Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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:
TheUnworthy · 12/11/2016 11:37

and the rest of MN gasping in shock

Not all the rest of mn. Reading through that thread I completely agree with Olennas take on it.

BeyondReasonablyDoubts · 12/11/2016 11:37

Portia, the token disabled comment followed (iirc) a disabled poster being told that their interpretation of something offensive was incorrect by mn along with "we know [better than you], we have a disabled staff member [who, ftr, does not have the same issues that were being discussed]".
No it was not nice, but just lumping it together with loads of other attacks is misrepresenting it.

But again, three versions of the truth. I did have a look for the original thread there, but can't find it.

QueenMortificado · 12/11/2016 11:38

I know, but there was quite a lot of stuff aimed at Justine / MNHQ which was entirely personal, such as this post

"Justine what the fuck are you doing? You are BETRAYING the very people who actually trusted you! You are shameful."

I hope we can agree that these kinds of posts aren't on and productive in any way

BeyondReasonablyDoubts · 12/11/2016 11:38

It was in site stuff if anyone is better at searching than me Grin

OlennasWimple · 12/11/2016 11:40

Queen - yes, I completely agree - I've always preferred the "play the ball, not the man" approach

PortiaCastis · 12/11/2016 11:42

I'm not lumping anything together because I have only read the titles of threads which I didn't want to read.
I'm saying who knows who works for MNHQ that's all

SoHairyAndForeverSpartacus · 12/11/2016 11:44

As I said, the posts aimed at Justine are still there to read. I agree that some of them make uncomfortable reading. But don't fall into the trap of thinking that a deleted post must be proof that even worse was said to justine as well. No posts aimed at justine were deleted. Only those aimed at PL.

BeyondReasonablyDoubts · 12/11/2016 11:48

Sorry Portia, I didn't mean you were doing it - I meant justines op and some following posters.

BeyondReasonablyDoubts · 12/11/2016 11:51

...give that impression

ftw · 12/11/2016 11:53

I totally recognise Olenna's version of that thread, which is not to say that some posters didn't cross the line, they probably did, but Justine's first assertion was (IIRC) that posters were being transphobic rather than addressing their actual stance which was actually anti-misogynist.

VincentVL · 12/11/2016 11:55

I agree with Olenna's take too. I think the way the threads have been represented here is quite badly innaccurate and unfair.

I think what APlaceOnTheCouch said was completely on point and that the Paris Lees issue is not really about moderation, its about accountability and representation. Ill quote below because its on the last page:

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

BeyondReasonablyDoubts · 12/11/2016 12:00

The good thing is the threads still stand, so people can (if they can be bothered to read over 1000 posts and associated links!) go and read it and make their own mind up :)

It would be so much harder to discuss if it was a deleted thread, as is often the case in these kind of threads!!

Amalfimamma · 12/11/2016 12:05

Olenna's post is spot on.

VincentVL · 12/11/2016 12:12

Yes but the OTT deletions make it look like posters were saying really out of order stuff (the majority of them were for using "he" to describe a male person, like its blasphemous). Some very carefully argued posts were deleted because of a stray "he". Deleting those posts misrepresents the position and the tone of the posters. It is also inconsistent with what mumsnet previously suggested which was basically that they didnt want trans people on the threads 'mispronouned' but that this didnt apply to public figures. Justine has admitted she changed the rules here because Paris Lees is her guest at Blogfest. That whole bit about not being rude to your guest when they come round for tea, which is yet another example of her total flippancy about the whole situation.

LineyReborn · 12/11/2016 12:16

May I just clarify that a few posts were deleted on the PL thread because of an inadvertent misunderstanding about whether something upthread was a direct quote or not. In fact I asked for my post to go because I realised I'd 're-quoted' something that was a paraphrase not a direct quote.

In the interests of strict fairness and accuracy, I reported my own post and that's why it went.

I hope that makes sense.

VincentVL · 12/11/2016 12:20

yes that was my fault, i wrote a parody of Lees work and it wasnt clear enough that it was a parody rather than a quote. I reported my post then too. That only affected about a page out of 41 though.

mirandayardley · 12/11/2016 12:21

Oleannas is on the money. We cannot have all disagreement branded as transphobia, we are allowed to disagree on things and disagreement is good.

shinynewusername · 12/11/2016 12:22

That whole bit about not being rude to your guest when they come round for tea, which is yet another example of her total flippancy about the whole situation

And perpetuates the illusion, clearly shared by some posters on here, that MN is being run from Justine's kitchen table by a group of well-meaning volunteers on their day off. Mumsnet is a successful business, its staff are salaried, the decision to invite PL was a business decision and site users have every right to challenge it - though not, of course, to be abusive. It is so patronising to pretend otherwise.

MN has many, many threads containing harsh criticism of other businesses- M&S for example. It seems entirely hypocritical to host a platform that lets people to criticise other businesses, but to perpetuate a cosy myth that MN is run on goodwill in order to duck criticism of the business decisions of MN itself.

VoyageOfDad · 12/11/2016 12:43

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

VincentVL · 12/11/2016 12:51

I didnt make up a quote on purpose. I paraphrased using Lees work as reference in an attempt to write a parody. I thought I was clear about the fact it was a parody. It wasnt clear enough, probably because it wasnt really far off what Lees has actually said. As soon as I saw people had thought it was real I posted to clarify, I apologised multiple times and I reported my own post, which was responded to very quickly by a mod.

This isnt about being welcome to disagree on a topic. This is about accountability. Accountability is being sidestepped by the pretence that this is about a difference of opinion.

ErrolTheDragon · 12/11/2016 12:51

Vincent didnt realise it wouldnt be recognised as parody, and got it and the referencing posts deleted as soon as the problem became apparent Hmm

SoHairyAndForeverSpartacus · 12/11/2016 12:55

I did see that it was a parody, but I could also see how others had taken it as a real quote. The whole thing was cleared up pretty quickly.

VoyageOfDad · 12/11/2016 13:01

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BeyondReasonablyDoubts · 12/11/2016 13:09

You heard the man, ladies. The line has been drawn

VincentVL · 12/11/2016 13:09

What an excellent example VoyageOfDad is providing of what actual personal attacks on mumsnet posters look like! Bravo!