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.

Why are people hell bent on keeping a hook up thread on a site meant to help and support women, that's meant to be a safe place for them , when there are hundreds of other hook up sites they could use ?
Is it a case that they can 'cheat' on their partners with less chance of being caught out if their other half checks their device?

I think it so that they can appear to be browsing a parenting website when actually they’re posting to get some DMs about hook ups.
The perfect cover.

I don't recall ever dealing with a report to NW about a post in the Sex topic.
Happy to deal with any that are reported though

Very good question.

"Mumsnet, making life easier for parents to hook up and cheat"

I really really think you need a rule about posting sexually explicit details where it is mentioned that anyone involved is underage.

Many other forums, Reddit for eg, have this in place.

You cannot have a sex topic and rely on users to self-moderate.

We've already seen a thread describing CSA and other creepy content. It's not fair to publish this stuff and only take it down when there are complaints.

If you must have a sex topic it needs to be pre-moderated.

Alternatively, scrap it and start over with a 'women's sexual health' rebrand.

Not fair - and probably not legal, either.

I can't believe you want MNHQ to randomly check people's PMs 😱 What of of police state are you trying to make MN into? That kind of snooping is out of all proportion!

I think the new changes are enough, I don’t hang out on the sex thread or participate in sexy chat so I’ve no skin in that game. I do think the rest of the sex chat board is fine though, people do report dodgy threads. Caveat: I’ve not seen any cse stuff so can’t comment on that and don’t want to seek it out to comment on it.

I've just reread the whole thread as I don't remember seeing anyone suggesting this and I still can't see it. Who is the 'you' you're referring to in this post?

There was a suggestion somewhere. But I agree, that's not on.

I'm sure MNHQ will consider very carefully which suggestions/opinions they take on board and which aren't a good idea.

Agree with this. I do not feel that 7 days is long enough. That is not a deterrent.
if you do not agree with 90 days, then atleast make it 30!

Yep , just so sleazy

It was me. Random audits would not be disproportionate, I don't think.

@Clymene

@AltitudeCheck doesnt seem to be here right now, I hope they don’t mind me responding on their behalf:

BoreOfWhabylon · Today 11:54
Thank you @YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet and thanks for considering the further points people are raising.

As has been said, relying on reports from users of the topic, when most of us who don't use the topic have it hidden, means that you can't rely on reports flagging up valid concerns. Same goes for PMs.

Might I suggest you consider extra monitoring of the topic by MNHQ, also random checking of PMs to ensure rules are being adhered to?

Apologies, cross post!!

Thanks to the above posters for finding/ quoting, I thought I had replied to the person who said it. Poor tech skills on my part!

What next @BoreOfWhabylon? If MNHQ check your PMs and you've broken another talk guide in a 1:1 chat? Perhaps you are a GC feminist and your PM to a friend breaks other talk guidelines, kick them out too? Or an abuse/ DV survivor talking to someone in confidence - how do you feel about those PMs being read?

So is the ‘new improved sex chat thread’ going or staying? Because it’s still there at the moment. And they’re still encouraging PMs to be sent and being really ‘funny’ pretending they’re not. 🙄

Integrity, @YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet that's what matters.

I think poking around in PMs is a real breach of privacy and freedom of speech and that would be unacceptable to me and I'm sure many others.

Users who send creepy PMs should be reported and banned.

Yes I agree. And apologies for missing that comment earlier. I am even wearing my glasses!

Thank you so much for listening!

It's a move in the right direction and while I agree I'd go a bit further, we'll see how it unfolds.

Thanks for listening.

I'd also like to thank @YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet @mnhq for listening and responding

For clarity @YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet, as we appear to be somewhat confused:

we will no longer allow users to ask for or to offer to send PMs for the purposes of sex chat

How are you going to prevent them?