Mumsnet Corpus

[TokyoBouncyBall]

Not a TAAT, but a bit of googling as a result of a now deleted thread has led me to this:

https://fold.aston.ac.uk/handle/123456789/18

I note it says that the License is uncertain. Can you confirm that you have given permission for posts to be used in this way, or is there something that Aston might like to look into?

I note it says Users who wish to access this dataset must make a detailed application to FoLD and the researcher, as well as potentially gain additional agreement from an external organisation before they can be approved for access.

Given one of the uses it is being put to, I think it is a bit dubious to say the least.

I would say it is quite possible to use data ethically and sensitively, as this researcher seems to have done.

Scraping the whole site, using it as a 'sandbox', and then labelling it as 'transphobic'and poring over it for hate crimes to then be used against women who have shared stories of dv, assault, abuse, mental health issues, beliefs, etc, is not it.

Another absolutely crucial question:

The researchers who did the 'scraping' also have worked on using AI to try and identify people across platforms, I understand.

Have they ever done this with any MN data? Has anyone ever made attempts to de-anonymise the MN data?

That was what they were using MN data to establish authorship for. They made not have made the step at that stage to other platforms but that would clearly be the next step for them.

Also, how many people have had access over the years and do we even know if any have downloaded it and have it sitting on their systems somewhere.

This isn't going to be resolved with a cosy chat mansplaining how ethics works.

Remember when that woman who worked for Mumsnet abused her position to harass us because she didn't like our views?

The Vice article by Eve Livingston that Eden Palmer was citing in her PhD about the transphobia of Mumsnet downplays the seriousness of this by saying she "shared some private internal communications" rather than illegally posted users' IP addresses obtained in the course of her work on social media. So not a good faith presentation from that journalist.

In March of this year, former intern Emma Healey publicly criticizeded_ the site’s stance on trans rights and shared private internal communications on the subject. Healey alleged that the “vast majority” of trans discussion on Mumsnet “descends into scaremongering and hate speech,” claiming that the company dismissed staff concerns about the offensive tone of the posts.^

But that is a bit like Aston saying ‘because other people might have stolen stuff from the museum, we should be allowed to help ourselves to it all as if it were our own possessions.’

Have you had a reply? What email address did you contact?

I've contacted them about it but no reply.

Edit for clarity.

@everythingthelighttouches
Mumsnet are on much steadier ground with the breach of their Ts&Cs and potentially their IP

And the value proposition of models created using MN datasets. There is a reason Google pay Reddit a fuckton of money every year for use of their data sets to build models - the models are worth a lot of money.

Its common now for companies handling data for clients not just to have to agree contractually that their staff will not be accessing records but also that they will not be building models on that data (which requires no human access). If they do build models then revenue and value are either retained by the data owners (the client) or shared on an agreed split.

Models built on subjective assumptions may be piss poor but that doesn't stop them being lucrative. The difference in approach between this "lets use MN to prove I'm right" piece and other research done with consent is stark. It says a lot about the culture and quality of research in the institution.

There are a lot of fine words on Aston's site but the bottom line is that as an organisation and at an individual level they are making a lot of money out of this line of work - its highly marketable and MN data is contributing to that revenue. They are being used to "prove" criminality or not as expert witnesses. I'd be interested to know how they validate their findings objectively rather than the subjective examples from CDA type research.

I don’t know about the human rights legislation but if you post something on a public forum it is not private and it is not private correspondence either is it??

Subjects.

Our posts have been subjected to this.

We have not participated.

And the reason it has been possible for our posts to be subjected to this is because we put them on a public forum.

That is not to say it is not unethical.

More generally (not specifically in response to you @Idonotconsenttoastonresearch ) It is not to say Mumsnet can’t seek for it to be stopped or for recompense either through the courts, due to breach of terms and conditions. It is not to say that Aston have some major problems in this research with regard to conflicts of interest or research integrity.

But we did all write our comments on a public forum.

Insightful comment. The conspiracy minded side of me wonders whether part of it is to discourage use of this forum.

On the other hand, though, I suppose it's one of the (if not the?) most active UK forums and there aren't many forums where a variety of users anonymously post on such a wide range of topics. So it's plausible that that they applied this criteria in choosing their "sandbox". What is clear though is that using it in this way is completely unethical. They don't care if it identifies vulnerable and anonymous users, and they don't care if it pushes women off one of the very few online space specifically for us.

But we did all write our comments on a public forum

A public forum that indicates in its T&Cs that it may not be scraped. We wrote our comments in a public forum presuming in good faith that they would not be scraped en masse and then stored and used elsewhere without our consent.

It all depends on why you are anonymous. I don't post about feminism on any social media under my own name because I am a visible part of a small organisation which has a policy of not getting involved in this discussion in any way. Which I think is right for what we do.

However, I let rip here, under many user names.

If my user names were linked to my real life, a) there would be seven shades of hell to pay for someone b) it would not be my fault so I cannot see that it would be any issue for my organisation.

It becomes much more difficult for people who work in places like Aston but are GC (the heavens help you all) or are on other parts of the site but are suffering abuse or DV or whatever.

So me, I will continue to let rip.

I don’t disagree with you, hence my point about the Ts&Cs.

But we did all write our comments on a public forum

We didn't consent to have them scraped for data though, and we posted on a forum that specifically has T&C's against this. Also, their data goes as far back as 2008, years before anyone knew that this technology would be possible.

Many of us take a risk posting. We've posted details of our children's SEN, of our DV situations, of personal family problems, health conditions, adoption and fertility issues, all sensitive topics. Risks include being identified IRL, alerting abusive partners, or having newspapers repost our stories. But for many, MN was the only outlet for these issues. The choice was drown alone or post here. In weighing up the risk many people change details like children's ages and length of relationship to try and not be recognised. And now there is technology being applied to our posts that deliberately aims to circumnavigate these precautions by identifying posts across usernames. Whether or not they publish these particular findings isn't relevant, the point is that we didn't - and indeed couldn't have - consented to this in posting anonymously here.

This is the joint statement on data scraping by the ICO.

https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/media-centre/news-and-blogs/2023/08/joint-statement-on-data-scraping-and-data-protection/

The Information Commissioner’s Office and eleven other data protection and privacy authorities from around the world have today published a joint statement calling for the protection of people’s personal data from unlawful data scraping taking place on social media sites.

Data scraping is an automated way to pull large amounts of information from the web. Scraping from social media creates privacy risks and potential harms, such as the information people post online being used for reasons they don’t expect, exploited in cyberattacks or used for identity fraud.

The joint statement published today sets expectations for how social media companies should protect people’s data from unlawful data scraping. It also recommends steps people can take to minimise risks when sharing information online.
“This joint statement helps provide certainty, and consistency across borders, in how data protection applies to information people post online. Organisations must have a lawful reason for collecting and using people’s data, even when it is publicly available.

“Social media companies have obligations under UK data protection law to protect the information people post on their platforms.

“We are seeing increased reports of mass data scraping from social media and remind organisations that such incidents may require reporting to the ICO as a personal data breach.”

- Stephen Bonner, ICO Deputy Commissioner for Regulatory Supervision

My bold.

I note that the United States government is NOT a joint signatory.

My question is WHY do the US government want data about women's rights and how women feel their rights are being removed by trans activism? Why do they want to silence British women? Why not focusing on Reddit? Hmm.

Aston are gaining from using this information. The information SHOULD NOT be collected for uses it was not intended. In that sense even though its publically available it is still a breach of privacy and is still not permitted.

Aston is not some criminal organisation. It is supposedly reputable. Reputable organisation should not be collecting data from any source without the correct permissions.

No debate. To use a phrase.

@RedToothBrush
Any conflict of interest
If you are an activist trying to PROVE that MN is transphobic then you might well have a conflict of interest because you aren't exactly being a neutral and you have a fairly big wacking agenda.

It's interesting that the supervisor, Nicci Macleod's, pink and blue banner is still appearing on her twiX account. It references Aston in her job title and throughout her (re)postings. I know that she says 'Views my own' but I would have thought that any organisation wanting to appear neutral, would have challenged this in the light of what is going on.

I actually think that academic institutions telling staff what views they can express in public sets an extremely dangerous precedent.

With apologies for obnoxious bullet points but I think that these areas would be negatively affected by a neutral stance policy for staff:

• Academic freedom: academics should be able to freely express their views
• My employer doesn't own me. My own time and own profiles are my own. When I'm in class or representing the university then I abide by their official stance but not off the clock
• Relatedly, academics aren't spokespeople for their institution. The deal is more than they are employed to teach and conduct research projects. But the findings and dissemination of these aren't controlled
• Many academics use twitter to criticise academia or their own universities. We wouldn't know about half the bullshit that goes on without their freedom to express their own views.
• This would hurt GC academics more than anyone. It's powerful that there's protection form being fired over GC views expressed privately
• Actually knowing whether a potential supervisor has views like this is really really useful. Imagine getting a funded PhD on some feminist topic only to then find out that everyone in the institution you've chosen is anti GC feminism

This is excellent research, thanks. Very interesting re: the US - so I wonder if THEY can use this data in ways that are not approved in the UK, or the laws of the country in which it was collected apply in any case.

And it's not just them (which would be bad enough), it's the safety of their children too.

And what about those people posting who have disabled children, or posters struggling to cope with adult family members who are frail and/or may have dementia, the list could go on and on. So much sensitive information is contained here.

This technology could be used to identify women who have had abortions in states where that's illegal, potentially. Not so much on Mumsnet itself, but some US women do post.

@AgathaAllAlong

You said
”And now there is technology being applied to our posts that deliberately aims to circumnavigate these precautions by identifying posts across usernames.”

Can I check if this is right?? Where has that come from?

How could they possibly know it is the same poster between usernames??

Unless you’ve identified yourself (which I doubt because that is precisely what we are all trying to avoid if we change username)

I was not under the impression this was possible at all?

How could they possibly know it is the same poster between usernames??

In exactly the same way their "cross platform" sandbox stuff would work.

Thanks for this. I'll think about it all some more.