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.

Edited to add -
have I got this right? The Aston group are part of a project funded by the US government intelligence people to attribute authorship, and they have scraped MN to help them do this?
I am actually speechless now.

Edited again to add - please someone tell me that I am wrong here.

JAW CLANG

I’ve got the proper heebie jeebies now.

We need an FOI on why the Aston academics targeted Mumsnet for the datascrape and how many projects have accessed the dataset and what those projects were.

Yes, and who funded the project initially
the 11.3m grant was in 2022

And if it's too late, the works been done, what has been done with that information? Who has it, how secure is it, does it remain in the UK and has it been suitably anonymised? @JustineMumsnet can we get some answers on where mnhq are at with this please?

Agree.

It's not accidental is it. Mumsnet is pretty much the only well known, accessible, female-dominated space allowing anything close to freedom of speech.

Thanks to everyone digging up all this stuff, it really is quite sinister.

Agree

Mumsnet is pretty much the only well known, accessible, female-dominated space allowing anything close to freedom of speech.

Yes, I agree too. Thank you MNHQ!

Mumsnet is actually pretty important for women to access their human right to free speech in the UK these days. There are relatively few other fora where women can say what they really think without some form of intimidation / pressure to silence their views. You only have to look at the counter protests at LWS events - having been I can say it's fairly terrifying to have large young men screaming abuse at you - it feels a hair's breadth from physical violence.

Then you have the pressure within the workplace not to admit to sex realist views very clearly shown in the various court cases e.g. Meade, Bailey, Forstater, Phoenix. The deletions on Guardian comments and so on.

And MN is particularly important for women who - due to caring responsibilities or abuse - have no other place to express their real thoughts or seek help.

I might have a slight tear in my eye.

I agree.

Justine’s vision for anonymity and speech as free as possible (with obvious legal and commercial constraints) has been invaluable to women (and the 2-5% male Mumsnetters) for two decades.

MN has a value far greater than a linguistics dataset and needs to be protected from academic over reach. We aren’t criminals and we aren’t lab rats.

File that in your dataset and then Cock OFF Aston.

I presume, but I do not know, that Pedersen has also made MN familiar with her work, by the evidence of the linked videos above.

I came on to say that, regardless of whether or not one likes her work (and I personally do), Pedersen did indeed approach MN, and MNHQ posted stating that she was doing this research. I remember it well.

But now I'm going "wibble" at the other stuff unfolding.

Props to @TokyoBouncyBall for lifting this rock.

Interesting background here. Looking forward to the responses from the various parties....

Jesus. So a tool that is used by US intelligence for presumably preventing terrorism and crime, has been utilised to shut down women talking about the erosion of their rights on mumsnet?

Who's doing that? TRAs?

We know transactactivism is exceptionally well funded and well organised. Topless transactivists cavort around on the lawn of the White House, for fuck's sake.

The lengths these people go to is fucking unbelievable.

And they accuse us of being funded by the US far right…

Hear, hear.

How very ... spooky.

👻

Hi all,

We haven't got an update for you at the moment but we'll post when we do.

Thanks Lily, the more we’ve googled, the more we realise how complicated this might be to resolve, so I’m deffo not expecting a rapid response!

Thank you Lily.

Thank you @LilyMumsnet

I think, but I don’t know, that it is the other way around. MN as a large dataset of language use has been used by the Automatic Doxy Guys to develop and prove the concepts which can be applied in other contexts of interest to the US government and intelligence agencies.
Because the dataset of MN exists at Aston, the PhD to look at specific language in a specific political context (or indeed anything else of interest) becomes possible.

But I think the questions above about when the dataset was created, who funded it, who has access to it and so on, are pertinent to understand what has gone on (and is going on).

I'm confident MNHQ have good lawyers. Let's hope Aston University are also getting decent advice.

Talulahalula, yep that’s my understanding of the situation (from the bits and pieces we’ve pulled together over a weekend’s worth of googling).

Aston’s law department have criticised the government’s Online Safety Bill and highlighted the potential for ‘chilling effect’ on free expression. Seems laudable at face value but then you think about their colleagues in Forensic Linguistics and realise how their ‘large datasets’ will be significantly less useful for intell purposes, the more constrained online speech becomes…

https://research.aston.ac.uk/en/publications/content-not-available-why-the-united-kingdoms-proposal-for-a-pack

More from Dr Edina Harbinja

(not watched yet)