The Sex topic - an update on moderation

[YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet]

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.

@HaroldsHoodie we may not understand absolutely everything all the time but it's absolutely not the case that we don't care. We care very much. In this case we want to fully discuss this with the moderation team so we can approach it in the right way. This is not a fobbing off and we're really sorry it's coming across that way.

@YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet thanks for replying! I wasn’t referring to your comments here just to be clear. I was actually referring to Justine’s mealy mouthed original reply on a recent thread on this issue. I don’t want, and won’t accept, an answer in that vein.

Ah well there’s one of my ‘usual nickname for MN threads’ gone - HH is my recently taken up name for discussion of more serious/personal issues! Never mind, it’s not likely I’ll need to make a distinction between the two for much longer.

Do you understand that the concern is not about the genuineness or otherwise of the OP, but the content itself?

I'm asking you directly because from your previous comments it seems you don't understand that, and also you seem to be unable to respond to me for some reason, always addressing your responses to my questions to another poster!

@beastlyslumber I have to say it is quite maddening. Feels a bit like wading through treacle. These are really very basic principles.

I’m almost out of patience tbh and the only reason I haven’t already left is that I’m absolutely not going to just slink off and let MN off the hook on this. I’m staying until it’s been properly addressed to my satisfaction (or not!).

@beastlyslumber sorry - I missed your questions. Yes we do understand the distinction and recognise it's something we need to discuss with the whole team.

So it stays up until that discussion is had?
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

Most likely!!? Surely it should be a given?

I’m honestly starting to wonder why MNHQ can’t see the damage that’s happening because of the tardiness in acting on expressed concerns including safeguarding.

Seems MNHQs Moderation policy is to protect the men on the sex board at all costs.

We'd most likely ban anyone who is sending unwanted PMs

This was your answer to a question specifically about PMs from men about intimate issues such as sex / ejaculation.

So surely this should be 'we'd ban anyone who is sending unwanted PMs'?

Why the 'most likely' qualifier?

It sounds like there is a desperate need for some independent, external experts to come and do a deep dive on safeguarding and moderation at MNHQ.

We keep hearing that things are being discussed internally but those discussions have led to many members having issues and haven't been dealt with confidently and definitively.

The issue of safeguarding is too important to be reliant on internal discussions IMO and it would be reassuring to get a sense of whether you are going to be investing in some independent expertise on this, as that seems lacking.

It doesn't seem like there's much sense of urgency about any of this

It's so frustrating. My teenagers can understand why publishing accounts of child rape and abuse on a public forum is wrong. Pretty sure most people if they thought about it for a moment could understand why it would be triggering, attractive to abusers, used as wank material, exposing victims to further abuse etc etc. The fact that this is being hosted on a parenting website makes it ten times worse.

It shouldn't need your users to explain this to you, MN. You're a huge business. Pay people to help you understand.

@YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet I keep making reference to a current thread containing description and discussion of CSA but am being ignored? It is not on the Sex board so it also speaks to my previous query regarding whether your new policies would be site-wide or confined to the Sex board. I think it's an important query.

Yes it is an important query, and of course the same standards need to apply across the board on that sort of content.

@TangledUpInDreams I'd like to think so

@MeganTheeScallion Hard to know these days though, isn't it...

@TangledUpInDreams what we need is a ruddy, bloody thoroughly good bloke to really, properly explain it to us.

I’ve completely had enough of this awful management of Mumsnet. I just find their responses so dismissive, predictable, and arrogant in the main.

Not to mention the constantly toxic vibes you get on many many threads.

Has anybody tried FemVox? It’s a new forum set up by some pissed off MNers. Early days but it seems like a much more supportive and generally nicer place to be. Fingers cross they do well over there. I’ve had enough of the nastiness and will probably join.

I'm having a look at femvox now.

Mods are able to delete messages (for what reason?) but seemingly not able to see questions, like this one which has been asked repeatedly.

What's the reason for leaving that thread up?

@beastlyslumber @MeganTheeScallion if it's the thread I think you mean then it doesn't break our guidelines but this is something we'll discuss further in the week ahead.

@YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet okay but I'd have thought that how MN handles the hosting of material related to CSA (particularly descriptions of) is something that should have been discussed as a matter of urgency when the issue was raised by other posters (more articulate and knowledgeable than me) last week? Appreciate there must be a balance between moderating content and providing a platform for surviors' voices, but there are already policies and procedures in use by other companies that could be utilised here, surely?

I echo PP in that I think it would be somewhat reassuring to know that MN are going to have a really good review of their policies around material relating to CSA.

My comment got zapped???

Why?

I didn't name anyone, so how was it a personal attack?

Which talk guideline did I break?