Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Site stuff

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

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Mumsnet moderation policy

543 replies

JustineMumsnet · 11/11/2016 15:59

If you've visited Site Stuff in recent times you'll know there's been a fair bit of grousing about our moderation policy. There have been lot of calls from the SN boards in particular but elsewhere too for us to delete many more posts than we are doing at the moment. Equally some on the feminism boards have been particularly angered by the position we've adopted around transphobia.

Those of you who have been around for a bit will also know that some of these debates have been going on a long time.

Mumsnet has always believed - been founded upon - the idea that civilised debate is a broadly positive thing. That we can disagree but agree that people have a right to different opinions. That freedom of speech is in general good and that we'd rather let the conversation flow than censor it. That exposing ourselves to the widest range of arguments and opinions is generally healthier than banishing the ones we don’t like.

Increasingly you'll find that other places on the web will filter out views and information you might not like automatically - Facebook and Google both do this based on the data they have about you (which is a lot). Just take a look at the debate raging in the US right now over whether this kind of tailoring of news – some call it the “filter bubble” effect – was to blame for the election of Donald Trump. Whatever you think of Facebook’s role in sending Trump to the White House, it’s unarguably becoming increasingly hard to watch or read something that hasn't been selected for you.

We've chosen to be public, un-paywalled and welcoming to newbies with different opinions. That means from time to time we may be confronted by views that we think are outlandish and even noxious. Of course - given we're called Mumsnet - we're always going to be a space dominated by women but the only qualification we require of our users is a basic level of civility.

This doesn't mean that it's a complete free for all. Of course we do and will continue to remove posts that break our rules – for instance personal attacks and those that break the law or promote hate. But there are always going to be posts which fall into a grey area - posts that cause offence without intention, perhaps by using words in common use that some believe should be disallowed like “moron” or “idiot”. And our inclination here is to err on the side of free speech rather than censorship.

Many Mumsnetters have told us they've had their minds broadened by posts they've seen on Mumsnet and have become more tolerant and understanding as a result. We do understand it can be frustrating being told that we'd rather host a debate about why something was offensive so folks might change their mind, than delete it. We're mindful of the fact that many of our users are exhausted and often in impossibly difficult situations and would much rather people just understood or piped down - that we just deleted those comments which upset them or banned those who made them. But rightly or wrongly, that's not the Mumsnet we've chosen to be. We've chosen to be open and welcoming to new people and challenging different opinions. We've chosen to be a broad church not a narrow one.

At a time when the rise of intersectional politics often seems to be squeezing the space for public debate, when no-platforming has entered the everyday vocabulary of university campuses and social media reverberates daily to howls of outrage over some linguistic transgression or other, this seems more important than ever.

No-one is pretending that any of this stuff is easy. Rights only really mean anything when they are difficult to protect. And in the case of many of these arguments, we have deep instinctive sympathy with users calling for us to delete posts or ban certain words. We understand how anxious many who’ve battled for women’s rights feel. We understand that language plays an important part in making them feel marginalised and vulnerable. And many of us who have for years read the stirring and humbling posts on the SN boards will instinctively wish to defend parents who feel the casual, thoughtless language used by other posters is making their already hard lives harder still. We would go to the barricades with them in many ways, but not at the expense of a principle which makes Mumsnet what it is.

I think all this is worth stating because, frankly, the aggressive attitude of some Mumsnetters towards the community team in particular needs to stop. It's becoming demoralising and almost impossible to do the job. You couldn't actually hope to meet a nicer, more patient, diligent and selfless crew than the MN community team. Day in day out they do their level best to be fair, decent and consistent. Of course we get things wrong and don't always word things right - who doesn't? - and I know the majority of users know this and I'm really grateful for your support and kind words. The one thing I'm certain of, though, is that decent moderation is a big reason why Mumsnet has thrived and grown over the years.

But there are some users who, from what I've seen, are relentlessly denigrating the team in a way that can really only be described as aggressive heckling. Some of the attacks have been personal and downright nasty. In recent weeks members of the community team have been called ignorant, stupid, rude and not giving a shiny shite. The disabled members of our team have been described as tokens. I personally have been called sneering, supercilious, classist, venal and a hypocrite who’s drowning in the Kool-Aid amongst other things. (Let’s not get into a debate over whether that’s fair…)

The last thing we're saying is that we don't want feedback - we value it hugely, and we will always hold up our hands if we've messed up. (Incidentally almost none of the above critical posts have been deleted.) But, to be frank, if Mumsnet makes you that angry then maybe it's time to accept that it isn't the site for you - you probably need to acknowledge that we simply aren't and never will moderate the way you want us to. After all, we're here to make parents' lives easier and if the way we moderate raising your blood pressure on a daily basis - so much that you're calling the moderators “cunts” - then with the greatest respect I think you need to take a break.

In an increasingly polarised world of trigger warnings and safe spaces, preserving Mumsnet as a place that can host the widest debate in the most civilised fashion seems more important than ever. You’ll have to forgive me if this sounds pompous but this really is about freedom. As so often George Orwell put it best: “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

OP posts:
BeyondReasonablyDoubts · 12/11/2016 07:59

No, but everyone is not doing that. Most are just complaining about how things are done because they are having problems with it as it is

AlphaNumericalSequence · 12/11/2016 08:01

Gosh, that opening post from JustineMumsnet is sterling stuff. Really excellent. It's been terrible watching both the heightened aggression and the excessive sanitation of debate over the last several years, both on Mumsnet and in the wider world. I appreciate the moderation team's genuine committment to treading the tricky path between those two evils.

NerrSnerr · 12/11/2016 08:13

I agree with what tres said. I agree that some posters think it's ok to be rude because their cause is most important.

BeyondReasonablyDoubts · 12/11/2016 08:21

I was under the impression that Justine was talking about personal attacks on hq, not generally being rude. They are not the same thing, are they.

Not personal attacks - fine

Don't be rude - "be nice, ladies"

GingerIvy · 12/11/2016 08:28

"If you don't like it, then fuck off."

Nice. Perhaps it should be emblazoned across the logo at the top of the page, if everyone is so proud of that.

Hmm
TresDesolee · 12/11/2016 08:33

But Beyond (I appreciate you're repping your perspective in a constructive way under some pressure btw!) the fact that Mn is the only/best place for all of those groups also says something about how well Mn does and how well their approach has served a huge variety of groups.

You can posit that this has happened by accident and that mn's admins and leadership have created this unique environment by pure luck but that seems rather ungenerous to me. The more likely explanation is that no matter how much their approach might sting when it touches on something really personal or important to you overall the very same approach is exactly the thing that allows this site to provide such a unique environment for so many interest groups without us all killing each other.

APlaceOnTheCouch · 12/11/2016 09:02

Either posters know they're being rude or they don't. This thread won't give posters more awareness either way because it doesn't provide clearer guidelines.

If mods interact and say 'tell us when we get it wrong' then posters will do that. Some more robustly than others. It's impossible to create a standard that says 'tell us' but not too often or too robustly.

Absolutely say we won't accept personal attacks on moderators but tbh most of the areas - disability; trans; diabetes; etc - haven't had personal attacks on moderators.

If MN is now saying MN has spoken and 'if Mumsnet makes you that angry then maybe it's time to accept that it isn't the site for you' then that seems to contradict the 'tell us we are wrong' approach.

I've moderated forums. It's utterly thankless but I didn't expect thanks or appreciation. My only obligation as a moderator was to be fair, clear and honest. MNHQ can delete posts, ban posters, delete threads, close threads, etc. They have numerous tools at their disposal to control both threads and posters. But a thread in Site Stuff won't be read by most posters and doesn't reach the influx of new and future posters from the steady stream of Daily Mail stories.

MistresssIggi · 12/11/2016 09:03

I think re the "mutual hostility" or otherwise on the PL threads, the point is that for many posters the invitation extended to PL was in itself a hostile act - a shot across the bows of the gender critical approach so often discussed on here.

VoyageOfDad · 12/11/2016 09:31

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

WhirlwindHugs · 12/11/2016 09:36

It's not a hostile act to book someone you don't like and that is exactly the same goddamn thinking that allows gender critical feminists to be no platformed. Something that is often pointed out on here! No platforming is always wrong, if you want to go the event and ask pointed questions then it's a damn fine opportunity to do so. But don't act like the act of booking someone who challenges your point of view is aggressive and deserving of abuse, it is so, so hypocritical.

Purplebluebird · 12/11/2016 09:42

Flowers Well, I think you're doing a super job to be honest! Thank you :)

MistresssIggi · 12/11/2016 09:56

Whirlwind I am assuming you were not referring to my post when you wrote "deserving of abuse" as I said no such thing.

OlennasWimple · 12/11/2016 09:59

My reading of the "mutual hostility" on the PL threads is that it played out something like:

OP - "WTF - PL is a blogfest chair!"

FWR board - "WTF? MN what is going on?"

Justine - "PL is a proven campaigner, it's good to have alternative views presented. If you don't like it, it's probably because your transphobic"

FWR board - "We're not transphobic, we think it's odd for MN to book someone who has clearly stated misogynist views. There are plenty of transwomen who you could have chosen instead. And tell us more about this campaigning stuff"

Justine - "I think PL might regret some of the things she has said in the past."

FWR - "There's no evidence that she does have regrets, and she is still a misogynist . And tell us about her campaigning"

Justine - "RowanMN is now going to chair the panel. And it's not on to be rude about a MN guest so we are deleting all the posts called PL a misogynist"

FWR - "Eh? That's a new twist on talk guidelines? Ed Balls is also a Blogfest guest and people are saying rude things about him elsewhere on MN but not being deleted. And tell us about her campaigning"

Justine - "We're still deleting posts that are rude about PL. I'm off"

The thread is pretty emotional on both "sides", as posters feel very strongly that PL is a terrible person to associate with the MN brand but Justine disagrees and is - understandably - defensive about the decision. I wouldn't like to have to defend my professional decisions in real time to a MN board either (But we are still none the wiser about PL's campaigning, which is purportedly the reason why she is sitting on the panel.)

shinynewusername · 12/11/2016 10:43

tbh most of the areas - disability; trans; diabetes; etc - haven't had personal attacks on moderators

Exactly. Some posters don't seem to be able to tell the difference between strongly disagreeing with someone's actions/ideas and verbal abuse.

"That is an idiotic idea" is not the same "You are an idiot".

PigletWasPoohsFriend · 12/11/2016 10:49

There has been abuse towards MNHQ individual members of staff.

They were quite quickly deleted, but they were there.

BeyondReasonablyDoubts · 12/11/2016 10:51

I think (though I'm glad to be corrected) that there is also a difference between attacking someone's stance directly ("you are wrong") and attacking them ("you a an arsehole").
Admittedly both may be deletable offences, but they are not the same thing.

APlaceOnTheCouch · 12/11/2016 11:04

Then that abuse is wrong. It is also wrong to dismiss threads, full of concerned, intelligent posts with no abuse on the basis that a few posters were personally abusive.
Passions run high on threads that have political consequences and partly that is because MN has positioned itself as a political entity in that it gives platforms to politicians and in that Justine often speaks as 'founder of MN'.
That is the dichotomy. If being founder of MN accords influence then it isn't unreasonable to expect that influence would be used in the interests of MN - the members, the forum and the business. (And yes as a member I would assign that order but I accept as a business owner Justine may reverse it). When passionate, educated and often professionals (in the areas of disabilities, supporting minorities; gender studies, etc) highlight where they think MN moderation is failing then it's because they feel a sense of ownership of the site but also because they appreciate the political impact that MN has.

QueenMortificado · 12/11/2016 11:23

Olennas that is an utterly biased view of the thread, not really representative of what actually happened

Justine only got fucked off about it later on. Plus she changed what PL was doing and still got abuse for it.

SoHairyAndForeverSpartacus · 12/11/2016 11:28

Just one note to anyone reading through the PL thread to get your own sense if what was posted... the deleted posts are not the ones containing abuse to Justine.
She did state that those had been left to stand, not deleted. So please don't read it, see deleted posts and assume it must have been awful abuse aimed at justine in order for it to be deleted.
Most of the posts were deleted just for using the word he.

BeyondReasonablyDoubts · 12/11/2016 11:28

Olennas is a biased view, yes. But no less biased than the version being presented here, is it.
Three versions of what happened, n'all.

QueenMortificado · 12/11/2016 11:29

Three versions of what happened, n'all

Exactly

PortiaCastis · 12/11/2016 11:30

We do not know if MNHQ staff are disabled or have diabetes or are trans or which etcnic group they belong to . Being rude or making blanket statements about them is awful.

BeyondReasonablyDoubts · 12/11/2016 11:30

Fwiw, I largely agree with olennas description, I just recognise my bias Grin

venusinscorpio · 12/11/2016 11:33

I'm the same. I think Olenna's post was pretty spot on.

OlennasWimple · 12/11/2016 11:34

Well, yeah, I guess my description is biased (isn't most posting?), but as Beyond says there's a version being presented here that is basically "FWR said lots of mean things to Justine" and the rest of MN gasping in shock like we're the naughty kids who are going to get the school trip cancelled and ruin it for everyone because we can't behave properly Grin