, if you don't want people to identify you, then don't post identifying information on public internet forums.

If you're really "anonymous" behind your username, accidentally linking your thread to fb isn't going to change that fact.

BobbinRobin · 20/12/2011 09:33

I would say that I'm fairly technologically savvy, and I never realised that clicking the FB button on the drop down at the top would instantly post that thread to my FB wall, and send a message to all my FB friends that I liked that particular thread.

I assumed it was a general 'Like Mumsnet' button.

wannaBe · 20/12/2011 09:34

Akiram if the button is clicked accidentally by someone on a smartphone for instance then it is down to the design of the smartphone. Ditto the button being hovered over by mouse on a computer - in fact I suspect that is a facebook thing but I can't be sure.

Akiram · 20/12/2011 09:39

wannBe Thankyou Smile So that part isn't actually MNs fault then.

BobbinRobin · 20/12/2011 09:40

"If you're really "anonymous" behind your username, accidentally linking your thread to fb isn't going to change that fact."

As someone said yesterday, it's all about context through. If, someone was browsing MN and saw a thread saying 'My 14 year old son thinks he might be gay', they wouldn't think much of it and probably wouldn't even click on it.

However if your FB friend - who had a 14 year old son - posted that thread to their FB then you can bet your life you and lots of other FB friends would click on it and put two and two together.

Akiram · 20/12/2011 09:40

Bobbin If you hover over the FB button on the drop down at the top it actually says "share on Facebook".

wannaBe · 20/12/2011 09:42

"But wannabe would you seriously mind your fil or mil or next door neighbour, work colleagues actually working out who you are on here as you have led them
to a particular thread accidentally?

You may not have posted anything personally identifying you, but if you didit a few times, they could work it out, do a search if they wished and realise
that you have posted stuff that is not for their eyes.

It's one thing saying it's a public forum - yes we know it is, but it's another thing actually knowing that you are my great aunts sisters cousins IYSWIM?"

But the thing is furball that you have no idea who is reading mn. Just because you haven't "accidentally" led someone here doesn't mean they're not reading your threads and don't know who you are.

The problem here is complacency IMO. People post here and genuinely believe they're anonymous. They're not.

And if you're not making yourself identifyable then you're not going to be identified just because you accidentally link to your thread on fb. (assuming it really is that easy).

If I "like" a thread on fb it doesn't say "wannabe" likes this thread" it will say (my first name) likes this thread. So people aren't going to identify who I am by me "liking" the thread, they will identify that from what I've posted, which would still be identifyable even if I weren't on fb, iyswim.

BobbinRobin · 20/12/2011 09:45

"Bobbin If you hover over the FB button on the drop down at the top it actually says "share on Facebook"."

Well I won't be hovering to test it out Grin But even that wording isn't really specific enough, I don't think, for every person who might hover on it to understand exactly what it means and its implications.

HollyGhost · 20/12/2011 09:46

Just noticed this, having missed the furore.

So often, nowadays, MN threads prompt most discussion in linked threads on facebook, away from the trolls. This will make that happen more. It will make MN even more cliquey.

It is like MN HQ have decided to support mouldies x 10000000

LoremIpsum · 20/12/2011 09:51

Bobbin I don't assume that about the hundreds of links from a multitude of sources friends post each yer. I generally assume they've posted a link to something interesting and worth reading. I don't get this mindset that friends will leap on an MN link and start trying to stalk me. It's a very long bow to draw.

BobbinRobin · 20/12/2011 09:53

Lorem - I think it very much depends on the actual thread you link to as to how tempted people will be to click on it. The bumsex ones would certainly catch people's eye.

BobbinRobin · 20/12/2011 09:55

And it's not that much of a leap of imagination that if someone posts a link about a certain topic then people are going to assume that there's a reason WHY that person has posted it, especially if it's related to an identifiable issue to do with that person.

wannaBe · 20/12/2011 09:58

but if you accidentally "like" it then surely you just go and "unlike" it again? problem solved.

Incidentally, it is possible to disabled the script on your computer that enables the like function to appear - I know because my dh has disabled it on mine for other reasons and the "like" button doesn't even appear on my page.

LoremIpsum · 20/12/2011 09:58

Being tempted to click on it is a different thing to assuming something about me though, Bobbin.

HollyGhost, that really only applies to people who want to chat that way. Lots of posters are looking for general chat with loads of strangers, neither FB nor a Mouldies style site can offer that.

Lougle · 20/12/2011 10:02

MNHQ are running a business. They aren't running a support forum, or a counselling venue. If users of this site choose to use it that way, they are facilitated where possible; I have to say that MNHQ are very sensitive to posters.

WRT to the 'two types of posters' thing. Is that true? Really? Perhaps I am a 'type 3' poster:

a) I hate FB, think it is the social implosion of the universe. People aren't 'friends' they are 'people I remember the name of who have a vague connection to that person who was once seeing the brother of the girl who was going out with x'. I mean, seriously - how many people have 1260 friends????

I have an account, but the last entry on it was in September, because people saw that it was my birthday on my info.

b) I am acutely aware that this is not a private site. I think several times before posting here. I would never post something here that I wouldn't be happy about everyone seeing. That means that I don't post about an individual who causes me frequent grief, because whilst the support would be helpful, if that individual ever stumbled across the posts, I wouldn't be happy for him/her to read them.

c) I have a child with SN. It's no secret. But again, I wouldn't post anything about her, the professionals involved in her care, her school, or the Local Authority that I wouldn't be perfectly happy for them to read, or discuss with me. Yes, sometimes that means I can't vent in the same way as some others. But it also means that I wouldn't give a flying monkey's if you 'liked' my thread on your FB, because there is nothing to see.

Frankly, I think people need to move on. It is what it is. If you don't like it, you have 3 options:

  1. Make sure you log out of FB before logging in to MN
  2. Delete your FB account
  3. Stop posting such revealing stuff on a site which has every right to reproduce your traumas in any medium, edited or unedited, that they choose.

Also, to the poster(s) who say 'I am soooooo identifiable, even if I namechange people know it's me'. Well, yes. That's because you keep the same tone and don't even try and change it and post the same identifying facts about yourself.

Try, just try, to hide something about yourself. You won't die Hmm

wannaBe · 20/12/2011 10:04

BR, but you still don't know who is reading away from facebook.

I have recognized people on here purely from the stuff they have posted here. They don't know that I know, they don't know that I know who they are and what I know about them that they haven't chosen to share in rl.

To assume that by posting behind a username you are anonymous is extremely naive. The assumption should always be that you shouldn't post online what you wouldn't want people in RL to read. Because in truth people in RL might be reading, and you have no idea.

If anything, this button has highlighted just how complacent people are about their online identities.

BobbinRobin · 20/12/2011 10:06

"but if you accidentally "like" it then surely you just go and "unlike" it again? problem solved."

That's assuming you even realise you have done it. The way it is at the moment it's misleading as may think you have 'cancelled' it when you haven't.

It's also possible to accidentally post to the FB of another person logged in on that computer, so again, you may not realise.

And when you Like something, the message instantaneously goes out to the newsfeed of your FB friends. The message could easily drop on to their page and not be removed (by the Unlike) again until they refresh that page.

LissTheSeasonLouBeJollie · 20/12/2011 10:09

But surely, once the glitches are ironed out and the process becomes two step then the onus is on you to just not press the button? People are getting hysterical about hypothetical events. Don't want your fb friends to read your thread about bumsex, don't click like. Plus, the button isn't moving. It will stay in the same position at the top of the thread. Surely that in itself reduces the risk of accidental pressing?

LissTheSeasonLouBeJollie · 20/12/2011 10:09

But surely, once the glitches are ironed out and the process becomes two step then the onus is on you to just not press the button? People are getting hysterical about hypothetical events. Don't want your fb friends to read your thread about bumsex, don't click like. Plus, the button isn't moving. It will stay in the same position at the top of the thread. Surely that in itself reduces the risk of accidental pressing?

wannaBe · 20/12/2011 10:09

if you're using firefox go into the ad-block settings and there's a function to choose which scripts you don't want to run. There's a specific facebook one on mn - disable that and voila the "like" button doesn't even appear on the page.

bingo.

BobbinRobin · 20/12/2011 10:10

I too am acutely aware that this is a public forum, and do try to be very careful to be as anonymous as possible when I do post, which isn't that regularly.

I think it's because I AM so aware that this Like button makes me uncomfortable. I'm also uncomfortable on behalf of the many posters who are fairly indiscreet and technically un-savvy.

wannaBe · 20/12/2011 10:10

and what lissie said.

LissTheSeasonLouBeJollie · 20/12/2011 10:11

Once you unlike it disappears off your friends feeds and notifications.

LissTheSeasonLouBeJollie · 20/12/2011 10:11

Once you unlike it disappears off your friends feeds and notifications.

FrothingBeserker · 20/12/2011 10:14

I think that if MNHQ want to play with the big boys - and that is what they have been moving towards for the last few years - they have a duty to ensure that the changes they implement on thier site a) work as they should, b) are understood by themselves, and c) are explained to the users.

MN was set up as a cosy little corner to chat in. there are users still here from that time. yes, it has got exponentially bigger, and yes it is nowhere near as anonymous as a result.

but I think MNHQ need to start acting like the owners of a global, massive site, rather than the people who set up the cosy little chat corner. It si all very well saying that MNers need to change their posting habits (and actually their home computer habits if they want to continue using MN the way they have been Hmm), but MNHQ need to step up too.

I have family who work as techs for some of the biggest sites - amazon, imdb etc. changes are flagged, properly, not sneaked in at close of play (and of course, there is no close of play for those sites anyway) and screw ups dealt with instantly, not several days later.