Outing another poster's RL identity should always be a banning offence. Discuss.

[FamiliesShareGerms]

I genuinely cannot think of a legitimate reason to out someone else on MN. Therefore any posters who put up material or links which have the effect of allowing readers to put a real life identity to another MNer should be banned unless the identified MNer explicitly confirms that they do not mind.

Anyone think of any reasons why this policy shouldn't be adopted immediately?

Of course it should be! No need for discussion. Am shocked at HQ's stance on this.

Tbh, I thought that this is already the case. As in, it is an unspoken rule that if a poster is outed maliciously then a ban would be automatic.

I don't think that it has to be written down in as many words, but it would be good to have confirmation from MNHQ.

Tee
yes, nothing that we write is actually private, but the whole point of posting anonymously on MN is that we can share some stuff that we'd rather not have connected to our RL names. I do think that people should be more aware how easy it would be to discover their RL identities, should someone be willing to spend a bit of time snuffling about the site.

If you don't want to be identified, then don't post identifying comments.

Ok, so shoot me for putting "discuss" at the end of the title.

Still waiting for a response from MNHQ on the substantive issue. Still not seen any reasons why outing could ever be acceptable...

Have you reported your OP?

is this something that has actually happened to you on mumsnet?

You still haven't said why you are in such a lather about it.

Anyway, I'd put money on MNHQ saying it would be looked at on a case by case basis - and rightly too.

Hello.

We do look at each individual on a case by case basis so there's no hard and fast rule. Some folk can put their foot in things in a non-malice way so it would be wrong to ban in these circumstances.

True Julie, true. However if it's a deliberate act...it's vile bullying and nasty

Apologies for posting then going quiet - I spent most of the festive season without reception and am just getting the hang of the mobile site on my new phone and didn't see the responses.

Anyway, why am I bothered? Because MN allows us to post anonymously thus allowing us to say things we might not otherwise. Making our RL identities known could cause a range of problems, from embarrassment that the story of losing virginity is now public; to difficulties with MiL who now knows what her DiL really thinks of her; to real danger (think of the DV threads, or those - like me - who are adoptive parents).

Julie - thanks, but surely it would be possible to turn it round to make outing a banning offence except where circumstances mean that would be disproportionate? I have to say I've only ever seen a couple of posts which inadvertently give too much away in terms of location, schools etc.

And for all the "why bother" responses, here's a recent thread where this had actually happened and a poster's RL identity had been published in the Daily Mail

Maybe it would be simpler to just ban JH? It does seem a bit disproportionate to create a new rule because of the extreme/aggressive acts of a single individual.

I think JH should be banned for being JH. But then if I were In Charge, MN could ban people for just being a nob.

Because, Itsall, I think there has to be a good reason to ban someone permanently and if outing has to be spelt out as red line akin to trolling why not?

I'm still not sure why there shouldn't be such a rule

Though I have sympathy for Vesuvius's position!

The rules work as it is. As Hemmings has proved if some one is vile enough to out some one for malicious reasons than they won't give a fuck about being banned.

It's important to read the thread bout he publication in the DM.

But the name that was published had first been 'outed' by the user herself, as she freely admits.

The issue is the bullying tone and threats made. I support the MNHQ post above. Persistent threatening tone to members is surely a banning issue?

MN could ban people for just being a nob

It's also best not to force MNHQ into a policy and let them work quietly in the background.

What happened to SDTG, makes me furious [spite]. More so as the vile person that find it on their blog would have known fine well, that Mumsnet have zero power to do something when it's written on another website.

It is good to see though, that they tried to do what they could to help the situation, and that they supported the victim. And that when they could van the bit, they did so.

Something else that might be relevant is the MNHQ advice that you should never give more of yourself than you can afford to lose.

That includes clues to your identity.

For this isn't a private chat amongst friends, or a members' club, or a safe space. It is publication on a massive website that can be read by anyone in the world.

*ban the git

Not my fault I have 30k of Lab on my lap helping me type.

I agree about the advice on not giving more than you can afford to lose, scaevola. But just to be clear, the poster named in the DM article didn't out herself on MN, she confirmed her RL identity privately to another MN member (in this case johnhemming). Ok, so that was her choice and it carried the risk that it would be used publicly, but it is still - in my view - pretty despicable

it was for me when it happened.
MInd you all sorts of fuckers on here try to link back to other user names I have had since then

In the thread you linked, the poster confirms that she outed herself in more than one place.

And that it is not her outing that concerns her, but what is perceived (by her and by many) as bullying and threatening behaviour.

The publication of the name of a vulnerable baby in the care system, by a self-professed 'champion' for families is to me a far more concerning issue. Who else has thought he could help them, and could have their or their DC's personal information published by him? Horrible prospect.

And the Daily Mail (the only newspaper to publish both names) was never a corporate MN member, so cannot be banned (though I suspect DM staff are reading every word on this thread, and others).

Just to clarify, I have on (I think) 3 occasions in four years given my name and my email in threads. This was because I was so troubled by what was being said on threads about the child protection system I was inviting people to come and see for themselves.

Then in 2012 when JH wanted to complain about me for using one particular word to describe him, I emailed him my details because I agree it isn't fair to be very critical of someone behind a cloak of anonymity.

His complaint against me was dismissed.

I appreciate that having done that, I cannot now bleat that my privacy is compromised. I compromised it myself.

However, there is a massive difference (I think) between a poster choosing to do that and another poster trying to out her in an aggressive and malicious way - which is what I strongly feel JH was doing to me.

And for the DM to publish my real and my user names side by side when NO OTHER NEWSPAPER chose to do that, continues this nasty pattern of intimidation.

I think that it should be made more clear within the site guidelines WHY anonymity is important and should be preserved. And I do wonder whether certain posters, like JH, have been given more leeway because of their position.