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

Sorry I really think you're splitting hairs.

It's not possible to directly swap images for which MN could theoretically be held liable for (though I'm not sure that's certain because as I understand it site owners are liable for what they are reasonably considered to be aware of)

It is possible to share 3rd party links to images for which MN cannot be held accountable

I didn't comment as to whether or not it was mumsnet's responsibility

Splitting hairs is literally what I do all day every day. I'm not sorry for applying that to here.

Sorry, I was thinking in terms of this thread about MN moderation and there's been warnings of the legal implications for MN

And if it ends up in legal action, it'll be people like me splitting those hairs and arguing one way or another.

Hence why I think it's important to be clear.

If MNHQ knew, or could be reasonably expected to know, that their PM site was being used as a conduit to share links to illegal explicit sexual material then they could potentially be liable. (I believe it was previously stated elsewhere that MN mods do have the ability to look at PMs, they just choose not to unless there is a specific reason, but the fact they have the technical capability would potentially count against them if such a legal case arose and they hadn’t used that capability to see what was being shared if concerns about certain types of traffic or certain particular users had been flagged to them - for clarity, I am not suggesting any posters on this thread are using the PM facility to share illegal items.)

The more resistance there is to putting stricter moderation around, or removing entirely, the Sex topic, the more strongly it could be argued that MN would know - or at the very least, that they knew the risk existed and had taken virtually no steps to mitigate against that risk. Threads like this highlight that risk, which is why they are important to be allowed to stand.

If a site is to rely on self-moderation, then both the site owners and other users have to have confidence that the people using the potentially problematic area(s) of the site are shit-hot on reporting anything that may stray over the line of acceptability / appropriateness. Unfortunately to date, the pushback against those of us who want stronger moderation, the instructions to “not look if it offends you”, and the track record of those predominantly using that board when it comes to reporting would not inspire confidence in anyone that it could be left to the prolific Sex board users.

Sorry, that should say “self-reporting or reactive moderation”.

@BenCoopersSupportWren the forum I moderate has a similar policy where I can read PMs but chose not to do so unless reported or there is strong evidence on the open forum of something underhand happening in private.

I think that's common on many fora and 3rd party links are generally considered not to be the responsibility of the hosting site.

Theoretical risks isn't they same as should reasonably have been known

@BenCoopersSupportWren on the contrary, if people recognise your username as the condescending one, they will skip past your posts and miss important insights. So yes, tone is important.

A lot of the points made here are valid but I do feel the tone is an issue and credibility is lost when it turns into an attack of users of the sex board.

Things like assuming posters of the sex topic are ok with illegal content which I'm sure 99% of them are not.

Assuming posters of the sex topic don't report things- because 1 user didn't report 1 thing it means that nobody reports anything?

One of the threads you were wanting taken down for references to underage sex wasn't even on the sex topic. And I know there was one discussed under the parenting topic. And the rugby post- not on the sex topic.

But oh no. Its a sex topic issue. It's all the 'sex peoples' fault.

And if its not even on the sex topic, it's still the sex topics fault because they're 'spilling out into other areas.'

If there is illegal content on the sex board or anywhere else on the site it gets reported and removed.

So much of this is on mumsnet but the personal attacks towards individuals and the sex topic users as a whole has been disgusting. Mumsnet allowed a sex chat thread. They gave consent to it. That's on mumsnet, not the users. There was so much trolling, hatred and personal attacks on people when that all should have been directed at mumsnet. Not the individuals using it.

You think because I stick up for the sex topic I agree with underage sex and other illegal content and don't give a shit about safeguarding. You try to shut people down with "if I have to explain..." and "if you don't understand the difference" in that condescend manner... you're not going to get the support.

@HornyBee you’e so right.

When the sexchat threads were running, several nuisance posters were reported by other users of those threads before being removed from the site (and had the 90 day rule still been operating they almost certainly wouldn't have been on there in the first place). So the suggestion that so called Sex People are unable or unwilling to call out unacceptable behaviour or content does not stand up.

"................... I do feel the tone is an issue and credibility is lost when it turns into an attack of users of the sex board"

I have not seen any attacks.

"................... the personal attacks towards individuals and the sex topic users as a whole has been disgusting

Again - no attacks on this thread.
If you see posts which you believe are attacks, do report them to MNHQ.

@TheShellBeach take a wee trip back to pages 15 and 16 of this thread. The deletions were the personal attacks. I reported the treatment of Surplus last night also as a personal attack, but it has yet to be addressed by MN.

When the sexchat threads were running, several nuisance posters were reported by other users of those threads before being removed from the site

How on earth can anyone know this? The nature of reporting posts on here is, rightly, quite anonymous.
MNHQ do not add a little rider saying which poster made the report.

I don't need to look at any posts, Mermaid. I've been on the thread since page one.

If it was not clear from my post I was not referring to just this thread. I was talking about when this whole issue started. When people (including yourself) , went over to the sex topic and trolled it with vile comments.

But even on this thread, if you care to look back, mn posted and asked people not to make personal comments about other users. Several people then made personal attacks, which I reported and they got removed.

Maybe you didn't read those comments before they got deleted.

Well I'm very confused as to what you're talking about then, as there were very clear personal attacks that mumsnet deleted ON THIS THREAD!

No one except mumsnet themselves can know if a poster has been banned.

I know of someone who was reported for inappropriate behaviour on that thread and all his posts were deleted by mn and it stated something along the lines of the user had been removed. It wasnt the standard 'breaking tg' comment.

They were removed.

Oh yes - I remember you made a personal attack on me which was deleted.

That is very likely, but it does not tell us who made the initial report.

".............................when people (including yourself) , went over to the sex topic and trolled it with vile comments"

No. I have never posted on the sex topic.

Search for a thread entitled "Unsolicited threads" in Site Stuff. You'll see an example of MN announcing the banning of an offender.

Sorry - "Unsolicited PMs"