Adding warnings to Relationships threads

[CockacidalManiac]

Another thread in Relationships 'borrowed' by the DM, and deleted by the OP once she'd been warned.
Would it be idea to add to the warning about not everyone being what they seem above threads in Relationships, just reminding people that there's a possibility that a passing hack will splash their life story and woes across Mail Online/Mirror/Huff Post/Independent?
If someone is fresh to the site and vulnerable, but needing advice, it might concentrate their minds not to write things that might 'out' them.

I don't really think that's necessary TBH.

It might have prevented one OP from hurriedly having their thread deleted today.

Not so sure. Would anyone read anything like that prior to posting? Probably not.
Adults should really know how to use the internet.

Yes, but sometimes they don't. There's already the DV warning. It'd only take another sentence along the lines of 'we'd advise you not to post identifying information, as newspapers have previously published past threads'.
Perhaps with less alliteration though.

Here is how I see it

Anyone can pick up a copy of the daily mail and identify you

Anyone can log onto Mumsnet and identify you

Some people might think there's more chance of being identified in the mail - there's not really. AIBU is one of the most visited sites on the whole internet. Mumsnet is a huge resource for parents.

Change salient details, change your name even if you are accused of being a troll and don't worry about it. Basically, there is as much chance of someone reading your MN thread as someone reading about your MN thread in the mail.

I agree with Sparklingbrook. We're all adults, it's a public site.

I personally don't think it would make any difference. Interested to see what MNHQ says though.

I'm a bit bewildered as to how people can not know this happens when there are threads about it every few days.

I think this is a good idea. I've read the first page or two of the thread in relationships and posters there seem to be in favour. I can't see what harm it could do and it could save some posters from major RL stress or actual harm.

Yes there is that Fallon, at least one thread a week about the DM at the moment, it could have it's own topic even. Difficult to avoid at the moment.

People are still unaware of the Mail Online thread lifting, despite hundreds of threads about it. I think it's only fair to warn them. Especially as they have moved on from lifting trivia/comedy threads to really identifying threads about relationships, divorce, adultery - that sort of personal stuff.

It would be very easy to have something in bold next to: Start a new thread in this topic.

Adding the warning won't do any harm I guess but I doubt most people would read it.

I hope MNHQ will seriously consider this suggestion. Posters who use MN regularly are probably aware of Daily Mail's frequent thread lifting. But newer posters might not be, including perhaps people who come to MN looking for help and support in a crisis.

It seems only reasonable to warn posters.

I'd be interested to know just how the DM go about selecting threads - I doubt they go to specific boards to find them. Maybe restricting the threads which come up on Active might help more?

What do you mean?

If somebody isn't aware that the details posted on a public forum could end up anywhere online then maybe they shouldn't be using the Internet.

Sorry, Belle. (Trying to think back.)

I guess I meant that (my suspicion is) that journalists will just go to 'Active' to find some likely clickbait. (They're more likely to find there, quickly, the threads which are attracting lots of attention. If you prevented certain boards from appearing on Active, I suspected that it might inhibit 'lifting' them.

cozie, Many of the journalists will be MN members, using this forum in the same way most of us do.

They'll also know that most of the threads they print/reproduce are from AIBU, Chat and Relationships.

I also suspect some of the 'new' posters who end up with a thread in the media, were journalists anyway.

Yes.

Just a vague suggestion - at the end, you just have to take your chances with what you put on the net. (Or, if I were being 'posh', 'you just have to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of publicising a situation.' )