Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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:
BitOutOfPractice · 11/11/2016 18:26

Ourblanche re your 18:20 post, I think we are saying the same thing.

OurBlanche · 11/11/2016 18:27

Are we? Wonder who I was disagreeing with then? Grin

Sorry!

JustineMumsnet · 11/11/2016 18:27

@JennyHolzersGhost

Hi Justine - thanks for posting this. In the spirit of teaching I'm going to give 2 stars and a wish Grin
  1. 'not in the spirit of MN' covers a multitude of modding sins - while having the benefit of being true! A useful phrase for mods when making marginal judgment calls.

  2. accountability (you've heard from me before on this) - good stuff. Keep it up and encourage mods to engage where possible. I think it helps separate out the reasonable types - who appreciate the engagement even if they don't agree with the decision - from the permanently disgruntled types, who I'm afraid you're never going to get rid of completely.

  3. consistency and clarity - would be useful to have more of it. I appreciate that with a modding team you're always going to get differences of approach so it's ultimately down to the judgment of whoever is on duty. But most posters who don't intend to be an irritant end up becoming one when it's not clear what they can say and what they can't. It's upsetting if you're a law-abiding member of the community to be deleted and ticked off, and it gets people's backs up, particularly if the explanation isn't clear or doesn't feel fair. I appreciate I may be contradicting point 1 here Grin but sometimes it's helpful to have a clearer idea of where the line is.

Hope you don't mind me giving my 5p-worth. Star to all the mods, it's a tough job.

Agree with all that Jenny and we promise to do our best!

OP posts:
TresDesolee · 11/11/2016 18:28

I don't like Paris lees's writing at all and I doubt we'd be mates. I'm gender critical. I nevertheless think MN have the right to moderate exactly as they please, and that moreover those of us who've benefited from Mn being a place where we can be openly gender critical owe Mn a bit of good faith

I also need a new glass of squash

MorrisZapp · 11/11/2016 18:30

I think we'll have to agree to disagree about what a feminist is, as well as what a woman is.

I accept it's impossible to please everyone and I'm so grateful that Spartacus was allowed to happen here. I can't think of any other site which would have allowed it. I feel that it ignited something in me which won't die down, and the lack of censorship was a blessed relief. I would never abuse a moderator and accept that those who do must absolutely be dealt with.

QueenMortificado · 11/11/2016 18:31

I completely agree

MN is hugely rare in how open the discussion and debate is, and how receptive HQ are to feedback

The recent culture of demanding things of MNHQ, telling them they NEED to do things, making threats about going elsewhere etc etc is all pathetic. MNHQ take on a lot of feedback and change some things, other things they won't change. It's their site and frankly, if you don't like it then you can sod off.

Friendly discussions and suggestions for improvements = good
Demands, threats and abuse directed at MNHQ = very bad

Although i stuck my head in the lions mouth yesterday and said this on the feminist thread about the event and was told to stop "kissing arse". It seems some posters just love to be angry and spoiling for a fight.

And the most laughable thing about that event is that most people protesting about it aren't even intending to go. So they just want the event changed for the sake of it.

Well done Justine, well said

IPityThePontipines · 11/11/2016 18:32

I quite agree. There were recently six threads, yes six, in Site Stuff haranguing MNHQ about the moderation of tr*ns threads.

However, more generally, there has been a change in posters on here and there seems to be views stated proudly on here that wouldn't have been posted a few years ago.

Now, MNHQ's site, their rules and I imagine there is only so much moderation the site can do without completely changing their working practices.

However, the idea that we all live in some little unchallenging echochamber and therefore need to be exposed to bigotry via Mumsnet is a peculiar one.

I'm sure BAME, LGBT and posters with disabilities have regularly experienced prejudice in real life, without having to face it on MNHQ for their own good.

OurBlanche · 11/11/2016 18:34

Ah! It was agreeing with this FWIW I think your policy on the transphobia issue needs a massive rethink. I think you are out of kilter with the majority of your members on an important issue for women I was disagreeing with.

I don't agree with that if that means stifling any debate on any trans threads.

I also don't think that inviting PL was a bad move either. It could/should have opened up a more in depth version of the discussion that the Juno Whatserface piece did!

And the misgendering was deliberate, done for effect and unnecessary. Points could have been better made without it!

I do think that the modding recently has been hit and miss. Hopefully Justine's OP means that all of that softly softly woolly crap will go and a more hard line, we don't agree, we won't delete to placate you approach will be taken.

JustineMumsnet · 11/11/2016 18:34

@MorrisZapp

I think we'll have to agree to disagree about what a feminist is, as well as what a woman is.

I accept it's impossible to please everyone and I'm so grateful that Spartacus was allowed to happen here. I can't think of any other site which would have allowed it. I feel that it ignited something in me which won't die down, and the lack of censorship was a blessed relief. I would never abuse a moderator and accept that those who do must absolutely be dealt with.

You sayin' I ain't no feminist Shock Wink.
Thank you for your thanks and for your support re moderator abuse.

OP posts:
VincentVL · 11/11/2016 18:36

Justine - what do you consider an 'unmitigated attack' on Paris Lees?

There are numerous very considered arguments on those threads as to why Paris Lees is a completely innappropriate person to invite to speak on 'blogging for good', including that they use social media and their articles for Vice etc to bully and harass named women, including some mumsnet bloggers, and that by giving PL credibility Mumsnet excuses and enables their cyber bullying.

I dont think you or anyone else from Mumsnet have yet made any response to those comments, other than to suggest that posters wouldnt be complaining if PL wasnt trans.

Thats what I mean by flippant.

SoHairyAndForeverSpartacus · 11/11/2016 18:36

Posters on the threads about PL at blog fest were asking for LESS moderation. Some of the decisions made about what to delete make NO sense at all.

I do believe whoever was moderating the discussion was very heavy handed. And some posters were deleted possibly even by mistake, by a moderator who was in a hurry and was applying a blanket rule that wasn't entirely clear to posters.

I agree that personal attacks on the MN staff should not be tolerated anywhere on the site.

VincentVL · 11/11/2016 18:41

One poster was deleted for using "he" about Donald Trump, werent they? A moderator mustve just assumed that any use of the word 'he' was intended to refer to PL :/

ErrolTheDragon · 11/11/2016 18:42

Yes, that was me... unless MNHQ know something about Donald which isn't public knowledge yet!Grin

OurBlanche · 11/11/2016 18:43

Posters on the threads about PL at blog fest were asking for LESS moderation Ah! Is that what I got backwards? Thanks Smile

I hid the PL thread fairly early. I was initially interested in it, to increase my own knowledge of the background to the discussion. So I switched off when it became apparent that it was degenerating...

I moderate another, far, far smaller site... despite its seemingly innocuous topic it gets very heated every now and than... last year the meek inherited the earth and the cheesemakers flounced off and set up their own site Smile

Saucery · 11/11/2016 18:45

Do you think you have enough employees on your Community Team, Justine?

Quite a few of the problems which lead to frustration seem to come from moderation being limited to more or less office hours and silly mistakes as illustrated above ('he' wrt to Donald Trump).

JustineMumsnet · 11/11/2016 18:46

@SoHairyAndForeverSpartacus

Posters on the threads about PL at blog fest were asking for LESS moderation. Some of the decisions made about what to delete make NO sense at all.

I do believe whoever was moderating the discussion was very heavy handed. And some posters were deleted possibly even by mistake, by a moderator who was in a hurry and was applying a blanket rule that wasn't entirely clear to posters.

I agree that personal attacks on the MN staff should not be tolerated anywhere on the site.

That would be mostly me, and you won't be surprised to find I disagree with you. I deleted posts that were IMHO personal attacks, transphobic and/or deliberately goady. It's quite possible that my stance was more interventionist than other mods may have been. That's partly because of the guest issue that I've explained - I felt a personal responsibilty to an individual who I'd invited to Blogfest as our guest and partly because it's probably easier for a Founder to take a stand on something in the face of a lot of dissent/criticism.

OP posts:
BeyondReasonablyDoubts · 11/11/2016 18:46

Fwiw Justine, I don't agree with people abusing moderators and it is quite embarrassing to be given as an example of what the naughty children have done (I say this utterly tongue in cheek!), and for that I am sorry. I was rather upset and after lashing out did the grown up thing of stepping away from the internet.

I think you severely underestimated how much the PL thing would upset people though

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 11/11/2016 18:46

I agree entirely with your post Justine and I am very grateful to be able to have a site that doesn't delete everything that might be a difficult or contentious subject. Flowers

SoHairyAndForeverSpartacus · 11/11/2016 18:47

Yes, VincentVL. That was one of the examples I was thinking of. Another was a poster mentioning that PL won young campaigning journalist of the year 2015. There was no misgendering. I think that was a mistaken deletion. Otherwise, what was the problem with saying that?

Bejazzled · 11/11/2016 18:47

I agree with previous posters - it needed said and Justine said it well 👍

SoHairyAndForeverSpartacus · 11/11/2016 18:49

That's fair enough Justine, a great many of the deletions I did expect to see.

But what about the two examples, the Trump post and the other? Can you see that those posters might have felt that unfair?

Datun · 11/11/2016 18:49

Hi Justine

I've been vocal on the other thread, because it infuriates me. However I can totally tell that you're all feeling rather beleaguered about the entire issue.

I disagree with your definition of transphobia which included the word prejudice, the definition of which is 'the preconceived opinion not based on reason or actual experience.'

However, I do consider that you do a bang up job. And I'm glad you have confirmed that you are all feminists!

You may not have agreed with the way things were put, but the general theme was allowed to stand. Which is appreciated.

I'm sorry if there were personal attacks, emotions run high, but out of respect for what you've said, I've bowed out of the discussion.

BeyondReasonablyDoubts · 11/11/2016 18:50

I may be wrong but worra posted re people attacking mnhq on FWR

As far as I've ever seen (that I remember?!) it really isn't a big thing that is all over FWR, it was this one thread about Paris Lees.

RufusTheSpartacusReindeer · 11/11/2016 18:50

Should say in repsonse to another poster

I have seen people have a pop at MNHQ in all sorts of threads

It is in no way confined or even mainly in Feminism

Thisjustinno · 11/11/2016 18:51

I think a lot of the confusion around trans issues on MN started with the Spartacus threads. And I do not think Justine and MNHQ are posting this thread just about trans issues but about the wider demands and criticisms of MN which have been building for a while.

I wasn't Spartacus even though I agree with a lot of concerns about trans issues. I wasn't Spartacus because I won't misgender. I use the preferred pronouns for people. I work in health care and would quite rightly be disciplined for refusing to refer to a transwoman or transman as their preferred gender. But separate from that; I treat people with respect and whatever they want me to call them - I will. I have trans friends. I wasn't going to engage in a thread with people declaring 'Caitlyn Jenner is a man, I will always call a man he' etc etc while also admitting they wouldn't say that to a transperson in RL. I act on RL as I do online. I have little regard for people hiding behind an anonymous website to say things they wouldn't normally say. And when I did dip my toe in (even though I agree with lots of concerns about trans issues and it's effect on women's rights and safety) I wasn't welcome.

Before Spartacus - MN deleted for deliberate misgendering. But they allowed it for Spartacus and this is where people have understandably become confused when they're not allowed to refer to PL as he. It should have never been allowed on MN because it isn't accepted in RL and IS considered to be anti-trans.

MN should have had a firm line and not deviated. This is one of the reasons why people are confused now. PL misogyny is a different issue altogether (which I agree makes her unsuitable IMO for MN blogfest) .