Does MNHQ Check Our Inboxes?

[Chillyourbeans]

Just wondering. I received a private message and sent 2 replies and now the recipient has received a message from MNHQ saying the replies were removed at my request. Except that's not true, I made no such request.

It’s terrible that the night watch is run by volunteers, for example, when there’s £350k per month rolling around to pay people to do goodness knows what. Moderation is important and those people should be paid.

I have to agree. It makes the site vulnerable, and those who want to cause chaos or have dodgy intentions know that the site is lacking in proper moderation for quite a long period of time each night. Moderating during such a vulnerable time period is a lot of responsibility, so the fact they go unpaid is shocking.

Me too! From same poster, same opening line but message deleted.

glad someone else got the deleted PM at least I won't wonder what it was now.

Hi all, and apologies for any upset. We've moved this thread into Site Stuff as requested.

@ArriettyJones has pretty much covered what happened - we take a dim view of people joining in order to spam our members. We always ban and delete their posts.

As a rule, we don't check Private Messages unless they are reported to us - there's a 'report' button above every message in your inbox.

We received a number of reports of spam PMs being sent last night. We banned that member and deleted the PMs they'd sent.

There's a standard message which appears when any PM is deleted, 'This message has been removed at user request' - in this instance, the message should have read, 'This message has been removed by MNHQ' - apologies once again for any confusion.

As always, a huge thank you to all those who reported the PMs, and also to everyone who reports anything which breaks Talk guidelines - it's much appreciated.

No it’s just a slicker version of Mumsnet.

Hardly, it's a 'trying their luck' washed out version, where they are posting things like 'free at last from the tyranny of mumsnet' because no one ever leaves mumsnet with nowhere else to go.

It's a site that has reply, and like which is good

It was MN going all North Korea over us

Oh dear god... 🤦🏻‍♀️

To the post saying they didn’t get a PM - I think it was one or two posters from the other site messaging as many as they could. I get the impression that everyone is very much welcome.

I don’t understand the scoffing on this thread. I’ve joined the other site and found myself posting less on here. It’s good.

“As a rule, we don't check Private Messages unless they are reported to us”

‘As a rule’? So there are other times you look when messages haven’t been reported?

Joining MN just to send links to another site is spamming regardless of what you think of MN.

I don’t understand the scoffing on this thread. I’ve joined the other site and found myself posting less on here. It’s good.

I don’t understand posters willingly handing over their email addresses and IPs, and maybe other personal data, to a completely unknown board of unknown ownership and unknown security tech. Responding to spam is generally a bad idea, isn’t it? Especially cheeky member-poaching spam.

I’m actually going to do a 180 and sign up to premium as a result of this thread. (If they don’t ban me as a result of my comments on night moderation )

I can’t believe MNHQ are getting more of a bashing over a pre-programmed message used for deleting PMs than the anonymous spammers are getting for being so shady.

Don't they have something in the terms and conditions about being able to look at PMs if there are serious concerns about somebody being at risks? I wouldn't be surprised if MN and other sites did.

Over the years there have been many of these 'alternative sites' set up. I may have joined one or two they always start iff great, but after everyone's but he's about whatever caused the breakaway, they fizzle out because there's just not the numbers to keep it interesting.

I think spamming PM's is a bit low, but MN have nothing to lose by letting people post about the new site it's been proven again & again, that a breakaway group just don't have the ability/resources/whatever it takes to start a new MN 🤷🏻‍♀️

ArriettyJones

You mean my email address? What are they going to do with that? Email me?
Wait until you find the personal information being sold via your Oyster Card. You’re naive to think you’re not being harvested here, and else where.

I’m not sure what point you think you’re proving with your £5 membership. But feel free. I’d do it monthly though as you stand to lose a years fee. Keep the 350k a month wage bill in mind and your £5 isn’t going to do much.

MN terms and conditions :

Exceptional circumstances - safeguarding and official investigations
−
If there are obvious safeguarding reasons, or if we are contacted by the police about a possible breach of the law, we may share your personal information with public authorities without your permission. If we are compelled to do so by a court order, we will share your personal data to the extent specified in the order.
If there are compelling safeguarding considerations, we may share your data with public authorities without your permission. We understand 'compelling safeguarding considerations' to mean credible evidence of imminent risk of serious harm, especially to a child or vulnerable person.
In such circumstances, on the judgement of a senior person within Mumsnet and in consultation with the Data Protection Officer, we may proactively contact relevant authorities (the police or ambulance service, for example) and share any relevant data we have, such as location data, relevant posts, private messages, details of any children who might be at risk, and descriptions of the situation.
If contacted by the police about possible breaches of the law disclosed in posts, we may sometimes – on the judgement of a senior person within Mumsnet and in consultation with the Data Protection Officer – share your personal information with them. We will share your personal information if compelled to do so by a court order, for example under Section 5 of the 2013 Defamation Act.

don’t understand posters willingly handing over their email addresses and IPs, and maybe other personal data, to a completely unknown board of unknown ownership and unknown security tech.

I’m actually going to do a 180 and sign up to premium as a result of this thread.

So you can't understand why posters willing hand over their email address to a new forum, but you're wiling to hand over financial details to a forum which has had multiple breaches and hacks

You mean my email address? What are they going to do with that? Email me?

Pfft. I’ve still got the shivers from the time hackers got Justine’s and SGB’s homes raided by armed police.

Wait until you find the personal information being sold via your Oyster Card. You’re naive to think you’re not being harvested here, and else where

You won’t be surprised to hear that I only use unregistered Oyster cards. I have about ten of them

but you're wiling to hand over financial details to a forum which has had multiple breaches and hacks

I will if there’s a card payment option and I can use a preloaded card, yes. That’s probably enough about my cautious foibles now.

“I’m actually going to do a 180 and sign up to premium as a result of this thread.”

Why? To spite the other site? Weird, you seem to be taking this very personally. Also, what do you mean ‘unknown site security’? we KNOW MN site security, and look how that went.... Hacking, doxxing (by staff) etc...

ArriettyJones

Maybe if ‘Justine’ had a more secure site that wouldn’t have happened. I’d be careful about the way in which you transfer your funds.

Why? To spite the other site?

No, to support this one. If that’s okay?

“No, to support this one. If that’s okay?”

Fill your boots dear, but that wasn’t exactly the tone of your pp was it? It did rather seem as if you were doing it in response to all this.

I've had a few PMed links to the other site linked to the new one. It seems to be how they try and poach posters from other sites.

I can’t believe MNHQ are getting more of a bashing over a pre-programmed message used for deleting PMs than the anonymous spammers are getting for being so shady.

Some (not all) from what seem to be new posters. Funny, that.

I've got a feeling Justine meant wage bill of around 350k a year, not month. As someone later enquired how many employees MN has and she said around 100 earning a rough average of 35k per annum.

I've got a feeling Justine meant wage bill of around 350k a year

We'll never know. She had a lot of opportunity to correct it if it was an error, but she didn't.