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.

It is very interesting that RadoxMoon chose a classic example of Newspeak as an attempted putdown. Luckily posters on MN retain the freedom and the ability to use language with precision and with flexibility, and the ability to understand the effects of language used about us. Maybe the data players want to ban that so that we don't confuse them.

I doubt it would be of much use because of the different languages and peculiarities of these. They probably have much more advanced systems already! Aston haven't exactly screamed competence with all this.

I don't think that the term "sandbox" or "play" is offensive. What's offensive is them using our data in this way.

The term just means that their current dataset or current tool isn't being affected by what they're doing. It's an area to test things out. They built a sandbox from MN data to test whether the tool they're developing works. They "play" with the data in the sense that they make non permanent changes to their data set (consisting of our posts). It comes from the colloquialism "play around and see what works". Ok, you might be offended by this term as it relates to your data. I wonder though whether that's because they illegally and without consent got their hands on our data. If it was all above board I don't think it would be a problem (for me anyway, of course I don't want to speak for anyone else and how they'd feel).

I personally think it weakens our hand and makes us look easily offended to demand they change standard practice language. Everyone uses the term sandbox. What everyone else doesn't do is steal and store data to use without users consent and without alerting the sites owner.

A very speculative suggestion: the paper I linked upthread by Lucia Busso refers to MN as a parenting site and doesn't name it. I wonder whether they are torn between wanting to name it because of the prestige that such a data collection merits - famous forums, everyone knows it's used by regular people discussing everyday life, and not for example extremists or a very narrow demographic - so the fact they tested the tool on MN data adds credibility to their findings. But on the other hand, they probably didn't want to alert us of its use in this way. I wonder then (here is the speculation) whether they've been mentioning it by name in talks (where they reasonably could have expected us to not find out) and concealing the name in print. Result would be that all the people in the business would know, but not many people outside of it.

I can’t see how Aston can possibly argue this.

My issue with their sandbox is what they have made it out of, that they have disregarded copyright and t&cs to build it, that they don’t seem to care that their examples of how they can ‘play’ are from adoption and fertility threads (and goodness knows what else), so sensitive personal data even if it is in the public domain, no-one could reasonably expect the processing they are doing. And yes I probably also have an issue with their tone in the presentation - which was look at this wonderful toy we have, and not, there are some ethics we need to consider and have considered.

The only time I have heard data people where I work talking about playing with data is quantitative analysis where they are talking about numbers and it is not at all sensitive. So for example, seeing how many people do x or y in a given population to help understand an issue relevant to the organisation, and that is data which is lawfully collected and processed for a specific purpose.

Yes true, it’s standard terminology but it’s interesting don’t you think that the implication is that some terminology should be accepted as standard on the one hand, yet women have been told that our standard terminology is not acceptable?

When terminology such as ‘women’ and also mother, breastfeeding, female etc. is disappearing including from medical journals, it feels like there’s ground for posters to feel upset by the terminology used by the Aston FL’s.

Ironically, in a 2021 interview on her research analysing how people use language in online communications to combat hate crime and cyberbullying, even Tamineh Tayebi, a lecturer in forensic linguistics from the Aston Institute for Forensic Linguistics says:

“As far as linguistics is concerned, the most important thing is the awareness of the power of language and the fact that the words we choose matter and mean things."

I personally think it weakens our hand and makes us look easily offended to demand they change standard practice language

@ArsetonUniversity I wasn't suggesting that we should make any such demands. I was merely making the point that the language being used is something I objected to.

I didn't know that 'sandbox' had become a technical term, to be fair, but it's the use of this word in combination with 'play' that makes the whole thing seem childish and trivial. The very opposite of what it is and might become.

So yes, I absolutely agree with Tamineh Tayebi:

“As far as linguistics is concerned, the most important thing is the awareness of the power of language and the fact that the words we choose matter and mean things."

In this case, and in the overall context we're discussing, these words - used together - have taken on another level of meaning as well.

It is a good point though.
Technical language is obvious to people in the field that technical language is used in, but when that technical language consists of a sentence that the average person would interpret in an entirely different way, it's important to acknowledge that and not wave a dismissive hand.

If someone said to me about adult oh they're playing in the sandbox I would not until this thread have known that was a way to describe a tech thing.

I would have thought it was sarcastic and meaning they were pratting about or wasting their time.

I think people have to consider not just how people who know what a term means will think but how people who don't know it will think.

Audrey Ludwig (a solicitor who contributes to the Legal Feminist blog with Naomi Cunningham et al) has now tweeted about this thread. Her tweet has been picked up by Sarah Philmore, and someone has tagged Jo Phoenix. Plenty of others also chipping in to comment. It will be interesting to see what they all make of it!

Audrey Ludwig's twitter thread is here

x.com/audreysuffolk/status/1783499260484260352?s=46&t=3GTBkCDQwCMoT7yhcEaMPw here's the link

I name changed too late I fear...

Someone with a TwiX account, please put that into Threadreader for the rest of us?

Placemarking for updates

It says:

Whilst I have read all of it, this MumsnetTowers thread is fascinating legally (link to this thread) It appears that some researchers at AstonUniversity have “scraped” the data from all the discussions on Mumsnet without permission. A PhD student is using said information to write a thesis allegedly on “research into transphobic hate crimes on Mumsnet” . Unsurprisingly the thread is full of Mumsnet users very concerned about data protection, privacy, research ethics, risk of defamation, equality and why researchers involved in Forensic Linguistics to combat crime have targeted Mumsnet (the premier location for women to speak relatively freely online) as a relevant research source. Be interesting to see how this develops

Would be interested to know if ICOnews been informed of this?

Also if any ethics committee at the university has considered how the researcher will determine a comment as “transphobic hate crime” given the widespread misinformation by activist lobbyists about equality law, hate crime law and freedom of expression over the last few years?

So the ICOnews twitter account has been tagged in the thread. I wonder if they will notice / pay attention?

You would hope it might pique someone's interest!

‘Aston believe they have legitimate rights to use the data’

I bet they do. This reminds me of the mild surprise men have when you don’t move out of the way when they walk towards you on a street, or ask them to take their arm off your armrest. Innate male entitlement. Confusion that they they’re being called on their behaviour of just helping themselves to women’s spaces / belongings / bodies or I suppose.. businesses. And then the blithe assurances that of course you’re mistaken in believing that they can’t.

This reminds me of the mild surprise men have when you don’t move out of the way when they walk towards you on a street, or ask them to take their arm off your armrest. Innate male entitlement.

Or when they jog towards you on a street? Reminds me of the Putney Bridge jogger. Never identified. Maybe if he had only written something they could’ve found him?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41603189

Yes. I think he’s far from alone as well in his (type of) action. I still don’t believe that someone didn’t recognise him from the CCTV either, it disgusts me.

Perhaps flag the Daily Skeptic? Whatsisface Toby Jones (? unless that's the actor) would probably be interested in this.

'I personally think it weakens our hand and makes us look easily offended to demand they change standard practice language.'

I started this (sorry) & maybe it would've been better on the other thread as it wasn't addressed to MNHQ at all - but just to clarify, I wasn't demanding anything, I was drawing a parallel between updated terms/terms which have been ruled offensive in other professions & the use of 'playing in a sandbox'. If anything, I was imagining an industry-wide change.

I understood where you were coming from @ifIwerenotanandroid!

Before I retired, I was working in research with data, and we might have used words like 'experiment' or 'explore' or 'hypothesis' or 'what if?' or even just plain, bog standard 'analyse'. Lots of different ways to talk about examining data from different angles/perspectives.

@BIWI Cheers, m'dear!

@DogsAkimbo @DrBlackbird

Does this mean we’re playing [virtual?] Patriarchy Chicken with the buckeejits at Ashton 🤔

They think MN[HQ] are going to move out of their way & let them carry on with their dodgy antics, because they’re used to just barrelling along as they wish. Of course female humans should move out of their Very Important way, even if they’re pushing a pram/in a wheelchair/on crutches/with their guide dog/a nonagenarian pootling along with a zimmer frame/a toddler weebling unsteadily along on reins/a teenager with a school bag that looks as if they’re off to do a D of E exploration, their PE kit, & a violin; while the Very Important Male strides along encumbered only by their sense of entitlement.

In this virtual game, for all there are lots of women with [multiple] vulnerabilities, we’re walking together & not at all inclined to let these fools trample us. I think casually & constantly underestimating women is about to end badly for them & I am very much here for it.

(Re: the jogger; I have no doubt but that several people have chosen to protect him, which is revolting.)

Note the nuance in this, that the reason for deleting a post can be something that is a cause for concern either for the OP themselves, or OTHERS who post on a thread who read what is there. Others can become worried enough for someone else they don't know just from their writing, that the content they have written could compromise the OP's anonymity, and may be taken from the forum to be used in the media in the service of a different writer with a different agenda.
Consider why could they be worried.

The OP could be at risk of being stalked or tracked to somewhere by somebody who wants to find them.
They might be risking their job depending on the information they post.
Their adopted child might be identifiable to people who put selected information together and assume it is a particular child who may have relations out there (whether this is an accurate assumption or not - I mean, really think about what chaos that could start).
They may have given too much of what should be a medical record away.
Their child is in a situation under investigation at school where accused of bullying, or being bullied / underage photo sharing / similar sensitive issue.
This can make the papers or the news and therefore an audience that is just large enough to make this a real world story.

If there are regular reasons for removing a post and, related but separately, a regular defence of "Not in the spirit of the site", yet these can, in parallel, be left static and fair game on a handy version on a server in Aston, and posts on sensitive issues can be collated and dissected in the condensed format of other authors' recordings on eventbrite or wherever, then - how on earth can the approaches be thought to be serving the same ends?