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.

Aston university and the US biz - please someone name them so I can sell any related shares pronto - don’t have a leg to stand on and have ducked up royally. Surely?

<Hoping that mumsnet has a team of SHLs>

#wedidnotvolunteertobeguineapigs
#todeletemyaccountornot

It doesn't matter whether it's a standard term. Some women here are upset at their posts about highly sensitive issues and difficult personal experiences being treated like this.

Would saying that you were 'working with' the data rather than 'playing with' it change what you were doing? Increase the chance of acknowledgement that your actions have some significance, maybe even some consequences? Would that be bad?

No, because that has a slightly different meaning.

Working with implies I was making changes.

I do not see the need to modify my language. I don’t have a problem with it, nor do any of the data people I work with - who also use the same terminology.

MN is not the language police, thankfully.

Surely the bigger issue is what they are using the data for (and the web-scraping in violation of MN T&Cs)

No one is expecting you to change your language at work, the point is the callousness with which women's very personal posts are being treated.

I'm not the language police, but it does sound as though the data people need to examine the assumptions built into their language use. If they're changing their data they should say they're changing it, not 'imply' that by using a weasel word.

Yep, and under Scottish hate crime law and I believe even non-crime hate incidents in England it's all about what the offended person feels. So if women feel threatened / upset by this phraseology (about the stolen data, that they did not give consent for Aston to 'play with') then that's legitimate.

I note that Aston cares about the 'wellbeing' of researchers but apparently not about the wellbeing of posters on Mumsnet who might reasonably object to having their feelings about fertility, baby loss, and adoption being 'played' with by Aston

I think this is a much wider issue. Here I think it's the treatment of the specific information they were looking at which is the problem.

I note that Aston cares about the 'wellbeing' of researchers but apparently not about the wellbeing of posters on Mumsnet who might reasonably object to having their feelings about fertility, baby loss, and adoption being 'played' with by Aston

Indeed.

Agree with this. Also, current use of a dataset is no predictor of future use of it. The technology is developing all the time.

And secondly, does anyone else think the ICO fingerprint man looks like Daddy Pig?

I understand that you all feel doubleplusungood.

Perhaps we could have a list of MN-approved terms?

Grow up. This isn't about you.

No-one is policing general speech, what they are doing are saying that using the term 'playing' to discuss the illegal using of stolen highly emotional and personal posts on MN is misogynistic at best and dehumanising at worst.

Aston is free to delete all our data and then they can use whatever the fuck terminology they want.

I looked up sandbox on Wikipedia and the definition I think is the relevant one is:
‘ an environment in which code or content changes can be tested without affecting the original system’.
Several other definitions I found also had that element of it not affecting the original system.
Here’s the thing though. It does affect us. Knowing there is a sandbox version of Mumsnet out there affects what we post. So while in a technical sense yes they can play all they want without any impact on Mumsnet, they are ignoring the fact that because we are human and sentient it does actually make a difference to us knowing our data is being played with in that way.
For that reason I find it problematic.

Women who have talked about multiple miscarriages, their despair at not being able to conceive, their struggles adopting a child, are just "interesting language" in the sandbox to these people. That's what people are objecting to.

Yes and the fact that THESE WOMEN WERE NOT ASKED

These women DID NOT CONSENT to the use of their heartbreaking posts in this way.

You know, the media often picks up on MN threads, we all know it's a possibility and is a risk of posting here. However it's not uncommon when this happens for the OP / individual posters to request that MN delete their posts or the entire thread and - here's the thing. MN DELETES IT!

See, informed consent.

My point was that until very recently nobody working in engineering saw any problem with terms like master & slave, either. But now those two are on a long list of recently-banned terms, & alternatives have been found.

That wasn't brought about by MN.

Can you really not see that if (to invent an example since you seem unable to understand the offence caused in this instance), there was a terrorist atrocity after which survivors & loved ones of people killed in it poured their hearts out in an online group & someone decided to use those group messages as data, describing those messages filled with grief, loss & pain as a sandbox to play in, that would be offensive to the people concerned?

Several women on here have said they do not consent and they want their data deleted from Aston.

Have they done it? No, because they think they're superior to us / above the law.

Hm, I'm not totally convinced. They did feel free to "play" with this data exactly because it wasn't thought of as highly sensitive and serious like the other data they held. And the word "play" does reinforce the non-seriousness of what they (thought they) were doing.

In fact "master/slave" doesn't bother me as a tech term because there is nothing human involved in the tech. "Playing" with this data actually bothers me more, because human beings are described and analysed in detail by this data.

Non-seriousness all round is the message I'm getting from this. The postgraduate student, the academics, the discipline generally. A lack of professionalism and rigour.

And that is building systems that are going to be applied to crime detection and crime prevention in the UK - and maybe any other place they can sell it to.

Yes, imagine China and Russia being able to root out its dissidents with it.

Perpetrators of "adversarial narratives" (thank you Sayers, Unherd, and Global Disinformation Index for teaching me about this) are not to be tolerated.

@AmaryllisNightAndDay 'In fact "master/slave" doesn't bother me as a tech term because there is nothing human involved in the tech.'

I assume the people whose feelings are being considered in this instance are people working in the area, the doers rather than the done-to (or the done-with).

And yes, you are probably right there.