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.

There is nothing scolding or self righteous in my post. As I said, if I have missed something then I apologise. You are rather defensive however...

I think the title of the PhD and that the talk was cancelled is enough, don’t you? And given that you haven’t read the thread or watched presentations, read papers etc to come to a more informed view, perhaps you’re the one making an awful lot of assumptions and leaps?

Edited to add that coming on after 25+ pages of threads to comment about posters making assumptions is a bit rich, so perhaps grounds for others to feel annoyed.

It is worth taking the time to read the thread. The implications of this, and the case Reddit are considering bringing, are far reaching.

The PP said MN was accused of being transphobic for pushing back against medicalisation of children.

But we don't know what's in this students thesis. We have no evidence that the above is true. It's an assumption. The accusations of transphobia could be anything from misgendering to the above to actual transphobic language. We don't know, and posts like this don't help because all they do is inflame tempers.

We need to keep calm heads and stick to the facts and what we know. Not what we assume or we think we know.

I have read the thread, over several days. But given it's 30+ pages long, it's completely possible that I have missed something or forgotten something.

Missing things is perfectly understandable but don’t accuse people of making assumptions and leaps without being certain they have done so. Rather than telling people off and saying that if you are wrong you apologise it’s better to just not tell them off. Simply asking to be pointed to evidence tends to go down a lot better than accusing people of not having evidence, particularly when in fact they have.

The student's description of their thesis on LinkedIn was 'researching transphobic hate crime on Mumsnet'. So I think people are entitled to feel aggrieved that they were being set up. There's a screenshot on one or other of the threads.

I haven't told anyone off.

It's interesting that you're reading a simple statement of fact (that we don't know what's in this PhD thesis and that a PP is making assumptions) as a "telling off".

AlisonDonut is referring to a presentation on YouTube by Kredens and his co-author (whose name I forget and cannot be bothered to go back and check) on language attribution using the MN corpus (the ‘sandbox [they] can play in’). It is linked early in this thread. There is a bit where they talk about a poster writing about fertility issues and joke that, surprise surprise, she used a lot of language related to fertility. Cue laughter.
That is my recollection of the presentation, anyway, the breezy tone of the whole thing pissed me off.

The debate of the use of the word "sandbox" and "play" has already been covered quite extensively so I won't repeat it, but it's not intended to cause any offence or used to take the piss.

There is a bit where they talk about a poster writing about fertility issues and joke that, surprise surprise, she used a lot of language related to fertility. Cue laughter.

That's not laughing at someone with fertility issues though is it. It's a shit joke about data. Unthinking but not malicious.

That's not laughing at someone with fertility issues though is it. It's a shit joke about data. Unthinking but not malicious.

Presenters are always trained that you don't know who is listening and you should always handle sensitive issues with respect.

And this is a signal to those who discuss data not to use idiolects when in public but to respect the dignity of those at the heart of that research.

Somebody in the ONS once commented that behind every number and data point is a full biography and it's essential to remember that.

How about you RTFT, all of the threads, before making nonsense accusations?

'We' do know what was in the thesis. 'We' have discussed the fertility issues. You haven't; that's fine, but 'you' are not 'we'.

I actually do not care how the language of the presentation was intended. I do care how it is perceived. And I do not think that you or anyone else, can tell people who have posted for support about sensitive personal issues, and who have done so in the belief that their information is posted with certain copyright and data protections, how to perceive it.

I actually agree that they're not laughing about infertility. That particular example is interesting because it really illustrates how their poor understanding of MN might leads to poor training for their tool. They say that they can identify posters in part because of what they post, for example, one poster who mostly posts about infertility. We discussed earlier how they've failed to account for name changes, but it really significant in this case because many people name change for each topic. For example I have a different name for feminism board, one for DV talk, one for local page talks, etc. I'd wager that the poster who mostly talks about infertility that they mention in the presentation has a name just for that topic. These idiots are inferring that that is all she comes on MN for. More fool them.

I think that studying transphobia through time is pretty obviously going to be about MN being transphobic. I do think however that what the student's thesis about doesn't even matter. What matters is that (a) this data exists and (b) that the student was granted access to it.

I would be surprised if Aston's MN dataset continues to exist for much longer. The rules about gathering and storing data for research are pretty strict nowadays and the way this dataset has been stored and used seems to break several. Even if Aston were within the rules when the data was originally scraped I very much doubt they have the right to keep the dataset indefinitely or to use it for further research without getting explicit permission first.

Aston are most likely investigating whether any of their current research relies on this dataset and how best to delete it.

It does matter, you just have to work through an and b first and go even if these weren’t clearly in breach and Aston was allowed to keep the data and students use it, you wouldn’t be allowed to use it because your base premise leans heavily on definitions that have been solidly proven to be wrong in law, and the statements and beliefs you hVe defines as transphobic are protected and you are not allowed to treat them that way in ethical research. Were any poster identified and you made these false claims we the university and you would be at risk. We care about that first we, so find a new topic, and do the ethics in research seminar first.

And when a surgeon is overheard making personal remarks about the boobs on the patient on the table in front of him while performing heart surgery, he’s not really mocking the patient. Even if that’s true, does it matter?

Unthinking but not malicious.

Ethics committees and policies are designed to test and eliminate as much as possible of the 'unthinking' part of the equation. The more sensitive and uncharted the activity, the more important it is that this must be robust.

I would hope we are going to have a full response from Aston soon.

Even just a 'this is where things are at right now' would be interesting, or an indication of how long it might take before they can say anything more fully.

I’m wondering if Ashton’s VC has had second thoughts re: last Monday’s offer of some head-pats-and-patronising answers to MN user questions?

😆

It is the law that a data breach is reported to ICO within 72 hours of the discovery of the data breach.

Has this happened?

It seems that the most basic upholding of the privacy policy in the MN terms should mean that users that know about the data breach should be informed if MN's Data Protection Officer has reported this breach within the required time limit.

Information about fertility falls squarely in the 'sensitive data' category. It should not have been used for the Aston research as this was not the intended use of the data. This seems like a clear illegal act to me from reading the legislation. I don't think it matters if the posts were anonymous - users did not consent to their data being used in this way.

@Dumbledoreslemonsherbets

I've been wondering for a while whether it is worth someone emailing the ICO's office and asking whether this is something that they can report as a person? Even if the answer is no, it flags the incident with them. And if it's yes, we can start a class suit (which won't affect MN's negotiations at all I shouldn't think).

I have been wondering the same.
Still undecided what to do.