2 threads taken down on the basis or 'promoting a website'

[TheShadowyFeminist]

@MNHQ please provide the parameters of how women can discuss the issues raised in the website that you feel is being promoted. Happy to not promote it, but I want to be able to discuss the issues.

Can you therefore clarify how we can do that within the rules?

Thank you

It’s BS.

Funny that the Christmas threads are full of links to websites.

Maybe a thread discussing the issues with a find ‘this site’ (clicky link) useful?

I’ve never known a thread to be deleted over discussion of an external site ( apart from the other mum/parent site.

Yes I think that should surely be in line with the guidelines?

Hello there - we don't allow people to spam or use the boards to promote their site/product, etc. The first line of the first thread we deleted was: "Hi everyone! We'd just like to draw the attention of all you lovely FWR contributors to a new website," which is pretty clear promotion and was reported many times.

There are a couple of threads already discussing the issues concerned - we're not silencing anyone, we just don't want spam.

Thanks Becky. So to clarify, adding a link to the repeal the GRA website to the existing thread from earlier this month would be contributing to the conversation and giving posters access to material which they might find interesting rather than spamming I think, as it's in context? Is that correct?

Can I ask what the website is then?

Not in a promotional way, just in a "I'm interested as it may be relevant to me" way.

Or alternatively point me in the direction of one of the threads, I'm an FWR regular but seemed to have missed something!

Aha! Never mind

Thanks Becky. So to clarify, adding a link to the repeal the GRA website to the existing thread from earlier this month would be contributing to the conversation and giving posters access to material which they might find interesting rather than spamming I think, as it's in context? Is that correct?

I personally can't see how that would possibly breach the guidelines, Bernard.

This is what the site T&Cs say. Personally I feel it falls under sites/blogs that are of interest. Certainly the audience of FWR regulars were interested.

Spam IMO are links that are posted in numerous places and that have no relevance to the topic. If the OP had posted it in The Doghouse/Style and Beauty/Telly Addicts then fair enough. She didn't, she posted it in one topic, Feminism Chat, where it was of interest.

I don't feel that spam is an accurate term for a feminist website that was of interest to the women on FWR and not posted on any other boards.

I don't feel that spam is an accurate term for a feminist website that was of interest to the women on FWR and not posted on any other boards.

Nor do I.

I note that posting a link to the repeal the GRA website leads to the post being automatically hidden

Seriously? I think people should be able to post a link to a feminist website, or blog, without being suspected of "promoting" the authors, if that's the reason. People post links to all sorts of things.

How can a feminist website be described as spam??

The new website, as far as I can see, is about safeguarding and protecting women, children and vulnerable adults.

Seems to me that it's the political agenda of the website that's leading to deletions rather than anything else.

Can you confirm this MNHQ?

Hello there - we don't allow people to spam or use the boards to promote their site/product, etc. The first line of the first thread we deleted was: "Hi everyone! We'd just like to draw the attention of all you lovely FWR contributors to a new website," which is pretty clear promotion and was reported many times.

There are a couple of threads already discussing the issues concerned - we're not silencing anyone, we just don't want spam.

So can I clarify - if the issue of the idea of repeal is discussed on FWR, not starting with a promotional post, and I linked to something from that website to illustrate my point, that's ok? And won't result in my post being deleted? I'd like to be clear here that if I'm making a point & illustrate that with a link to this website, that's not promoting it so therefore is within the MN Talk Guidelines.

@MNHQ

I thought spam was more about selling stuff, like an Etsy page or selling your book on Amazon.

Did Radical Notion magazine launch include a website? Trans Widows threads have the Trans Widows Voices website link in posts don't they? Genuine question as I'm not on that thread very much.

Professor Sarah Pedersen's book, 'The Politicization of Mumsnet' discusses the many campaigns which emerged from women posting here.

Justine Roberts discussed this with her on the first ever MN Zoom chat last year.

I posted a link to the new website on page one of one of the threads discussing the topic. It was at first hidden so that admin could have a look. I just checked and it has since been deleted, with the usual "please read our guidelines" message.
I don't see why the link to the new website violates the guidelines. It's another gender critical site. Why is the link not allowed, if it is posted by one of the regulars?

I have yet to read all of the articles hosted on the #RepealTheGRA website but was delighted to see their clear understanding and articulation of specifically how Safeguarding is compromised.

This has always been my main concern and I would like to always link to sources when quoting.

As this is a site primarily concerned with matters affecting children and women identification and discussion of Safeguarding concerns which impact these groups is of interest to many members.

I believe this to be an important article on the website in question,

'A Safeguarding Nightmare'
(extract)
"We have seen many abuse scandals in the UK and the common denominator in all of them is always a failure to safeguard or apply safeguarding protocols without fear or favour. The GRA undermines safeguarding in a particularly insidious way. We are tired of hearing about how these failures led to atrocities and we want to see safeguarding front and centre in public policy. It is not good enough to react with moral outrage after the event and for politicians to wring their hands and say how could we have known? We need everyone to be aware of safeguarding fails the moment they happen and before they are sufficiently embedded for the next scandal to take root." (continues)

It would, I believe, be useful and not contrary to site terms to link to where the rest of the article may be read, discussed and critiqued.
Could Mumsnet please consider this seriously?

So, on the Feminism Women’s Rights board, a link posted on an existing thread to a new website with a name and URL almost identical to the existing thread and campaigning on the issue discussed by the thread is deemed by an anonymous Admin to be in breach of Mumsnet Guidelines?

Do those Guidelines prioritise the political interests of activists who violently oppose women being allowed to discuss women’s rights and safeguarding children?

@MNHQ We are asking for clarification on whether any link to anything on the website you've said was originally spam (despite being posted only once in FWR, not spammed across the site) is permissible & if not, specifically where in the T&Cs this is not allowed. I'd rather know before I link, with all the associated risks of being banned for a breach of the guidelines, whether any link added under clear context of discussion is also likely to fall foul of the overly strict moderation of FWR or not.

Can you please clarify this? At the very least, it's a basic courtesy to members so they are clear on what is not permitted, why & with a link to the relevant section of the rules. Otherwise you are silencing debate via opaque & unclear parameters that we don't see as a reason not to link, yet are at risk of deletion & possible ban.

@MNHQ please make your position clear for the sake of members. Thank you

Yes. I would also like clarification of what @TheShadowyFeminist and others have said.

Me too.

We do allow users to mention other sites by way of a recommendation or if useful for a particular discussion - but we generally will remove posts or threads if it looks to us like attempt to promote something, which in this case it was. The thread was started by a new user, with the purpose to drive traffic to the site - so we removed it.

@MichaelMumsnet

We do allow users to mention other sites by way of a recommendation or if useful for a particular discussion - but we generally will remove posts or threads if it looks to us like attempt to promote something, which in this case it was. The thread was started by a new user, with the purpose to drive traffic to the site - so we removed it.

You're contradicting yourself there Michael: you allow recommendations but not promotions??

Just take a look at the number of threads on the S&B about a certain brand of leggings, with numerous posts linking to their own "refer me" money off codes. Surely those threads are also fall under your description of recommendations and promotions. But you're not deleting those. Hmm.

So can other posters link to articles on there or not? At the moment they're being removed no matter who posts them.

If not, why?

We do allow users to mention other sites by way of a recommendation or if useful for a particular discussion - but we generally will remove posts or threads if it looks to us like attempt to promote something, which in this case it was. The thread was started by a new user, with the purpose to drive traffic to the site - so we removed it.

This doesn't actually answer my question clearly but I'm going to interpret this as a yes I can link, in discussions, to the website & I will not be deleted nor banned as a result. If my interpretation is wrong I'd appreciate a response to my original question, with the specific section of the talk guidelines that would warrant a deletion of a post with a link to this, or any, website that supplements, expands or explains a point I'd like to make or respond to.

Honestly, it's this avoidance of a straight answer to a clear question that creates frustration & a 'tetchy' relationship at times between users & some mods. We are asking for clarification to allow us to continue to post within guidelines - it's surely mutually beneficial for everyone to be clear on what does or doesn't breach guidelines when it's clear that in this case, it's a bit of a stretch to place this website into the spamming or promotion category.

So if you could clarify further, that would be appreciated