Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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

MNHQ

The Sex topic - an update on moderation

465 replies

YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet · 01/03/2023 09:43

Hi everyone.

Thanks for all your comments over the past week regarding the Sex board. It’s become clear from the discussion that we needed a rethink about our approach to this part of the site and so we’re going to introduce some rules to help ensure that posters can get the support and advice they need from the board and that everyone has clear expectations of the behaviour we expect.

Posters must be at least 18 years of age - Mumsnet has always been a site for adults but we want to be crystal clear about this for this board.

The board is text based - we don’t allow NSFW (not safe for work) images.

We don’t allow links to any NSFW sites or personal profiles on other sites

We will not tolerate creepy or harassing behaviour in particular from male posters

We’ve also had concerns raised about the ongoing ‘sex chat threads’ including the risks involved with allowing users to PM each other. Our approach has always been to allow consenting adults to make their own judgement when it comes to what they’ll share and, broadly, that is still the case across the site - but we acknowledge there are additional vulnerabilities here that we ought to consider.

With that in mind, we will no longer allow users to ask for or to offer to send PMs for the purposes of sex chat. For one thing, we can’t guarantee that the person you’re chatting with is who they say they are and we can’t realistically safeguard these kind of off-board discussions. We’ve looked at the moderation principles of similar boards on other sites and this is indeed the policy on several others.

We’d also like to address some of your other comments if we may. Last year we reduced the time required from joining to posting on Sex from 90 days to seven. We’ve no plans to change this at the moment because this timeframe has proved to be a sufficient deterrent to bad actors and we believe that 90 days is too long if you’re a new user with a genuine concern. We’d also like to be clear that our commercial partnerships have had zero bearing on any changes we’ve made (nor did anyone ask us to make changes) and MNHQ does not (and would never) post affiliate links to products under the guise of a regular MNer. We may be many things, but we are not underhand!

As with everything, we’ll continue to monitor the situation and we hope these new rules will go some way to reassure you. If anyone has further questions, please post here and we’ll do our best to answer them.

Thanks.

OP posts:
BaroldFromEastenders · 03/03/2023 13:20

If it’s overnight you can also post on the night watch board and they can hide it.

need paid mods on overnight

HaroldsHoodie · 03/03/2023 13:30

@MeganTheeScallion @YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet that really is poor.

It absolutely is my hard line.

I will keep pestering and asking for clarification until I get it in writing what MNHQ are/aren’t going to do in that regard.

beastlyslumber · 03/03/2023 13:32

MeganTheeScallion · 03/03/2023 13:12

@HaroldsHoodie I don't think there will be much work on the CSA issue. I reported a thread twice last night, was told they'd look into it, and nothing was done. It contains descriptions of CSA and invites posters to ask questions about it. @YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet

That is really upsetting to hear.

@YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet can you explain why these threads are being allowed to stand?

MeganTheeScallion · 03/03/2023 13:34

I've just checked and it was actually about 5pm

HaroldsHoodie · 03/03/2023 13:36

No excuse for that.

Given what the sex topic has turned into due to MNHQ’s failure to properly consider wider effects of their brand direction decisions, they need to employ paid overnight mods for that section.

HaroldsHoodie · 03/03/2023 13:57

Perhaps a discussion or two and polling in AIBU over the next couple of weeks would be a good way to garner some data on how the wider demographic would view this.

Many don’t frequent the site stuff discussions so wouldn’t necessarily be aware.

beastlyslumber · 03/03/2023 14:05

I don't think that users' opinions matter that much when we are talking about a serious safeguarding fail and potentially illegal content.

It shouldn't be up to users to have to explain to MN why they shouldn't be hosting descriptions and invites to talk about CSA.

Bamboux · 03/03/2023 14:06

beastlyslumber · 03/03/2023 14:05

I don't think that users' opinions matter that much when we are talking about a serious safeguarding fail and potentially illegal content.

It shouldn't be up to users to have to explain to MN why they shouldn't be hosting descriptions and invites to talk about CSA.

What she said.

HaroldsHoodie · 03/03/2023 14:07

Oh definitely. I meant more around the need for proper moderation and clear guidelines.

I definitely agree with you on the publication of CSA. Hard line. And those who don't like it can fuck off to the far side of fuck as far as I'm concerned.

HaroldsHoodie · 03/03/2023 14:10

In fact I think I'm doing MNHQ too much of a brand protection favour using that acronym.

Child Sex Abuse. That's what it is. It does not belong on this site. Not under any circumstances.

ProbablyNotAGoodIdea · 03/03/2023 17:49

HaroldsHoodie · 03/03/2023 11:38

The way some users of that topic spoke to and about those of us arguing the rights of women here not to be sent uninvited/non-consented-to PMs by men about sex and ejaculation was really disgusting and their attitude absolutely was not acceptable. The woman had asked for advice around a health issue to do with sex, she didn’t want PMs from men about it and that’s a perfectly reasonable boundary to hold. She was uncomfortable with it and in return was treated despicably by those individuals.

So no, I don’t have a lot of confidence that people on the topic would have stood together to have her back. Even if some had, it’s the louder demographic of nay sayers and enablers that sets the tone. Deny, dismiss, deflect. NOT in the spirit of this site at all.

@YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet I am still waiting for answers to questions I had:

What is MN’s moderation standard regarding uninvited PMs from men about intimate issues such as sex/ejaculation.

Will you put up a clear and unambiguous rule that descriptions of CSA are unacceptable and will be immediately deleted.

Are mods actually going to be trained to understand some of these issues? I shouldn’t have to bring up the point that it’s possible to disclose one has been a victim of X without going into descriptions. This is not a therapy session where safety/confidentiality and so on is built in and where detail might be needed for the good of the victim. Discussion here is publication on a public site and is an entirely different matter.

I just wanted to come back in to say I really support you @HaroldsHoodie in seeking clarification on these issues. I too was horrified that certain posters were allowed to speak the way they did about the dodgy PM - it went so far beyond the bounds of acceptability and despite reports, they stayed up til the whole thread was deleted. On MN, users calling a victim of sexual harassment hysterical and stupid for identifying what happened to her is pretty shocking.

The Sex board still only has that very weak 'we're all grown ups, don't be disrespectful' sticky, rather than setting out the new guidelines where anyone visiting will see them and I'm very disappointed to hear another thread went up seeking stories of CSA. Hope it's gone now.

Rogue1001MNer · 03/03/2023 17:54

I think the regulars on the sex boards think they're the correct people to.be moderating them.

ProbablyNotAGoodIdea · 03/03/2023 17:58

Rogue1001MNer · 03/03/2023 17:54

I think the regulars on the sex boards think they're the correct people to.be moderating them.

Just so long as, whoever it is, there are really clear guidelines like Harold's asking for.

Mermaidparades · 03/03/2023 18:08

@Rogue1001MNer it’s tricky yknow, I guess no one has really bothered with us before. Now the spotlight is on, the chat thread has been removed already, maybe there are fears of further infringements

ProbablyNotAGoodIdea · 03/03/2023 18:11

Oh no I really don't want to kick it all off again, just wanted to let @HaroldsHoodie know I support her in pursuing some clarification re CSA content and how that's being actively prevented and swiftly removed as I'm sure that's something none of us want to see - and something any mod needs to be very informed about.

MeganTheeScallion · 03/03/2023 18:14

I guess it would be difficult at this point to find people who were aware of the context, fully understanding of & on board with the new rules and completely "neutral" (for want of a better word. I don't mean to use binary language or further fuel the unhelpful notion of there being 'sides', sorry).

HaroldsHoodie · 03/03/2023 18:14

Rogue1001MNer · 03/03/2023 17:54

I think the regulars on the sex boards think they're the correct people to.be moderating them.

Well no. We don’t get to moderate our own threads on any other subject, so they can think that all they like; I absolutely don’t think that’s the right course for the sex topic and MNHQ will agree I’m sure...

Rogue1001MNer · 03/03/2023 19:51

Mermaidparades · 03/03/2023 18:08

@Rogue1001MNer it’s tricky yknow, I guess no one has really bothered with us before. Now the spotlight is on, the chat thread has been removed already, maybe there are fears of further infringements

To be fair, the sex chat thread might have stayed if you guys hadn't blatantly ripped the piss out of the new guidelines
"Please DON'T pm me 😉😉😉🤣" was the kind of post that started appearing before the thread got zapped

And you're (plural version of you) now suggesting you'd be the right people to moderate?
Kinda counterintuitive, dontcha think?

LucyLeave · 03/03/2023 20:26

It's still full of sleazy men. So nothing much has changed.

MNHQ
YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet · 04/03/2023 09:26

@HaroldsHoodie thanks for your questions.

What is MN’s moderation standard regarding uninvited PMs from men about intimate issues such as sex/ejaculation.
We'd most likely ban anyone who is sending unwanted PMs.

Will you put up a clear and unambiguous rule that descriptions of CSA are unacceptable and will be immediately deleted.
We've removed posts like this in the past when we've had concerns about an OP but we'll be discussing how we moderate this in the coming week and will get back to you.

OP posts:
AGreenProblem · 04/03/2023 11:30

….just create a satellite website where MN men can hang out and wait for female MNers to come along when they require dick picks and suck such. Perhaps they can develop digital pheromones while they wait to speed the process along.

beastlyslumber · 04/03/2023 11:35

@YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet this is difficult because you clearly don't understand the problem.

You don't have to have suspicions about an OP to delete a CSA thread. Any description of CSA is a problem. It doesn't matter if the OP has been posting every day for ten years - descriptions of child rape and sexual assault should not be published anywhere on the site.

I think what might be most needed here is some high quality safeguarding training. This seems very basic to me and many others who have posted, but clearly MN doesn't understand.

MeganTheeScallion · 04/03/2023 11:46

@beastlyslumber @YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet yes this was my issue with the thread I reported (still there with no MN interventions at all). I don't actyally doubt the OP is genuine but it's all about CSA and has detail, minimising, others sharing their experiences. Again, I do not think this is troll behaviour but I do not think it should stand without proactive modding, TWs etc at the very least, and a reach out to the OP.

AGreenProblem · 04/03/2023 11:57

For example in retail if you handle a device that you suspect contains evidence of CSA you are legally required to immediately call the police. There is no thought process about it, it’s beyond that.

HaroldsHoodie · 04/03/2023 11:59

beastlyslumber · 04/03/2023 11:35

@YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet this is difficult because you clearly don't understand the problem.

You don't have to have suspicions about an OP to delete a CSA thread. Any description of CSA is a problem. It doesn't matter if the OP has been posting every day for ten years - descriptions of child rape and sexual assault should not be published anywhere on the site.

I think what might be most needed here is some high quality safeguarding training. This seems very basic to me and many others who have posted, but clearly MN doesn't understand.

They clearly don’t understand. Or worse, and quite likely, I’m beginning to think from the way this is playing out: the boss(es) do understand full well but they just don’t care.

I’d like the bosses to answer this directly. And not with some fobbing off attempt.

For example, if the honest truth is that you’ve consulted with your lawyers and been told that it’s unlikely that descriptions of rape/sexual assault/abuse
of minors meet the threshold for publishing illegal material, so you’ve decided you don’t actually GAF about issues of morality around hosting that kind of discussion on a parenting/ historically predominantly women-centred site, I’d like you just to say that straight out.

I would also like to see a direct answer from the bosses as to why you apparently don’t think there ought to be a clear and unambiguous warning on the sex topic that such descriptions are not allowed (even if the OP is/seems genuine; this really is not enough justification to let it stand in my view and that of many others). There will by now be many non-genuine participants on that topic. Moderation needs to take account of that.

Of course what the bosses do (or don’t do) is ultimately their choice. Fair enough, but I want to know exactly where MN stands with me - I do not wish to engage here if its values no longer broadly align with my own.

These are hard lines for me.