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:
JustineMumsnet · 11/11/2016 17:53

@VincentVL

Women on the feminist boards were deleted for identifying a public figure (journalist) - who has published a shit ton of misogynist writing, and isnt posting on the threads - as a misogynist. We were told that calling them a misogynist was a personal attack. Women rightly pointed out that this is not how the personal attack rule works across the rest of mumsnet and in different situations.

Women were also deleted for using the word 'he' to describe the same (male public figure, not posting on the thread) person.

Women on those threads are asking for fair and consistent moderation, instead of the unpredictable deletions that are happening. Most of the pissed off comments about Justine werent about her moderation decisions, they were about the invitation to the above person to speak at Blogfest on 'blogging for a good cause' when they have a track record of attacking and harassing women online in their articles and social media in blatantly misogynist ways. And about Justine's really flippant and rude comments on the threads insinuating women were only objecting because theyre transphobes.

I dont know whats happened in the SN threads but the OP doesnt describe what has been happening in the feminist forum at all. I think the women there would be happy with far less moderation of their conversation and I would be shocked if any of them had called a mod a cunt!

You see I didn't think I was being flippant and rude on that thread (sorry for those who'd really rather not have to see any more about that thread) and I do, based on the definition I've just posted, think some of the posts we deleted were transphobic, others were goady and others were personal attacks. You obviously hold a different view which is your prerogative. What I'm saying is that we're not really going to change our minds - it's up to you whether you can live with that or not.

OP posts:
JustineMumsnet · 11/11/2016 17:53

@Saucery

I'm imagining Justine like this now.....

I'll take that Saucery Grin

OP posts:
Xenophile · 11/11/2016 17:53

Just to clarify, is it ok to point out other people's misogyny still? As long as they're not on a panel at Blogfest obviously?

So, Trump, Farage et al still allowed to be called out on their actions and ethics, Blogfest guests not?

I ask because I reported a poster for repeating Trump's delightful "grab em by the pussy" remark, which wasn't deleted, but the post telling that user9999999whatever to fuck off was.

mirandayardley · 11/11/2016 17:54

Justinemumsnet

Sounds to me like you are defining it by reference to the poster's intent as perceived by whichever moderator is on call. This is rather subjective?

I have seen posts deleted by yourself and other moderators for 'misgendering', does this mean that females on this board are obliged to accept males as women?

JustineMumsnet · 11/11/2016 17:55

@legotits

Fucks sake Justine TL:DR

Just tell us to have a word with ourselves.

Can I still come on the trip? Grin

Sorry! What trip Confused?

OP posts:
Thisjustinno · 11/11/2016 17:56

I don't think this is about PL. This has been building for a while. The demands placed on MN to ban certain words or delete threads for being (insert)-ist and the threads they created in site stuff with lots of people agreeing with each other about how shit MN is and making more demands for ANSWERS from MNHQ and talking amongst themselves about legal action.

The thread about Justines comments on diabetes and when she apologised the posts saying the apology just wasn't good enough and the PAs on her.

The call that MNHQ should have diversity training. And the MNHQ staff who have a disability were referred to as 'token' but if I'm being generous, that poster may have been referring to businesses having 'token' disabled employees and thinking that was all they needed to do to be inclusive. But the only reason posters knew about disabled MNHQ disabled employees was because of all the passive (and otherwise) aggression on another thread about disability saying that MNHQ obviously knew fuck all about it.

BeyondReasonablyDoubts · 11/11/2016 17:56

Xeno, basically sometimes it has been best to write your post and then toss a coin to see if it will still be there in the morning Grin

JustineMumsnet · 11/11/2016 17:57

@mirandayardley

Justinemumsnet

Sounds to me like you are defining it by reference to the poster's intent as perceived by whichever moderator is on call. This is rather subjective?

I have seen posts deleted by yourself and other moderators for 'misgendering', does this mean that females on this board are obliged to accept males as women?

There's no other way to do it that we've works I'm afraid - as said there are grey areas and context is important.

We've deleted posts which were misgendering a guest of ours at Blogfest, yes, as explained at the time we viewed this as a deliberately goady personal attack in the same way we would an attack on a webchat guest.

OP posts:
BitOutOfPractice · 11/11/2016 17:57

Whilst I 100% agree with what you've said Justine - and got the record I am totally against any personal attacks and aggression against the Community Team, I do see a bit of a dichotomy in your argument.

On one hand you're saying that we have to tolerate and see upsetting and offensive posts staying up in the interests of debate be of education.

On the other hand, posters are not allowed to criticise MN and it's moderation policies. They are above the rules.

I realise, from personal experience, what a fine line you are treading. But that seemed to glare out at me. "We defend your right to slag off anyone or anything - so long as it's not us"

legotits · 11/11/2016 17:57

Oh it was a surprise spa day..

To make you feel better after having your feet held to fire. They might have upgraded you to Maui by now though Grin

Backingvocals · 11/11/2016 17:57

I think your suggestion that the women on that thread opposed PL because she was trans was goady. It certainly wasnt "thoughtful" which is what you've rightly requested of others.

BitOutOfPractice · 11/11/2016 17:57

And btw isn't it MN etiquette to say "apologies. Long!" Before an epic post like that? Wink

BeyondReasonablyDoubts · 11/11/2016 17:58

Oh the justines comments on diabetes thread! Yes I saw that!

I thought it was Not On tbh, as much as I may be guilty of getting angry over my own subject areas.

PickAChew · 11/11/2016 18:00

Completely missing the point here, Justine, but I'm quite intrigued by your fancy pants quotes. Will we all be getting that?

JustineMumsnet · 11/11/2016 18:01

@BitOutOfPractice

Whilst I 100% agree with what you've said Justine - and got the record I am totally against any personal attacks and aggression against the Community Team, I do see a bit of a dichotomy in your argument.

On one hand you're saying that we have to tolerate and see upsetting and offensive posts staying up in the interests of debate be of education.

On the other hand, posters are not allowed to criticise MN and it's moderation policies. They are above the rules.

I realise, from personal experience, what a fine line you are treading. But that seemed to glare out at me. "We defend your right to slag off anyone or anything - so long as it's not us"

Of course you're allowed to criticise! It's the endless heckling of and aggression towards MNQH I'm objecting to - as said almost none of the comments criticising and indeed abusing us have been deleted. But it's just gone too far. I really can't in all conscience ask our community team - who are very professional and doing their best to be fair - to put up with it any more.

OP posts:
WorraLiberty · 11/11/2016 18:01

I'm really glad to see this post Justine.

Before I found Mumsnet, I used a forum that was so ridiculously over moderated, you couldn't even say the word 'crap'.

I often think that if some people have never been regulars on other forums, they'll never truly appreciate how well Mumsnet is run and how fair it is in comparison.

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

And I'll thank Mr Orwell to call me Worra Grin

mirandayardley · 11/11/2016 18:01

Justinemumsnet

Thank you for the clarification.

lougle · 11/11/2016 18:02

I think the problem, in part, is that with such a nuanced rule it's like walking across a minefield - two comments that can seem similar from Poster A and Poster B about similar but slightly different people/subject/issue get seemingly different treatment. The rationale will be logical from the MNHQ point of view (because you don't delete lightly) but it can leave posters puzzled as to what was wrong with their post.

Having said that, your general stance is absolutely understandable - the current situation is unsustainable and you must have really good employee conditions to prevent a massive turnover. I wouldn't put up with being spoken to as you do on a daily basis in my job (nurse) and it's no less awful because it's text on the screen.

JustineMumsnet · 11/11/2016 18:03

@PickAChew

Completely missing the point here, Justine, but I'm quite intrigued by your fancy pants quotes. Will we all be getting that?

Why thank you. It's been discussed a few times whether it would be a good idea or not - broadly users were against it last time it came up. But feel free to start a separate thread in site stuff about it - happy to consider again.

OP posts:
cozietoesie · 11/11/2016 18:04

Text can hurt people.

usual · 11/11/2016 18:05

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

JustineMumsnet · 11/11/2016 18:05

@BitOutOfPractice

And btw isn't it MN etiquette to say "apologies. Long!" Before an epic post like that? Wink

You're right. Apologies!

OP posts:
Xenophile · 11/11/2016 18:07

On the whole though, MN's moderation policy is reasonable and fair. It just seems to have gone a wee bit haywire over the last couple of weeks. No doubt sanity will return at some point, and until then, we'll all just have to hunker down and post innocuous threads about Tupperware or something Grin

Amalfimamma · 11/11/2016 18:08

Justine

think there's a generally accepted definition of transphobia, Miranda - intense dislike of or prejudice against transsexual or transgender people.

Tbh i don't think I've seen this on the trans threads and I've been present on most if not all since August.

What I do see are the usual suspects coming in, throwing out words like transphobia, bigot and the such and when asked to point out exactly was transphobic they flounce.

Calling a misogynist by such a name after they have threatened, insulted and derided women, and especially mumsnet posters is the truth and not half as big an insult as needed in this case. I do not agree with PA against the MN team though. Or other posters. But PA don't get my goat nearly half as much as the constant troll hunting that is all to frequent on all sections.

JustineMumsnet · 11/11/2016 18:09

@Backingvocals

I think your suggestion that the women on that thread opposed PL because she was trans was goady. It certainly wasnt "thoughtful" which is what you've rightly requested of others.

I thought it was quite thoughtful actually - it specifically asked people to look at things from another perspective and it was merely a suggestion, not an accusation or a statement of fact.

OP posts: