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:
NoSquirrels · 11/11/2016 19:26

Jenny hard to explain without context of the thread but my use of 'they' possibly looked like a goady PA to Justine. I would though like clarification that 'they' is generally acceptable and not misgendering.

I would never misgender IRL but would use 'they' or 'name' to avoid he/she.

DioneTheDiabolist · 11/11/2016 19:26

Well said JustineMN.Thanks I second what has been said by PPs, most vocal is not the same as majority.

Didijustgetwinkpointshitcanned · 11/11/2016 19:28

If someone prefers she, use she. If someone prefers he, use he. If someone prefers they, use they. They might be offensive to people who prefer a certain pronoun because it's hard to tell whether they is being used to purposefully not use a preferred pronoun.

NoSquirrels · 11/11/2016 19:32

Didijust don't really want the debate on this thread, tbh, just wanted to raise the issue for MNHQ to consider in terms of moderation and clarity. The debate over terms doesn't belong on this thread, imo.

Saucery · 11/11/2016 19:32

If only the same courtesy was extended to those who prefer not to be called 'cis'

VincentVL · 11/11/2016 19:33

I find it offensive when people who are not female demand to be referred to as 'she', even more so when Im told I have no choice in the matter because their right to self definition supersedes mine.

Saucery · 11/11/2016 19:35

Hang on, I think I hear Justine shouting "Get aaaaht my paaaaaaab!" in the distance

PrettyBotanicals · 11/11/2016 19:35

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

Yes. With knobs on.

The emperor, praise be, is starkers.

I am so relieved to read this, in a world of over-wrought madness, that small still voice of calm...

OlennasWimple · 11/11/2016 19:35

I completely agree that personal attacks aimed at MNHQ members (including Justine, for that matter) are unacceptable. I think MNHQ are often stuck between a rock and a hard place when they receive reports about particular posts.

I don't think the "we think it's best to let disabilist comments stand in order to educate people" approach is particularly helpful, TBH, and I can see why pp get frustrated - but ultimately it's MN's prerogative to set the rules and we can go and play somewhere else if we don't like it. Demanding training or whatever isn't the way to engage.

The recent threads re Blogfest panellists were, I think, more to do with consistency of applying the rules: when is it acceptable to call a vile misogynist a vile misogynist?

NoSquirrels · 11/11/2016 19:36

Oh please don't make me sorry for mentioning it, everyone!

shinynewusername · 11/11/2016 19:36

My post is of course partly prompted the hostility on the feminist boards wrt to our position on the transphobia debate

What hostility? Throughout all the debates on Trans issues, including the Spartacus threads, posters have acknowledged how hard it is to moderate and thanked MN for supporting debate when most other social media sites don't.

Any hostility at present is caused by MN's decision to invite an individual with a history of intimidating women to participate in a MN event. MN didn't need to do that - you chose to do so, knowing full well how many of us would feel. It is utterly disingenuous to ignore this context and pretend that you are on the receiving end of unprovoked hostility.

PigletWasPoohsFriend · 11/11/2016 19:38

Oh please don't make me sorry for mentioning it, everyone!

It's all your fault Squirrels Wink Grin

usual · 11/11/2016 19:41

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Didijustgetwinkpointshitcanned · 11/11/2016 19:42

I don't think trying to be helpful by explaining pronouns is a debate. No debate on terms from me. Grin

Saucery · 11/11/2016 19:44

I couldn't make head nor tail of Reddit.

NoSquirrels · 11/11/2016 19:46

Thanks for the explanation, Did Hmm

FreshwaterSelkie · 11/11/2016 19:50

I get how hard and thankless it is to moderate. I used to do it on a similar site to this, so I know what a crappy task it can be, and how you can never please everyone. And I'm another who is grateful that difficult conversation can be had here - I've read stuff that's entirely changed how I look at the world, and I'm grateful for that.

But the debate over Paris Lees wasn't about moderation. It was about women feeling dismayed that Mumsnet is aligning itself with a person whose stock in trade is doing down women. And then, being told that they weren't allowed to feel that or express it, in a way that came across as really dismissive. It felt wrong that on a female dominated website, women are being told they don't know what's misogynistic.

Generally, the zeitgeist on the feminist board is for less moderation. For example, a recent thread was zapped for being derailed when most of the people who'd been insulted on it wanted to stand as a kind of handbook of derailing. It seems to me to be the opposite of what is being asked for in regard of ableism/disablism, so I'm not sure lumping them together works?

IPityThePontipines · 11/11/2016 19:55

Didn't loads of you bugger off to Reddit at some point.

Yep, and then they claimed MN "has been taken over by transactivists and their handmaidens".

It is utterly disingenuous to ignore this context and pretend that you are on the receiving end of unprovoked hostility

Shiny you don't seem to understand, Justine is saying quite clearly that the verbal abuse she received for booking a guest you dislike at Blogfest was not acceptable.

You have no right to tell her that it's ok for her to be verbally abused and insulted, because "she provoked you". What sort of a supposedly feminist argument is that?

PigletWasPoohsFriend · 11/11/2016 19:56

I agree Ipity

venusinscorpio · 11/11/2016 19:57

By the same logic, you may be deleted for calling people racist, disablist, homophobic in future. This can be construed as a personal attack by the community team. Even when you feel they have done or said racist, disablist, homophobic things. That is the issue here and why people are angry. It's not right to shut people down for calling a misogynist out for their misogyny. And yes, of course it's subjective. Any of these other descriptions are.

Amalfimamma · 11/11/2016 20:00

I think I've seen a bit tbh Amalfimamma but we can obviously agree to disagree on that. And we'd agree that troll hunting is a problem too and certainly not confined to one area of the site. We do try to discourage it.

You see the thing is Justine, when I signed up I was the one who would have been shouting transphobe every other minute but I've had the opportunity to read, contribute, and most of all learn not only from the ordinary Jane Doe MN member but from actual transactivists, transwomen and parents of trans.

Until we had the mermaid invasion in the last 10 days there seemed to be no problems or unfair and heavy handed (IMHO) moderation. We were free to learn, network and discuss what affects 100% of women. As I and many others have pointed out on numerous occasions, scientific fact cannot be classed as transphobe.

And to be honest. I can now see a possible link between the sudden mermaid invasion of 2016 and inviting PL to chair a debate at Blogfest. I hope I'm reading too much into it and that this is not the case.

JennyHolzersGhost · 11/11/2016 20:02

My question was a genuine one btw MNHQ, not a goady one. Clarity - as per point #3 in my first post - really helps for posters who are willing to play by the rules if only they can understand what those rules are.

(What's the 'mermaid invasion' btw ? Or will I regret asking ?)

Ayeok · 11/11/2016 20:04

What is a mermaid?

Ayeok · 11/11/2016 20:04

And why are non arsey, non aggressive, nice and decent posters getting banned MNHQ?

VoyageOfDad · 11/11/2016 20:04

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.