Why is it suddenly ok to make multiple threads on the same subject over and over again?

[DayBath]

I'm talking about the Feminism board. Please could MN explain why it's ok for the same poster to keep starting new threads on the same topic repeatedly without the previous ones filling up or reaching any limit?

Surely there's a point where this is considered "not in the spirit" as you love to say. By all means this person should be allowed to post but why are repeated threads within hours of each other being allowed to cause Groundhog Day over there?

I do understand that Mumsnet is a commercial enterprise that needs to protect its interests

And yet.... despite it being very unwise to invite lots of conversation and then visitors on a thread started by one of the people who are trying to get advertisers off the site. I'd suggest MN twitter account block those who are openly organising financial damage not give them long and apologetic replies.
Some of the people was interacting with are banned posters here.

This has happened several times, I'll share the link of one from 2018 . Has been years in which to learn how the staff on MN twitter accounts should interact to help the commercial interests of the site.

This Soreen incident gives another opportunity to learn.

What has been learned about interaction with Twitter trolls in the last three years?
Have the SM staff been taught that many FathersForJustice types, midnight misogynists, poo trolls and MRAs don't clearly announce that in their twitter profile?
Is there a policy that staff shouldn't reply when tagged into a thread about shutting down the site and should interact more with positive and grateful or funny tweets?
Most organisations don't intetact on social media with those who have spent years describing them as Nazis or Feminazis or telling them to enjoy their erasure.
Did the suggestions for Freedom Program training get considered?

I dont expect a public answer but plead with you to have some internal discussion.

MN relationships and miscarriage boards have been a lifeline to many women here. Banning them from MN for calling a goady fucker a goady fucker, or saying the word 'c_lt' in a long, polite well thought out post is an unnecessarily harsh punishment.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/3238536-Mumsnet-encouraging-brigading-by-Twitter-TRAs

@GCAcademic

I think that the bottom line that we would all do well to remember is that:

• we are the product offered by this website, not the users
• as with any other online business, the website benefits financially from getting more people clicking onto it

Yes and that is why deleting and banning one's productive long term elements in favour of day visitors is such a bad move. Lots of the product are quite ovarit now.

I second @WanderinWomb.

I typed many things here in agreement and then deleted them because the swiss cheese has me second guessing the way I phrase everything and I'm just so tired of trying to pussyfoot around unwritten rules that Mumsnet refuses to clarify. These eggshells are starting to hurt my feet so I give up.

I had an interesting report response from Mumsnet this morning, I asked them to come back to the thread and answer the many questions here since their first statement. They said they are following the thread and will reply when they can, let's hope we hear back from them.

All that inviting those individuals on here has done is allow them to conclude that we are transphobic. Because any articulation of biological sex being real and being significant for women's experience, rights and political organisation is deemed transphobic. There was no way that they were every going to see it otherwise. So I don't really understand what the point of the invitation to come and poke the feminists was. Some of them also seem unable to cope with the nature of this site, which is robust and fast-moving even beyond FWR, and have bundled this into the denouncements of MN they are busy making on Twitter.

Another individual who posted here has gone and posted downright lies on Twitter.

@JaneJeffer

Another individual who posted here has gone and posted downright lies on Twitter.

Of course xe has, absolutely what anyone with an ounce of savvy predicted. Our recent visitors seemed young and vulnerable, they came from one of M*my** threads and we know M is very well connected ( large charity, police force and government depts). These were kids sent to do the city work of PBPs. This should be known to MN but they aren't interested, won't let us tell them as we get deleted for even hinting at it.

I've read all this old thread again where internet-experienced users gave MN many thousands of pounds worth of social media advice for free and it seems that have not learned in three years. www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/3238536-Mumsnet-encouraging-brigading-by-Twitter-TRAs

MN are a social media business that don't seem to understand how to navigate away from Twitter troll icebergs.

It was Jeffrey and F4J before, is anime MRAs and doxers now, will probably be anti-abortionists, antivaxxers, and incels in the future. There will always be people who are desperate to shut this place down, campaigning mobilising and organising against Mumsnet specifically because it is where women meet to discuss what is important to us.

The best thing anybody can ever do is stay away from bloody twitter. I do not understand why companies randomly respond too certain tweets because it only EVER leads to a complete and utter shit show.

Mumsnet should just ditch Twitter for the toxic nonsense it is. How many people actually come here from that platform anyway? Only ones to cause trouble from the looks of it.

I'm struggling to see how it is anything other than inviting posters who would otherwise be seen as likely trolls.

I'm still waiting for an answer to my original question...you know the one at the top of the post...can't miss it mumsnet. Still waiting over here.

How did Mumsnet come into the thread and post a response that didn't really answer most people's questions let alone the one that was the starter of the entire thread. @YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet

It's not hard. Tell us these unwritten rules so that we may abide by them please.

I really hoped they'd be back especially since how serious the issue is for our safety and their bottom line is.

I want to know why some new people need to stick to the invisible rules and other new people don't. And just bloody tell us what we are and aren't allowed to say .

I've just joined Ovarit in preparation for MN deciding that they don't support women after all. It doesn't seem too far fetched in the context of their recent decisions, including the frankly bizarre choice to move a thread publicising the government's survey on the effects of violence against women and girls to the lonely isolation of the petitions board with just half an hour left to make submissions

Last day to complete survey on violence against women and girls.... www.mumsnet.com/Talk/petitions_noticeboard/4169936-last-day-to-complete-survey-on-violence-against-women-and-girls

You should post a link to that thread in AIBU @MaudTheInvincible

@GCAcademic

I think that the bottom line that we would all do well to remember is that:

• we are the product offered by this website, not the users
• as with any other online business, the website benefits financially from getting more people clicking onto it

Equally, the business needs to remember that if it bothers to have rules, it should apply those rules fairly and consistently.

There's many an ex-internet forum that thought it could treat its users however it wanted...

You know what, when I started to read the reply from @YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet I thought 'actually, perhaps I have been a bit short sighted not signing up for premium and she's got a point' but by the end of it, the double standards have got me so annoyed, there's no way. I know it's not the point of the thread, but it's so irritating.

I do understand there will be more going on behind the scenes than is shared and they need to be balanced and fair to all, but this isn't.

Perhaps we'll get another reply once the weekend is over?

I do think that is most likely Wookey, after the senior MNHQers have had a chance to consider points raised.

We're committed to hosting conversations in FWR that are inclusive. We know this will feel uncomfortable for many at first, but it's a really important operating principle as far as we can see.
Having been lied about on Twitter after trying to be inclusive I won't be taking part in any more of these types of conversations. You're right it does feel uncomfortable.

@JaneJeffer

We're committed to hosting conversations in FWR that are inclusive. We know this will feel uncomfortable for many at first, but it's a really important operating principle as far as we can see. Having been lied about on Twitter after trying to be inclusive I won't be taking part in any more of these types of conversations. You're right it does feel uncomfortable.

@YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet I’m still seething. It’s the word ‘inclusive’ that’s really got my goat.

As I have said in previous posts, MN as a whole is inclusive.

But I’m not aware of any other board which is required to tolerate regular visits from trolls with views that oppose its existence. And the regulars are then punished for protesting.

Does MN think Style and Beauty regulars should be hounded with daily threads about the inherent selfishness of an interest in fashion?

Does MN think it should invite English nationalist posters to join Scotsnet?

What about the Special Needs boards - not very inclusive of parents with children without special needs?

This is why the word ‘inclusive’ stings so much. Because the only reason we ever talk about trans issues on FWR is in relation to demands that we be inclusive of anyone who wants to use our rights, services and facilities, no matter what the cost to women and girls. Because #BeKind

Well I’m done with being kind. I’m not interested in being inclusive. My feminism includes women and girls only.

I’m putting on an ad blocker until you sort this out.

@GCAcademic

I think that the bottom line that we would all do well to remember is that:

• we are the product offered by this website, not the users
• as with any other online business, the website benefits financially from getting more people clicking onto it

True.

But we would also all do well to remember that this product is not like ready meals or cardboard boxes or fast fashion or even farm animals or benefit claimants. In this case, if the product is pissed off enough it can just walk away. So it's in MNHQ's interests to look after its product and keep it happy.

The trick is to not make it so extremely blatantly obvious to the product that it is the product. Dangling us out on Twitter for clicks was inevitably going to piss lots of us off.

This is why I have not signed up for premium, despite regularly advocating for a paid, ad-free subscription for years before it was launched. I advocated for that because I won't turn off my adblocker and I felt a bit bad about that. I feel increasingly less bad.

People who pay MN for the service are no longer just the product, they are also paying customers. I have no desire to pay for the privilege of being so obviously held out as clickbait product.

Discussing women's rights and trans rights is hardly the same as a new pair of shoes or latest style of dress though, is it , so not really comparable to compare to style and beauty boards.

You're right, the two different subjects are different in subject matter.

I remember the Guardian had to turn off comments on their Beauty column after years of helpful discussion between users about how to tackle skin conditions, find a decent sunscreen, or replacement for discontinued product, because it got bombarded every week with people coming on to comment that you only need soap and water and it was vain and selfish to spend money on any other product. The same comments appeared multiple times every single week, clearly for the sole reason of disrupting and derailing the regular discussion. The clear parallels were the lack of engagement in good faith discussion by the troll brigade, and the personal attacks dressed up as "helpful" ill-informed comments.

Hello. Thanks for all your posts about this.

We might as well be upfront and say that our approach as laid out in our post on Friday hasn’t changed. We are committed to allowing conversations on this topic to showcase the full range of opinion.

As Justine explained in her post here all the way back in 2016, ‘We've chosen to be public, un-paywalled and welcoming to newbies with different opinions… We're mindful of the fact that many of our users are exhausted and often in impossibly difficult situations and would much rather people just understood or piped down - that we just deleted those comments which upset them or banned those who made them. But rightly or wrongly, that's not the Mumsnet we've chosen to be. We've chosen to be open and welcoming to new people and challenging different opinions. We've chosen to be a broad church not a narrow one.’

As we said on Friday, we know this will feel uncomfortable for some but we hope with a bit of patience and adjustment things will settle down.

So still no answer to the pretty straightforward question many have asked then? Namely:

If transwomen say that "cis" is essential language to describe women even though it offends many women, and women say that "man/male" is essential language to describe transwomen even though it offends many transwomen, why is the former accepted and the latter denied?

Is it because it's more important for TW to be able to speak freely and not be offended than it is for women to be able to speak freely and not be offended? Is it because you think TW are more offended by being called men than women are by being called cis? Either you believe us that we find cis just as offensive but think that womens feelings are less important than TW feelings, or you think we're actually lying about being offended. So which is it? Why are their feelings more important than ours? Why are you more inclined to believe them than us?

I mean, I know the answer really. For all of human history women's feelings have mattered less, and our words have been worth less, than the feelings and words of another group. I'd love to say which group that is - that's pretty central to addressing the problem after all - but unfortunately that group have requested that I be banned from naming them.

It's indefensible of course, but I'd still be interested in hearing MNHQ give it a go.

@YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet you say We are committed to allowing conversations on this topic to showcase the full range of opinion.

But that's not true, because you are not allowing me to express my opinion. My understanding is I am barred from saying: e.g.
TM instead of trans woman
transwo**n as one word
pek trans
'him' where a poster might prefer 'her'

Has this now changed?

There is also a huge difference between being welcoming to newbies and MNHQ visiting a rival SM platform to invite hostile posters to join MN. That is irresponsible behaviour. I'm not clear why you think inciting conflict on your own platform is a sensible way to attract and retain advertisers or users.

So to clarify -

You will deliberately invite people from another platform to goad the regular posters on this site and allow them to use language which you know the majority of users of this site find offensive, while gagging the regular posters because of the very narrow, ever-changing talk guidelines which don't seem to be written down anywhere clearly, some of which are deeply subjective.

When the bad faith posters retreat to their platform, having got all the screenshots they need to 'prove that Mumsnet is transphobic', having stated this quite openly, you will thank them for coming.

That's...quite a statement to stand behind.