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:
whoputthecatout · 11/11/2016 18:51

I have followed the bunfight on FWR re PL. I think MNHQ generally do a stupendous (and uneviable) job with a light touch on moderation and I am loathe to criticise.

However, Karl Popper made a great point about the paradox of tolerance. He said: "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."

PL is an example of extreme intolerance to women. Their attitude to women, their comments about them are utterly odious and unacceptable, dismissive, repugnant and misogynistic in the extreme. It is not surprising then that that on a board largely populated by women many posters find this person's attitude "intolerable".

I think Karl Popper was right and MNHQ's decision on this person was an example of tolerating the intolerable - and as we now seeing in these arguments about moderating putting MNs record of tolerance at risk.

What Karl Popper said is spot on.

TresDesolee · 11/11/2016 18:51

If that hairy orange fascist (trump, to be clear) is a woman things are about to get even more bloody confusing

JustineMumsnet · 11/11/2016 18:53

@Saucery

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).

We actually have a system whereby the community team is manned from 7am-11pm seven days a week. I do think members sometimes have unreasonable about expectations about response time - generally we get to a report within a couple of hours. And often much sooner if it's multiply reported. You won't find that with most sites - as someone mentioned on this thread, Twitter for example is more like 2 days. Sometimes it might be that a mod is unsure and seeking a second opinion, which I also think is fair enough. Most forums actually have unpaid mods. We've been fairly unique in investing in a large team who (contrary to popular view) get a fair bit of training and have an awful lot of expertise.

OP posts:
VincentVL · 11/11/2016 18:54

"I felt a personal responsibilty to an individual who I'd invited to Blogfest as our guest"

I think this is the source of much of the problems posters were having with moderation on those threads. In effect your sense of personal responsibility to your guest has made them unaccountable for their behaviour, and when posters wanted you to be accountable for that, youve pulled rank as a Founder. Which is why it feels like youre treating us as plebs.

bibbitybobbityyhat · 11/11/2016 18:55

Oh Justine, you've gone about 5.5 weeks too early in telling the trouble makers you don't mind if they just up and leave the site Grin.

But, seriously, I wonder why the public announcement (a taat or about several threads if you like) rather than just dealing with it robustly on the offending threads?

Manners on here have been getting worse and worse but you won't do anything about AIBU, and your own regular members have been warning you about the toxic effect on the site from that topic for flipping years.

TresDesolee · 11/11/2016 18:55

Tbh I think the thing about deliberately using the hurtful pronoun is childish. I don't think people can change their biological sex. I think individuals have a right to ask people to respect their own sense of their own identity, just like I have the right to ask people to call me 'ms'.

Being able to say 'biological female is an unerasable category that requires its own language' is important

Being able to call a trans woman 'he' and bang on about her putative dick isn't important, it's childish and grim

Saucery · 11/11/2016 18:58

Fair enough, Justine, thanks for your response, that does make sense. It's the growth of the site that has led to a mismatch of expectations, I think.
Not from me, happy to be the troublesome carrot in the veg basket.

JustineMumsnet · 11/11/2016 19:01

@VincentVL

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.

There were some considered arguments and there were some personal attacks and some transphobic posts that were deleted. As I've pointed out a few times PLs has made some comments I heartily disagree with. Those views are shared however by and awful lot of women. Re the bullying I agree that sounds unpleasant, and I'm not going to try to defend it - maybe someone will ask her about that at blogfest - but I would say that I am quite sure PL's been the target of much worse bullying (I mean from everywhere not MN here).

OP posts:
ErrolTheDragon · 11/11/2016 19:02

Actually I found the deletion of my one referring to Trump quite funny, but it did point up that someone was being a bit heavy on the delete button.

I think some people have been unfair to mnhq and specifically Justine, but I'm not sure the heavy moderation of 'that' thread was constructive. If someone else invites a guest to their house who they know others have reason to object to, is it reasonable to expect them to be polite? Tolerance is a virtue up to a point. But not everything should be tolerated.

0dfod · 11/11/2016 19:03

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

JustineMumsnet · 11/11/2016 19:03

Right I'm sorry for those I've not answered by I have to bugger off now - am late for something. And I've Blogfest tomorrow so probably won't be on but thanks for all the feedback and for the support, do keep it coming and I'll check back in soonest. Meantime the lovely community team will be here!

OP posts:
toptoe · 11/11/2016 19:04

I agree that different viewpoints should be heard. We don't have to agree with each other all the time. If we did, we'd be borg and have no need for a forum! I for one have had my opinions shifted by listening to something I might have felt 'offended' by in the past. Not just on MN either, but in RL and in other media. I like to see and hear things I don't agree with straight off. I like to hear what other people have to say, what their side of the issue is.

I also think that if the poster is not obviously being offensive for the sake of it and has said something offensive to some but not meant to be offensive (eg used the wrong terminology) their post should stand. This allows discussion about why people get offended etc. I don't think you can delete the posters who jump on them and tell them how offensive they were being, but if those posters jumped on them and called them names in order to be offensive on purpose, then they get deleted.

It's to do with INTENT. If someone intends to offend for the sake of it, then delete. If they offend someone by accident then don't delete. I guess this is probably what you do anyway, as I often agree with your deletions.

I don't think topics can be policed or deleted entirely if they are more aggressive than others. I don't like seeing a poster rounded on by others, but I also think that it happens sometimes and unless the posters having a pop are intending to offend personally then there isn't a lot MN can do other than watching it and stepping in if it starts detracting from the OP or looks a bit like bullying. The sort of 'peace and love' posts to just say 'we're keeping an eye on this one, cool down'. Sometimes it looks like a bit of goady bullying and actually it's a genuine disagreement of opinion that gets a bit shouty.

JustineMumsnet · 11/11/2016 19:06

@ErrolTheDragon

Actually I found the deletion of my one referring to Trump quite funny, but it did point up that someone was being a bit heavy on the delete button.

I think some people have been unfair to mnhq and specifically Justine, but I'm not sure the heavy moderation of 'that' thread was constructive. If someone else invites a guest to their house who they know others have reason to object to, is it reasonable to expect them to be polite? Tolerance is a virtue up to a point. But not everything should be tolerated.

You would be much politer in person though Errol - I guarantee. And it's always been our policy to treat guests as we would people we'd invited for tea!

OP posts:
Booboobedoo · 11/11/2016 19:08

Well said.

Xenophile · 11/11/2016 19:08

Re:Tupperware lids.

Christ knows. But I lean towards a Douglas Adamsian wormhole in space theory to explain it. They just want to go home.

PurpleDaisies · 11/11/2016 19:09

Grin xenophile

toptoe · 11/11/2016 19:10

And I also agree that if someone says being called 'he' or 'she' offends them, then to deliberately call them that is intentional offensive. It doesn' t matter whether you agree with what that person says/does, intending to offend is just inciting an argument and derails discussion.

GrinchyMcGrincherson · 11/11/2016 19:11

Completely agree as you know since I started the thread you linked. I feel special now and I'm glad it has helped you to realise that there are those of us who really appreciate all you do for this community.

TiggyD · 11/11/2016 19:14

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

Ultimately, the definition you have to stick to is the legal one isn't it?

Try this police site: www.report-it.org.uk/homophobic_and_transphobic_hate_crime

From the site:
"What is harassment?

Harassment is any unwelcome comments (written or spoken) or conduct which:

violates an individual's dignity; and/or
creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.

Harassment can take many forms including violence, threats, abuse, and damage to property. It can involve verbal abuse and name calling, offensive graffiti or post and can be received via text message, emails or social networking sites like Facebook or MySpace.

It may cause physical injury, mental stress, anxiety, or insecurity. It can also occur for a variety of reasons, including race, religious belief, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.

Harassment is a criminal offence. If you are being harassed, report it."

Is calling transwomen "he" on Mumsnet a criminal offence? Yes. Telling the Police or a court that you've defined transphobia and you're fine with it will not impress them.

NoSquirrels · 11/11/2016 19:15

Thank you Justine. I agree with your stance, and like many PP really appreciate the MNHQ line on free speech. I also appreciate that you respond to and consider your audience when many sites do not. In part, this is why posters feel 'entitled' (to use that great MN phrase) to be heard and are so passionately enraged when you get it 'wrong'. Attacks on mods not on at all.

It's the quality of debate that means people stick around & lots of views makes for quality debate. I don't want a site that reflects me back to me, I want somewhere that will make me stop and think.

Fwiw, you deleted one of my posts where I corrected a 'she' pronoun to 'they' in regard to PL. I was pretty cross at the time, as I cannot accept that 'they' in regard to trans people is misgendering or a PA. On reflection I understand why you deleted that particular post, though it seemed totally tame & reasonable when I wrote it. But I would like a more robust general guideline on this 'misgendering' thing, as words on a screen are all we have to get our points across so I'd prefer to do it properly.

TiggyD · 11/11/2016 19:16

You could seek independent legal advice, but that would mean hearing you're wrong so you avoid it don't you?

Datun · 11/11/2016 19:16

Justine

I'm sure I would be more polite in real life.

No-one likes hurting people and everyone has a story.

And there you have it.

God, if only I ruled the world.

Saucery · 11/11/2016 19:17

Using an individual's name neatly sidesteps any misgendering and can't be called harassment. Smile

VincentVL · 11/11/2016 19:17

Those views are shared by an awful lot of men, and the word we tend to use for them is 'misogyny'.

Cyber bullying and harassment is more than unpleasant and the problem is that many posters on Mumsnet, a large online forum for parents, expect a harder line on it than calling it 'unpleasant' then dismissing it as the bully has probably had a hard time in the past.

And again, thats the sort of response that is being called flippant. I dont think you would be as flippant if this was about someone else rather than Paris Lees, and I dont think its because they are trans or because they are a guest of yours. I suspect now that you have a personal relationship with them which you are not disclosing which is why you invited them to Blogfest and why you are making them unaccountable and why you have changed the rules on 'personal attacks' to include any posts which call them a misogynist.

JennyHolzersGhost · 11/11/2016 19:18

Hmm NoSquirrels - I was just typing out a post saying that I always write 'they' to avoid misgendering. Is 'they/them' not acceptable ? Could an MN mod please clarify on that ?

Swipe left for the next trending thread