Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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:
NerrSnerr · 13/11/2016 08:42

Welsh blog fest is a blogging conference so people are speaking, not writing.

ErrolTheDragon · 13/11/2016 09:05

When MN say "You won't change our minds on this" it really makes me fearful that MN advocate the growing trend of giving TA's a platform without even acknowledging why we are scared about this.

I believe MNHQ are genuinely trying to strike a balance, to allow a space for debate. I would be worried if they were only giving one side a platform, but I don't think that is the case. And gender critical feminists** were allowed to discuss the choice of speaker, we can debate in quite robust terms. AFAIK no-one got banned for overstepping the mark (some did, imo) on the PL thread. I'm inclined to think that the fact that Justine was apparently stung by the 'drunk the kool aid' thing as an indication that she hasn't.

BeyondReasonablyDoubts · 13/11/2016 09:09

Slightly o/t. There was a thread back in the summer where a man posted in relationships and part of it was that he coerced his wife into sex. People posted that legally coerced sex = rape and he was in the wrong (and especially bear in mind that this was the relationships board where plenty of people have experience of the other side) and were told they were attacking the OP by other posters. (He later said he was suicidal and that was then blamed on those posters too)

Where is the line here? Were posters exceeding it?

This really pissed me off at the time, obviously, hence it still being at the front of my mind Grin

BeyondReasonablyDoubts · 13/11/2016 09:12

I don't know Errol - theoretically if one has 'drunk the kool aid' they could be offended at the suggestion that they have been brainwashed and didn't come to their conclusion by themselves. Theoretically. Not talking about this.

AlphaNumericalSequence · 13/11/2016 09:20

"Trans activism" seems to be the thing that women on this thread fear, rather than transgender itself. Is that right?

VincentVL · 13/11/2016 09:28

she said it wasn't ok to call her a "vile misogynist" as that was attacking the person, not her views - the very thing people were complaining that Paris did to Julie Bindel.

Calling Paris Lees a vile misogynist is not 'the very thing' Lees did to Julie Bindel. Aside from the general abuse, misrepresentation and harassment Lees aims at Bindel, Lees started an online campaign with its own page etc designed to harass her and cause others to harass her called "Julie Bindel's Genitals".

Not the same thing, just in the interest of correct information.

BeyondReasonablyDoubts · 13/11/2016 09:29

To an extent alpha. It's transactivism that directly clashes with women's rights that is the problem. If they were campaigning for safe, separate spaces, I'm sure every "TERF" here would be on side.

Datun · 13/11/2016 09:42

BeyondReasonablyDoubts

Totally agree.

DeviTheGaelet · 13/11/2016 09:51

It's about more than safe spaces to me.
It's about a society that thinks woman-hood is an intangible thing that anyone can have. It's another indicator of how little value "woman" holds.
It's about a society that tells women that they can avoid rape/sexual assault if they don't make themselves vulnerable around men, yet simultaneously asks us to make ourselves vulnerable around men with the new legislation.
It's about a society that withholds information to protect the "gender identity" of violent criminals, where if a woman had committed that crime she'd be the subject of vilification and press speculation.

I don't hate transgender women or trans activists. I hate that society perceives "woman" as having so little value that it's barely a thing. Just an essence.

Even though women girls are raped/aborted/mutilated/denied access to education/at risk of dying in childbirth on a daily basis because of their sex.

BeyondReasonablyDoubts · 13/11/2016 09:57

I agree Devi, I just think it's easiest explained to a lay person with the safe space thing as a starting point :)

WelshMoth · 13/11/2016 10:09

Nerr thank you.
Is this web-cam'd?

ErrolTheDragon · 13/11/2016 10:16

Yes, what Beyond and Devi said.

Its a shame that the excessive demands of some TAs and the overly uncritical acceptance at women's expense has caused strife instead of mutual support. There are trans people who agree with this... it would be good their voices were heard more. It would be splendid if MN could provide a platform for trans people who aren't misogynistic, and I really hope when the dust has settled and they're thinking who to invite for other events or featured blogs or whatever this can happen.

Datun · 13/11/2016 10:19

I agree too devi. But I've seen these what 'makes a woman' arguments go round and round in circles. I stick to the biology because it is more of a no-brainer.

Personally, I think if the bathroom legislation goes ahead, the 'what is a woman' argument will be over.

Keeping men out of bathrooms will underline the reasons why men aren't women.

For the record, if transwomen said 'I feel like a woman, but I know I'm not, let's have a drink - I'd raise my glass in a heartbeat.

BoneyBackJefferson · 13/11/2016 11:36

This went the way that I thought that it would.

NerrSnerr · 13/11/2016 12:39

Welsh I'm not sure. Just had a quick look on Twitter and there's some YouTube videos but unsure if there's anything official.

AskBasil · 13/11/2016 18:50

"And the fact that one or two seemed unable to grasp the implicit "fuck off from my site" in her words seems unbelievable".

Have one or two people not grasped that? Really? It was so clear that I don't think it could be missed.

StrictlyPan · 13/11/2016 19:10

Well, I'd disagree about that "fuck off from my site" thing". IF you wished to interpret it that way, then you'd appear to be small minded and v defensive.
Moderating such a large site and with such a divergent demograph/opinion base must be v tricky and require compromising on some basics, despite what the owner thinks.
I think, fwiw the Community Team, and J. herself do a massively good job. Overall, if one disagrees to the point of being rather 'pointy' about it, then do indeed leave for where the moderation is more productive for your needs.

StrictlyPan · 13/11/2016 19:11

MN isn't the start or end of life, on line.

VincentVL · 13/11/2016 19:24

Its how I interpreted it.

I find it fascinating how some people who say they are against personal attacks make quite a lot of passive aggressive ones, presuming if theyre vague enough about their target then theyll get a sneaky tap in.

Really, really fascinating.

AlphaNumericalSequence · 13/11/2016 19:29

Thanks for the answers. It seems there are mixed views on this.

GerdaLovesLili · 13/11/2016 19:50

Thank you for that. I'm still here despite the growing MN "orthodoxy" on trans issues. I agree that hearing stuff that makes you uncomfortable is a good way to grow and learn, I'd be very upset if every contentious thread became an unintelligible "swiss cheese" after moderation.

YonicProbe · 13/11/2016 19:55

"IF you wished to interpret it that way, then you'd appear to be small minded and v defensive. "

Oh, Pan. You didn't have to.

StrictlyPan · 13/11/2016 20:06

Yonic - not sure what you mean by that, but what I'd said was my take on it. I'm not around that much these days, but yes, with due respect to yourself I'd still say 'to interpret' J.'s words as 'fuck off' is defensive.

YonicProbe · 13/11/2016 20:13

And small minded?

AskBasil · 13/11/2016 20:28

Pan often uses this passive aggressive method to insult FWR regulars.

He's not allowed to say "you're defensive and small minded" so he phrases his personal attacks in just the right way to get away with it.

We see you, Pan.

Hmm
Swipe left for the next trending thread