Moderation Sex Board

[onirgellep]

Back in February Justine* committed to an urgent review of moderation of the Sex Board subsequent to the considerable concerns mainly arising from the longstanding Sex Chat thread

Unsurprisingly, issues continue

Would it be possible to have an update on the progress of the review?

And hear when do you anticipate it being completed and the new moderation put into action?

Thank you

I'm afraid I'm unable to link Justine's post on the thread References to Underage Sex on the Sex Board* page 13

I think the necessity to log in has value.

At least it stops people stumbling in by mistake directly from Google.

Lots of fora have limited areas open to the public that give an impression of its content that can only be accessed by making an account and logging in.

I don’t think anyone believes that the ´sex people’ are entirely one dimensional and have no interests in other areas of life. Just that their primary interest in mumsnet is the sex board. Sometimes you can even spot the users who are mostly interested in the sex topic by their choice of username.
Of course perhaps these users have multiple user names and use a non sex related one for posting in other topics. Makes sense. It’s usually a good idea to separate these things. So perhaps you could consider that ´sex people’ only applies to users of the sex board for sexually titillating discussion and not to the same people posting under different personas to unrelated topics with no sexual content or innuendo.

Well, I've been posting on a variety of threads - many non-sex related - for about five years now and have never felt the need to use different usernames. Just another MN user, with different views on some subjects to some other MN users.

As mumsnet say- they're a site for adults. Children should not be here.

Unfortunately “they shouldn’t have been here” won’t stand as much of a legal defence for MNHQ in the event of a minor being exposed to explicit sexual content on their site or allowing posts discussing underage sex for to stand for titillation, if they haven’t made even the most basic efforts to restrict the site to over-18s.

You can have part of a site dedicated to talking in detail about sex (including kinks and fetishes) with much tighter safeguarding controls, or you can have more relaxed controls and no dedicated sex talk area. You cannot safely have both. This is the part MNHQ don’t seem able to fully grasp.

Bringing in references to threads about DV or toxic relationships is pure whataboutery. Those things may be distressing for a child to read (or indeed someone of any age) but they are not illegal. Also, any children stumbling across MN are unlikely to want to wade through pages of posts about cheating husbands, should I go NC with my MIL, was this argument abusive etc looking for sexual content, but when there’s a board right there called Sex with topics quite clearly about vibrators, squirting, anal, orgasms, shaving genitals etc…it’s somewhat handed to them on an age-unrestricted plate.

If you can’t see the difference then I suggest you learn a bit more about safeguarding.

This post is excellent. MNHQ should take notice of the concerns raised in this thread.

@BenCoopersSupportWren that is certainly worrying for anyone with an interest in safeguarding. Can I ask, genuine question-I’m not trying to be goady- where do magazines such as Cosmopolitan or Women’s Health stand here? Their topics overlap with the Sex Board, they don’t have an age restriction and anyone under 18 can access them easily.

Their subjects range from best multivitamins to how to enjoy anal comfortably. I’m sure their editorial stance would argue that these are topics women want information about, something which is supported by poster’s engagement with the Sex Board here.

I have been a lurker (what a word) on the Sex Board for a long time, I have thankfully yet to see the discussion of illegal acts. You seem to suggest in your post that you have, I would like you to please clarify those instances.

@Mermaidparades do they have a facility to swap pictures and other messages privately? (I don't know - I'm asking)

Because that to me is part of it at least.

A magazine/website like cosmopolitan is very much a case of moderating/censoring/okaying topic and tone BEFORE publication. It’s not comparable to a discussion thread.

That's also true. There will have been oversight by an editorial and journalistic team prior to publication.

This is a post moderated site. It's different.

With regard to safeguarding.

There's a there's a thread running in AIBU right now about what many posters say is a sexually explicit image that the OPs children are being exposed to. The thread has the image a few posts down the first page.

Is this a safe guarding issue considering MN's policies and the possibility of children viewing?

Should the image be taken down?

This isn't whataboutery but a genuine desire to understand what is and isn't acceptable on MN as a whole and whether that differs for the Sex Board in particular.

As mumsnet say- they're a site for adults. Children should not be here.

Yes, but - even ignoring the lack of any checks etc - they don’t always delete threads where the poster claims to be under 18.

Print media like Cosmopolitan etc aimed at an adult readership are usually careful not to include material that references underage or otherwise-illegal sexual activity as being something pleasurable / enjoyable / desirable. And unlike an internet site, there is no risk that a minor reading the magazine will click on a link that takes them to a site where material that has been deemed legally unsuitable for under-18s to access is shared.

(Am I really having to explain the difference??)

I posted a thread in Site Stuff several weeks ago that made it quite clear I saw posts about underage sex being shared within a thread on the Sex board in the spirit of entertainment. The thread was not set up as a CSA support thread or similar; it was a lighthearted reminiscence about “first times”. Within the thread posters had shared experiences that quite clearly were CSA, and at least one other poster had (laughingly) admitted to having committed an offence of sex with a girl under 16. The thread was only removed when I and others (after I brought it to others’ attention on Site Stuff) reported it. It didn’t appear that any of the contributors on the thread - and it was well over 100 posts by the time I saw it - had an issue with the posts in question.

As I said at the time, other sites which host sex chat do not allow these kinds of posts, even if posted by the individual who had underage sex (or an experience of bestiality, which is the other usual ‘hard limit’ for reputable sex sites) themselves now speaking as an adult about their historic experience. The reason shouldn’t need spelling out but apparently it does: if your site gets a name as being a place where this kind of topic is not shut down hard, it becomes a magnet for those who want to discuss it and your site then risks becoming a conduit for the passing of highly illicit material, be that via the equivalent of a PM system or via links.

Sorry for jumping in but images can't be shared via PM here

@horridjobescapee no a magazine wouldn’t have those facilities! I was responding to the issues raised by @BenCoopersSupportWren . It is a minefield, without even adding in the capacity to send private messages and photos. I have a 12 year old DD and internet safety is a hot topic in our home, the thought of her being groomed is terrifying.

Have you reported that thread since you believe it may be problematic for MNHQ to look into and make a determination?

@Surplus2requirements I did not say share images privately?

I said swap pictures, and other messages privately.

Clumsy phrasing perhaps but I meant swap pictures and send other messages privately. As in, two discrete events - swap images, and then send other messages privately.

I'm asking if it's considered problematic* *

@BenCoopersSupportWren thank you for your reply, you are obviously knowledgeable in this area and I am keen to know more. Please don’t be patronising and disrespectful though, you will get more people to support you without your judgement.

Also. Links can be shared by pm. So how can links to images be excluded? I could send a link to an image.

Can I ask why being able to send a link to a image should be excluded?

You said that images couldn't be shared by pm - they can be.

I’m talking about keeping references to underage and illegal sex off Mumsnet. If I can only get people to support me on that subject by talking nicely about it, the problem is not with my tone but with the people who don’t automatically think not giving paedophiles and perverts an open platform is a bad thing.

(My negatives are probably confused there because I’m so flabbergasted at the thought that “tone” is an issue when we’re talking about Safeguarding 101, but I’m sure most people can work out what I mean.)

By external links yes but that is something that is out of MN's control and solely the responsibility of the poster surely?

And we all know how leaving things to the responsibility of the poster worked out.

And anyway, I was only trying to raise the fact that images can be sent in PMs when you had stated that they couldn't be.