Should there be an option to request the removal of a thread for 'dangerous misinformation'.

[ticktickticktickBOOM]

I feel that some of the threads about the riots are fuelling misinformation, driving division and becoming quite toxic and dangerous to communities.

It is time for a new look at the thread removal options?

Can you also imagine how inflammatory it will be when people start saying they are reporting threads or posts for misinformation?

Sure, there could be a box too.

Although, I think for it to work it would have to be very obviously misinformation to be deleted so it shouldn't really be so subjective that it needs an accompanying essay.

Have reported 3 posts for riot related mis-information - all were removed

MNHQ must be overwhelmed with the deluge of crap that's been reported over the last week

No:

1. it's not always easy to tell what's misinformation and what is disinformation which takes time. The OP doesn't even use the term "disinformation", so are they even aware of the difference?

2. removing the misinformation and disinformation is not only time consuming, but also best way to deal with it is to challenge them.

Removing posts is one thing as posts challenging them stay up, but removing whole threads also deletes good rebuttals so is a self-defeating exercise.

So, use existing report function and see what MN Team decide. If necessary, you can quote the relevant legal section to them which they'll factor in to their decision making process.

It's a possibility, but I think that there are things in place already for misinformation to be reported and acted upon and formalising it more will just end up causing more issues than it solves and creating more work for MNHQ when they probably have loads on their plates already.

Yes, absolutely. And on the threads about the male boxers in the female boxing contest at the Olympics there are posters spreading blatant false information too.

This is going to be a huge issue with social media in the future and I can see governments having to crack down hard to prevent propaganda and deliberate misinformation being spread. MN could really help its own case by removing or flagging posts that are deliberately spreading false information.

Thanks for explaining it better than me.

I think that it is fine to report and then MNHQ hopefully remove things that are completely obvious ('the sun orbits the earth level of stuff' really) but when there is any possible debate as to whether it is or whether it isn't, then it should stay up, because isn't debate what we are all here for?

No I do not know the difference between 'mis' and 'dis' information - I didn't even know that there were two ways of saying it before posting

Looking it up now . . . .

. . . aah yes.

Misinformation is spreading erroneous stuff you think is true (but you have no factual basis for it) but with no obvious malicious intent.

Disinformation is basically lies and propaganda.

I'd say misinformation is really quite destructive and can feed a dangerous narrative started by disinformation. Misinformation that also endangers the safety of others should not be spread - whether the person saying it is aware of the danger they are causing or not. It's the 'or not' that I think needs monitoring.
Like it's illegal to shout 'bomb' or 'fire' in an airport, even for a laugh.

It's a tricky subject to monitor, I'll give everyone that.
Doesn't mean it should'nt be monitored though.

That way riots and warmongering lies.

I can see your point and I agree. But I'm not sure that "misinformation reporting" would have focussed on the obvious trolling, but rather on the statement that the IBA had tested the male boxers and found XY chromosomes, which was alleged by many drive by posts on the threads to be "Russian disinformation".

Good idea op

I worry a lot about the lack of critical thinking of some folk. I question EVERYTHING but my OH, for example, believes any old crap he reads on Facebook. I don't know what the answer to this is but I am totally opposed to censorship, especially on free thinking platforms like this. It's the thin end of a very dodgy wedge. Obviously hate speech cannot be tolerated but you can't silence people because you don't agree with them (however much you wish you could). Don't get me wrong, I really struggle with bigotry - I just don't understand why some people think they are better than others based on skin colour or whatever - but I know I can't police people's thoughts.

it would be impossible to Police and judge I think.

Personally, I think the misinformation and speculation spread on MN about e.g covid, Nicola Bulley, Jay Slater, the Princess of Wales and the BBC employee before it was identified as Huw Edwards etc is just as dangerous as misinformation spread about riots.

And Ellie Williams, Samantha Baldwin and the Hampstead hoax. Posters on MN were sharing the FB posts about those cases and when some were deleted as active Police investigations, MNHQ were accused of being part of the elite covering up paedophile rings and satanic child abuse cults.

It's all people indulging in conspiracy theories and paranoia that they're not being told the truth. And it all harms individual people directly and harms society as a whole.

Why because people see 2 and 2 and think it makes 5?

If people don't exercise what little brain cells they have they will lose them

Deleting threads only makes people feel ignored and fuels dissatisfaction. It builds the feelings you want to avoid.

Leaving threads up allows for discussion and education. You don’t get that by silencing people.

Yes, misinformation can piggyback off disinformation and vice versa.

For example, the cliché "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" relies on both mis & disinformation. Especially as most people don't think or read about terrorism very much.

FYI in general, I'm not debating that particular cliché in this thread as I'm using it as an illustrative example.

But if anyone is thinking this is an opportunity to debate that one, I have one bit of advice: don't.

It WILL be deleted as per 2006 Terrorism Act. 👍

Anyway, that's an illustrative example of how mis & disinformation can piggyback in a deceptive way that can, unfortunately, convince people it's valid when it's not.

True

Don't be ridiculous, this is mn. Were the majority of people are women and not involved in recent events. Plus mn already has a 2 tier system 🙃

When you report a thread, you get the option to comment on why you think it should be deleted - you can put one saying that the thread/post contains misinformation.

I would guess MNHQ know the reasons why most reports are made, and the options given reflect the most used reasons for reports.

No. It is censorship

Use the “other” option and explain why the post is misinformation

MNHQ can and do remove posts if they agree - it happens eg with antivax misinformation (not “I think it’s wrong” sort of posts, but “they’re implanting 5G chips” kind of thing).

When it’s a judgement call, MNHQ have final say on what’s allowed

One man's misinformation is another man's true belief.

We already have the report function.

We don't need anything extra.

I think the definition of 'dangerous misinformation' would have to be very clear.

Donald Trump suggesting people drink bleach to kill covid virus would count as dangerous misinformation. As would all the tosh spouted by vaccine deniers.

Stating the Southport attacker was an 'asylum seeker who arrived in a boat' would also count because it was wrong.

But people are entitled to their opinions, even if they don't agree with you OP, and most of the mumsnet pages carry disclaimers at the top. There are too many people on here ready to call people names, rather than take part in valid discussion.

I don't envy the moderators at the moment. They will always be wrong in some people's eyes.

Yes I think @Meadowfinch has two good examples and makes an excellent point.

Completely agree. This risks being abused by the types who want to police everybody else's opinions, shut down arguments they don't agree with or censor people speaking inconvenient truths. Be careful what you wish for. This sort of thing only seems like a good idea when it's shutting up the people you don't agree with. If the tables were turned you might start to feel rather differently.

Let people speak. If they are misinformed, or liars, or have somehow got the wrong end of the stick then by all means point that out. But let people speak. Otherwise we are just sleepwalking into totalitarianism, where only one school of thought is the approved/correct one allowed to be voiced.