Corpus 2

[TokyoBouncyBall]

A summary would be good and I might do one later but Aston, data scraping, astonishing lack of contrition…

Thanks so much for the new thread, TokyoBouncyBall.

TY for the new thread.

Thank you.

Loved your naughty step beasties beetle 😘

Wading back in. Photo ID attached.

Have lost track of what's what so hopping on hoping to catch up!

Photos are required? If you insist…

Feeling cute in my ID pic!

thank you for the new thread.
Photo and maybe I can help with the summary to be uploaded later.
but right now, there’s sunshine ☀️

Aston want photo ID?

Photo ID in bio.

😁 I tried putting the actual building on the naughty step...

Oh and I've sorted out my photo ID. I'm hoping the AI misspelling of scraped for scrapped is a good sign!!

Brilliant 🤩

Genius.

Placemarking, thank you @TokyoBouncyBall

Marking place. Thanks all.

Thanks all

Thank you

Thanks. Placemarking.

Received from Aston today

In line with the ICO’s guidance, the University asks for confirmation of identity so that we can check a person making a request under the Data Protection Act 2018 is who they claim to be. This helps us ensure that we do not process your personal data at the request of someone else. We will therefore need confirmation of your identity in order to be able to proceed with your request.

This of course wont help at all as i am asking about my posts, which funnily enough arent under my literal name. But in the spirit of highlighting this illogical mess on behalf of FWR I have sent a photo ID, with significant qualms

Thank you similarminimer
Yes, when I was reflecting on this, I was not sure how a photo ID would prove one way or the other that you ‘owned’ a pseudonym. I am also curious how you will know one way or the other that your posts are deleted out of the dataset.

You could send a photo of daffy duck ffs. It's absolute hogwash.

I find it disturbing that Aston is digging their heels in to this extent for one student and her PhD. Normally if you hit a snag with data collection for research, you have a rethink and find alternative data, if necessary change your method slightly. You basically get creative.

The reason that isn’t an option here, is that the whole thesis is to demonstrate that Mumsnet’s transphobia is marginalising those who call themselves the sex that they are not. The entire research is starting with the conclusion and working backwards, so, obviously, since the conclusion is about mumsnet, she can’t really think creatively.

That no one involved in this debacle at the Aston end can see how absurd that is, and how poor the research is quite astonishing. We all know that TRAs have had mumsnet in their sights for years, but this is one hell of a chip on several someone’s shoulders. -to be this insistent, that this thesis must be about mumsnet, and not, for e.g a wider study of increasing so-called ‘transphobia’ on social media and its impact irl seems like a two year olds tantrum when they can’t have exactly the peace of pasta the first set their sights on.

I think there is possibly a number of reasons they are digging in about the thesis.

The first and most obvious is that it is on-going. So they have taken on a student, either as self-funded or funded by someone, either who has brought this project proposal to them or as a supervisor led proposal to do this PhD.

It is not the first time a PhD student at Aston has used MN, there is the example on the earlier thread of Jai MacKenzie. She took a completely different and much more ethical approach, but I did just wonder if there are other PhDs we just don’t know about.

Conversely, one might reasonably think also that the Aston doxy dudes have finished with MN and done the research they planned from the 2019 datascrape, and the database had been deposited for the use of other researchers. Therefore, it is the other researchers who now cannot use the material.

The other point is scale. If Aston are relying on copyright exemptions for research for their argument, then it would be odd to delete what is a fractional percentage of the site because the fair use part (5% I think) is would more clearly apply here. It is clear from the other thread that other academics have created mini corpuses for linguistic research (the Manchester and Nottingham examples) regardless of whether it breaches MN t&cs. So there is a question of precedent (I don’t agree with this, but it is the logic of their argument).

Alternatively, Aston have gone away and are going to come back with a more reasonable proposal for using the data which does not start from a negative presumption. I mean reasonable in terms of research question. As someone said on one of the FWR threads or the first site stuff one, it is possible to envisage a useful and interesting PhD which looks at this as a site for women’s activism and ties it to broader social and political developments. It is of course also possible to do that in the ethical Jai MacKenzie way and not rely on a data scrape. It is possibly not the forensic linguistics PhD envisaged or started, though.

The other alternative scenario is of course that Aston will update that they have re-thought and the 2024 data set will be deleted.

Roll up roll up get you Daffy Duck photo IDs here!

I still don't see how wanting data on a internet anonymous username that there will be ways to prove you are the owner of, requires photo ID of your real life persona.

How do they marry up Daffy Duck No198797 with Arabella Scott?

I know one of the SAR rules is photo ID but that assumes you are wanting knowledge of the data held of a real life heres my birth certificate named individual who would have photo ID.

IIRC there are a few occasional Mumsnetters
who have posted using real names (Maya F? Dennis K?) or real life nicknames (Ginner?), so perhaps they could contact ICO? Something to think about…