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.

So… came across a university of Edinburgh definition of transphobia: What is Transphobia? Transphobia is the hatred, fear, disbelief, or mistrust of trans and gender non-conforming people.

Slipping in ‘disbelief’ in there is quite interesting. Enables anyone who doesn’t believe that humans can change sex to be labelled as transphobic.

Is this ‘disbelief’ part of any other phobic definition?

Edit: ignore I meant to put this is the other corpus thread.

That definition surely bumps up against the EA2010 and the protected characteristic of belief? It's discriminatory.

People are free to hold GC beliefs - including that humans can't change sex - without being defamed as transphobic. I think this has been established in a court of law (e.g. Jo P trial).

Labelling people whose opinions you don't like as 'criminals' when they've not broken the law (which is what this is edging towards) has real McCarthyism / Stasi / Cultural revolution vibes. And yes, I know, we've been putting up with this for years.

Thank goodness for all the brave women who've suffered the stress of court cases to try and turn things back towards a pluralist democracy rather than authoritarianism.

I have questions too!

I would like to know more generally because Aston may not be the only organisation scraping data here: -

• whether only publicly visible data has been scraped or could be scraped.
• whether deleted data has been or could be scraped after 'deletion', particularly if it might turn out to be legally contentious so is still archived somewhere and accessible to MN for a set period of time. I assume that, just because we can't see that data on the front-most side of the site, it doesn't mean it is hidden and inaccessible.
• whether data has been or could be scraped from private messages.
• whether data has been scraped from the accounts of users who have later deleted their accounts entirely or, for example, have dormant unclosed accounts because they have died or no longer have capacity.

My questions are:

Having had previous posts deleted as a result of being at risk of being identified in real-life, how can I prevent such posts remaining forever in Aston's database?

Relatedly, having had previous posts deleted to prevent identification of my child, how can I prevent those posts remaining on Aston's database?

What, therefore, is the process, or planned process, for me to request any data held on me by Aston, which might identify me or my child, to be removed from their database?

How can such data be removed without me needing to inform Aston of my real-life identity or previous usernames?

I don't have the receipts but sure Edinburgh university also had a guide about how to treat trans people which mentioned that choosing to avoid for fear of getting it wrong or upsetting them was also transphobic.

I'm always amused when "gender non conforming" is lumped in with trans. Because ultimately the reason TRAs go after feminists (rather than people who are actually transphobic) is precisely because we're gender non conforming. They wanted us to put up / shut up / roll over / put out / hold / carry / validate / support / champion etc as per female socialisation. We were never supposed to say "NO".

Surely Justine's stance is going to be that the Aston data base must be completely destroyed?

They acquired it illegally, by stealth; they stole it! They are benefiting from this financially already, via grants, claiming expert knowledge, grabbing students etc etc.

No doubt in the future they would find other ways of capitalising on this valuable resource.

Meanwhile, because of the tone and implications of some of their research using our data, they are devaluing it for Mumsnet Ltd. What advertiser is going to want their brand linked with a company apparently academically proven to be a hotbed of hate crime?

The only way Justine can protect the valuable asset that the Mumsnet data base is, must be to demand that Aston delete the version they hold.

Surely Justine's stance is going to be that the Aston data base must be completely destroyed?

Well, yes, that's what I'm hoping happens, but in the event it does not, as individuals we need a procedure in place to have our own data removed.

This, a hundred times

I think all the excellent questions upthread show that the only logical and probably legal (IANAL) outcome is for the Aston data to be deleted and for this to be evidenced (because no one will take them at their word now).

Exactly, and the more questions mumsnet posters have as to how they currently do or plan to take account of certain things within the dataset, delete users data, prove they aren't misusing data or defaming people Etc. the harder it becomes for them to argue that they've got a leg to stand on! Because I bet they haven't considered half of the ethical issues, never mind legal issues, that have been brought up on these threads.

And the more Aston Argue for keeping the dataset the less ethical they look, not just to us but to those watching this unfold and those that give them large sums of money!

Yes @Cauliflowery certainly avoidance was listed as a micro aggression. It is all so blithely reproduced by an Edinburgh academic apparently without any consideration of its Orwellian-like nature in forcing people to comply. It’s the silencing of woman's reasonable concerns that is the most upsetting.

They absolutely should delete it, and I reckon donate any profits they've made from it to women's charities. Mn could sue, but mn themselves couldn't profit from it either, therefore charity is a good option.

I've been watching this unfold for a few days now. It beggars belief that Aston think they have a legitimate right to use data acquired in breach of Mumsnet T&Cs. I'm a former academic and it is normal to have to obtain permission from the owner of any given data set before using it. Fresh permission had to be granted for each use where the same data was used across different projects.

Given that Aston University have granted permission for Mumsnet's data to be used by someone whose PhD project "aims to use corpus-based approaches to examine transphobic hate crimes on Mumsnet" what are the implications for gender critical Mumsnetters in Scotland with its new hate crime law?

One option for Aston is just to pay MN for the stolen data.

Aston then makes promises about how they are going to treat the stolen data set.

MN then has the money to stop it happening again.

Given that Aston University have granted permission for Mumsnet's data to be used by someone whose PhD project "aims to use corpus-based approaches to examine transphobic hate crimes on Mumsnet" what are the implications for gender critical Mumsnetters in Scotland with its new hate crime law?

That's an idea, maybe Eden was anticipating the Scottish Hate Crime bill (and any that Labour might bring in in the rest of the country) would target and punish women for misgendering, expressing disbelief that males are women in the way that hopefully JK Rowling shot down in flames at the beginning?

And MN users take Aston and MN to court…

I’d want Ashton to delete the stolen data (because MN users did not agree that they could take it, use it or store it) AND compensate Mumsnet for all of the above, plus potential damage to MN’s brand and any legal costs incurred in addressing this.

If Ashton also get fined for their shoddy behaviour by the ICO, well that will act as a deterrent for any other institution who thinks they are more important than the millions of ordinary people, 95-98% women, who use the site, whether that be as regular posters (aka data generators) or not.

I think it would be good to have clear legal advice on whether that is possible (ie what the grounds would be for users, as opppse to MN).

There has been speculation on Xitter over the last few months about which UK university will go bankrupt first and how much of the university sector it will take down with it. It will be sad if Aston is the first domino to go - not sad for Aston's sake particularly, but sad for all the blameless academics and students that will be harmed, and the devastation of some still reputable (and profitable) UK institutions.

I was thinking more of the precedent Aston set when it granted permission for Mumsnet's data to be used to investigate "transphobic hate crimes". I'm concerned about how the data could be used in the future. Having protected beliefs doesn't offer much protection against vexatious reports under the Scottish hate crime law.

The hate crime law has been in the pipeline for some time but I believe the PhD student is probably very passionate about their research topic rather than purposefully malevolent.

I'm pretty sure that's not how the law works.

I can't just steal a load of jewellery from someone then - WHEN I'M CAUGHT - say 'oh well, I'll pay for it, then'.

Otherwise, why wouldn't we all be thieves? I'd just steal everything I need, then - and the key bit here is ONLY IF CAUGHT - then pay for it.

It's a crime even if you do pay once caught.

MN would be mad to accept that too - who would post here if they did? They have no data without us. They have T&Cs that are pretty expressly against what Aston have done - they'd be breaking their own T&Cs if they did so - it definitely wouldn't be in the 'spirit'. I would be very surprised if MN accepted this.

I don't see how Mumsnet could accept any settlement that involved breaking their contract with their users.

I reckon we should have a vote! YES or NO to them keeping it!

At least we know we've got the numbers in MUCH higher quantities than Aston University especially as they'd only get one vote each but each of my 60+ usernames would get a vote each!

I'd also like to know - given that Aston think they have a legitimate right to use the illegally scraped data - which other datasets out there on the internet do they also think they have a legitimate right to use for free without asking the owners for permission to use them, which others have they used, which have they decided not to use and which they asked for permission to use but were told no - and did they then go ahead and carry on to use it or not...

Also were there any datasets they considered paying for - and if they approached the dataset's owners and agreed a price or not - and again did they then use the datasets or not, in light of the answer they had been given.

So many different questions and permutations of datasets, permission asked for or not, permission granted or not, scraped from sites where the site's T&C allow or don't mention scraping or fair use, scraped from sites where the T&C explicitly forbid scraping (not least because they have legal obligations under assorted data legislation and they want to protect their own site's users and themselves), sites that sell their data or use it themselves for specific purposes (think of Tesco club card or Trustpilot or HotUKDeals) or that let people read it for free but charge for some access (such as newspapers and associated content such as comments on individual stories, or Reddit or MSE).

You would have thought that they maintained a simple database of their own of all the different databases they were aware of and wanted to investigate (for whatever personal or professional research reason they could come up with), what access they wanted, what they had, any specific agreements and deals - particularly pertaining to data legislation and GDPR legislation and so on, so that they information would be easy to give to the VC and the lawyers to show that they acted legitimately and legally and could back up their case here - but I suspect that if they do keep such a list, it's vague and informal and would be damning as hell...