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:
TiggyD · 13/11/2016 21:12

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

AskBasil · 13/11/2016 21:15

Righto.

BeyondReasonablyDoubts · 13/11/2016 21:21

Tiggy, is that Tesla yours?

WatcherOfTheNight · 13/11/2016 21:24

This has just got to be done ....
Chill out folks please !!

Mumsnet moderation policy
BeyondReasonablyDoubts · 13/11/2016 21:28

Never mind tiggy, I spotted the actual thread in active Grin

ErrolTheDragon · 13/11/2016 21:29

Ooh, was that Tesla? I happened on that, what is it, Tesla of the week thread and was intrigued why. I mean, why him in particular?

YonicProbe · 13/11/2016 21:34

Nikola Tesla?

It's wrong that I guessed Mr Hg then?

TiggyD · 13/11/2016 21:40

Check out Dadsnet for more great Nikola Tesla pictures and facts.

And no, not my tattoo.

ErrolTheDragon · 13/11/2016 22:02

Yonic - I did wonder if it was a series 'famous scientists who look like rock singers' or something when I saw that one.Grin

VincentVL · 13/11/2016 22:04

I think passive aggressive personal attacks (PAPAs) should be even more closely moderated than outright PAs, because they are way more tiresome.

BeyondReasonablyDoubts · 13/11/2016 22:27

Passive aggression and disingenuous questioning being monitored would be very interesting. I doubt it will happen though, if mn are struggling enough with disagreements in the populace about overt attacks!!

Owllady · 14/11/2016 12:36

You are wrong regarding the use of disablist language. It's like going back to the 70s in aibu

Devilishpyjamas · 14/11/2016 12:59

It is unfortunate that disablist language is not recognised. Language does matter.

Think for example about the difference between 'aggressive behaviours' vs 'distressed behaviours'. Being on the receiving end of either is painful, but I would be deeply suspicious of anyone working with my son who described his behaviours as having an intent and as being aggressive rather than distressed. For starters it would suggest their training was crap and secondly their perception can alter their response.

Slight tangent but the yelling about the SN brigade when you point out a subtlety does make is pretty difficult to use this site.

OurBlanche · 14/11/2016 13:04

Aye! It would be a welcome change... to approach disablist language, AIBU, from the 70s or other, in a more measured manner!

Did you know that XXX is considered to be disablist because YYY

Rather that "Reported. Disablist!"

Sometime there have been really good, apt points being made that get buried in the blizzard of furious postings.

I doubt the more angry version of the message gets understood... so disablist language continues, sometimes through ignorance rather than malice!

OurBlanche · 14/11/2016 13:06

Ooops, meant to say ... more measured manner, from all sides.

The "SN Brigade" is as much red rag as "Reported. Disablist!

Words really do make a difference.... which, I thought, was usually the point being made on such threads!

TiggyD · 14/11/2016 13:09

Could i just point out my deleted posts at the top of the page were accidently off topic and not sweary or evil.

BishopBrennansArse · 14/11/2016 13:13

Thing is Blanche many of us have tried the responding positively stuff, did you know that was disablist because xx and got told to fuck off by goady twats. HQ did very little about that in over 10 years.

You do reach limits.

I still try to do it the friendly way but when I've had a day full of goading then sometimes I get abrupt.

GingerIvy · 14/11/2016 13:18

There have been a number of times that I have posted very calmly, without making any accusations, and have been jumped all over saying that I was trying to make the thread about disability, when in fact I was not. But disability is a fact of life - people with disabilities are part of society - and it makes no sense to think that it should never be brought up. There are a lot of subtle (and not so subtle) ways that posters use regularly to shut down the mention of SNs and disabilities, which is highly unpleasant.

I do think that often the reason there is a backlash when SNs/disabilities are mentioned is that some people are very uncomfortable with the idea that perhaps they are being unfairly judgemental and they don't like hearing it. (note I said some, not all)

ErrolTheDragon · 14/11/2016 13:22

Tiggy, I thought your mispost was delightful!

BishopBrennansArse · 14/11/2016 13:28

I'm nodding at your post, GingerIvy.
In fact posters here trying to engage and explain why things that were being posted were disablist led to the term 'sn brigade' - thankfully now rare. But because of this HQ asked us to report.

We can't win.

OurBlanche · 14/11/2016 13:30

I do get that Bishop... I have been on threads when you have had both heads on Smile

As an ex-teacher I know how hard it it to keep on with the positive message, but, if you want to make a positive change that is what you have to do.

It is important, words do affect how we see things...

GingerIvy · 14/11/2016 13:43

Bishop, yes. If we report, it gets left up to "educate" and "for discussion" but we still have to deal with the backlash of bringing it up to begin with, and without any type of support as nobody has stepped in to say anything or delete anything.

Devilishpyjamas · 14/11/2016 13:49

I agree that it is better to respond with a measured explanation - but that is rarely understood by someone shouting & it tends to feel like you're doing it without MNHQ's support (& years ago when all around was fields it genuinely wasn't like that - Justine et al did seem to be onside). It was easier to do when you at least felt HQ understood the point.

Anyway that's why I rarely bother no. My son is someone a large % of AIBU would despise & not want to live next door to (which is a shame as he's very severely learning disabled & very vulnerable) but rather than battle those attitufes I just use them as evidence when SS or health argue for a reduction in his support (in a 'SEE this is how people think, if you reduce his support I will hold you responsible for what happens' type way).

I guess I learn about ignorance from MN & don't bother trying to educate anymore

GingerIvy · 14/11/2016 13:50

Devilish - I've reached that point as well.

BishopBrennansArse · 14/11/2016 13:52

It does feel like pissing in the wind, and it's not a new experience. Ten years on we have even less support.

Swipe left for the next trending thread