When wilk Mumsnet or MPs challenge tabloids that take site chats and publish without permission ?

[WillLokireturn]

It really worries me that this is a limited (log in or search) niche forum for relatively safe chats (limited to those that are interested) and that national tabloids steal information, publish it generically as widely, and share information that might be personal only MN site has consent to, without permission of the OP for that wider audience

It so contravenes spirit of permission for this site only and what GDPR means. Why is no one challenging them nor reporting tabloids to regulator for this?

@Acis. Thankyou for your patronising reply

I do know GDPR well and also read the judicial reviews from EDPS and EJUC and many live discussions about consent to taking aspects which may contain personal identifiable data - so for eg where PPs have kept asking for more clarity or details, search up & post posters past history info., etc it starts to become identifiable and there's a leap to it being shared in national newspapers without OP being asked for consent to wider sharing. Whilst it isn't covered right now, it may be later in when test cases come to court. It's a very live discussion in field I work in. It was a debate I thought worth exploring rather than trite responses, because so many PPs do worry having asked for advice at a vulnerable time and then have to ask for threads to be deleted, where people for whatever reason feel MN is a safe space to ask for advice. MNHQ have replied. They didn't feel it was a ridiculous question and we can assume are probably quite informed and following any relevant test cases themselves. GDPR has made everyone be more explicit about consent to share and with whom and in what circumstances, and it was aimed to do so. The debate has started and will continue to move now around what constitutes personal identifiable data. No data protection legislation deals well with social media posts where other PPs dive into OP's history and starts sharing info that was otherwise not included in thread.

I totally get the difference but GDPR was only a small part of what I mentioned after saying spirit of MN board is being misused by national media journalists, and this is difficult and worries me.

CJEU 😁 sorry that was a typo!!

OP, do you know what patronising means? Here are some examples of patronising writing:
"Please reflect and think"
"Maybe, I should direct this to people that regularly use GDPR professionally"
"Ok let's start from scratch"
"I'm not sure how a number of pp have really misunderstood"
" it's very worrying to me that commenting so far PPs cannot debate meaning of personal data eg for a start"
"Head *thud
Maybe I shouldn't have asked at gone 11pm"

Guess where those came from? It's all the more patronising given that many of the people you were disagreeing with clearly are GDPR users professionally.

Glad to see by your reference to possible test cases that you half-admit that you don't actually have any basis for your interpretation. MNHQ can only go on the law as it is, not as it might just be in the future if anyone gets around to bringing a test case and if that test case results in any different interpretation. MNHQ's response was polite, but then they always are, I wouldn't read that as any sort of validation.

This thread is hilarious.

What happens at the stroke of 11pm?