Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Overnight moderation on voluntary basis

97 replies

Butterymuffin · 30/09/2017 10:49

Can MNHQ please explain why overnight moderation of the site is left to unpaid volunteers, and why they don't feel this work should be paid?

Please note that this is in no way intended as criticism of the Night Watch volunteers or anyone moderating overnight, or how they do that. That's not the issue here at all. I'm asking why MN as a business (and I understand it is a business; again, that's not the issue) isn't paying for this work to be done if they feel it's needed.

Would be interested to hear others' opinions. I know @Maryz for one had posted similar views on an earlier thread.

OP posts:
brasty · 01/10/2017 21:45

Why such aggressive replies?

BarchesterFlowers · 01/10/2017 21:47

why they don't have a community team - salaried - based in Australia/New Zealand, to take advantage of the time difference.

Or even pay a few people in the UK for a few hours on night shift on a rota, maybe even changing someone's life a little bit by allowing them to earn money from their home while their children are in bed.

I don't understand why MN think not paying anyone is OK, never have done, say the same whenever these threads crop up.

CathyMedici · 01/10/2017 21:48

tippz - why are you getting so aggressive about it?

Expemsiveuniform · 01/10/2017 21:51

This has been raised before. Justine thinks it's all grand as it is.

Original poster
Butterymuffin · 01/10/2017 21:55

Ah, tippz - still doing your sterling work of coming onto threads to be, er, combative Smile

Why is it not my business as a user to comment on how the site is managed? Anyway, even if that's not my business, as I've said before, if none of us commented on things that weren't our business, there'd be no site, just tumbleweed. The 'not your business' line never applies on a site specifically for chatting about pretty much anything.w

OP posts:
NerrSnerr · 01/10/2017 21:56

Do people really care that much about Mumsnet's business model? Are you as equally invested in FB's model or how your local corner shop run their business. Night Watch isn't my thing so I have t applied to do it. Some people clearly get something out of it.

User843022 · 01/10/2017 21:58

I'd quite fancy it myself actually. Spend a lot of time here what with illness and other things so why not make it a bit more fun and be able to delete comments Grin.

Original poster
Butterymuffin · 01/10/2017 21:59

Don't worry, folks, pay no mind to tippz. This is her standard approach. Tiresome, but at least you can ignore it as just noise.

@JustineMumsnet may indeed think it's all fine. I don't think it reflects well on her business, or any profit-making business that has people working for them for free. Happy to hear any better justification of it, but I don't think it's something an ethical business should be doing.

OP posts:
Tinycitrus · 01/10/2017 21:59

Yes it is unethical.

They should be paying someone a night shift rare for doing it.

User843022 · 01/10/2017 22:01

'Are you as equally invested in FB's model or how your local corner shop run '

I know it's funny, I bet the mods love reading some of the indignant claptrap telling them how things should be done.

BarchesterFlowers · 01/10/2017 22:02

Completely agree Buttery.

£10 an hour could be quite empowering for someone who can't get out to work during the day for whatever reason, health, childcare, etc., etc., but could earn £30 for half a shift on night watch.

WheresMyTaco · 01/10/2017 22:04

Just because there is someone willing to do something for free, does not mean a company that's meant to support parents should take advantage of them. If they see it as a worthwhile job needing doing, you'd hope they'd want to pay the women doing it.

MadamePomfrey · 01/10/2017 22:05

So it’s wrong for mumsnet to use volunteers but it is ok for the police to use special constables (also volunteers)?
I do agree in an ideal world no businesses would not use volunteers and create paid jobs but while the volunteers are happy it will happen. Plus surely the volunteering can be used to go on cvs ect to get paid jobs so maybe not all people are doing it just for the good of mumsnet?

WheresMyTaco · 01/10/2017 22:06

In fact I'd really expect an organisation such as Mumsnet to not rely on women's unpaid work. And to know better than to do so.

Original poster
Butterymuffin · 01/10/2017 22:08

NerrSnerr Sure, and it'd be even nicer for those people if as well as what they get out of it personally, they also got paid, right?

I get something out of my job, which I enjoy. I still expect to be paid for the work I do.

OP posts:
BarchesterFlowers · 01/10/2017 22:09

It is about doing the right thing.

A bit like my apprentice at work, I fought hard for, and got agreement to paying £7.50 per hour which is the NLW for 25+, because I don't think an apprentice should be paid £3.50 per hour 2017 however old they are, unethical.

Original poster
Butterymuffin · 01/10/2017 22:13

Myrtle you're making the mistake of thinking I am telling the moderators how to moderate. I'm not, and have made no such remarks. It's a much simpler issue I'm addressing. A profit-making business should pay people who do work for it.

Madame the police aren't a business aiming to make a profit.

Wheres yes indeed!

OP posts:
Original poster
Butterymuffin · 01/10/2017 22:15

I'm just surprised that in 2017, wanting people to be paid for work that they do is such an objectionable idea. Or that if people like what they do, and/or put themselves forward to do it, then paying them as well is unnecessary and wrong.

OP posts:
User843022 · 01/10/2017 22:16

'Are you as equally invested in FB's model or how your local corner shop run their business.'

Buttery what about nerrsnerrs question ^, or is just mn that concerns you?

I just don't get why you'd worry about 'leaving tricky issues to be dealt with by moderators with limited powers.', it's not really something you need to fret about is it?
Lots of businesses use volunteers. If it suits the volunteers and the business it's a total non issue.

MudCity · 01/10/2017 22:18

In fact I'd really expect an organisation such as Mumsnet to not rely on women's unpaid work. And to know better than to do so.

^ This.

I agree OP.

Original poster
Butterymuffin · 01/10/2017 22:20

Oh and actually I am quite interested in
Facebook's business model. John Lanchester's recent article about it was quite an eye-opener. I don't use it because I don't like various things about how it operates. I do like a lot of what MN does, and - ironically - have posted a number of times in reply to people complaining about content moderation to defend MN's right to decide what they will and won't accept on the site, since they are running a business. But on this point I don't agree with the way the business works. Hence the thread Smile

OP posts:
MadamePomfrey · 01/10/2017 22:31

the police aren't a business aiming to make a profit.

Very true but the work is more difficult/dangerous than hiding threads! But I do take the point on board. It was perhaps a bad example but the first that came to mind.

That said I don’t think there is anything wrong with questioning the business practices of a company though, it’s a valid debate to have.

WheresMyTaco · 01/10/2017 22:34

Personally I'd rather have a better paid, better staffed, fully empowered police force than one with police leaving left and right and relying on volunteers with no really power.

But it is a completely different scenario

tippz · 01/10/2017 22:34

PMSL at the ill informed crap being pedalled on here (by some.)

tippz · 01/10/2017 22:35

PMSL at the ill informed crap being pedalled on here (by some.)

Swipe left for the next trending thread