How is misinformation handled on MN?

[PinkFrogss]

Hi @mnhq ,

One of the talk guidelines is “No trolling, misleading or deliberately inflammatory behaviour”, and on the reporting function “misinformation” is an option.

With this in mind, why when posts are reported for being proven as misleading and full of misinformation are they allowed to stand without even an amendment or MNHQ note added?

I am interested in this as an option too. What constitutes misinformation in MnHQ moderation policy?

Hello @PinkFrogss That’s a fair question and we quite understand why it's not always clear cut. We do remove or edit posts when there’s demonstrable misinformation - for example, false claims about health or identifiable people, or if we have strong reason to suspect a poster is not acting with good intentions. Though there’s an important distinction between deliberate misinformation/disinformation and posters simply getting things wrong or expressing opinions that others strongly disagree with.

Where it’s the latter, we generally prefer those points to be challenged within the discussion rather than through moderation, as open debate usually helps correct inaccuracies more effectively than we could by deleting posts.

We’ll always act if something is clearly false and harmful, but otherwise we try to keep the door open for robust debate while encouraging posters to challenge ideas respectfully and, even better, counter with reliable sources.

They massively censor as to what they deem appropriate sadly they don’t allow free speech or even opinions, they only allow their narrative

God I hate the word misinformation, usually means something that disagrees with the mainstream media

"news" my arse

You can't state a true opinion, banned nope absolutely not. Back to reading books I guess, at least they are not censored (so far)

One man’s misinformation is another man’s suppressed truth.

Thank you for the detailed response @BeckyAMumsnet, how do you generally judge whether or not a poster has good intentions when making misleading posts based on false information?

Perhaps I’m just a bit more cynical than most when it comes to people’s ability to post in good faith about certain topics!

If misinformation is an option now, does that mean you'll finally be deleting reverse threads?

They've not only been allowed to stand for years (despite being against talk guidelines), but MNHQ have often colluded with the OP in the past, by adding to the opening post that people should read the thread before replying.

It's ridiculous and I'd say the majority of MNetters get fed up of being deliberately misled.

Can we not just evaluate information ourselves? You know with our brains and stuff.

That's not been my experience of MNHQ at all. I don't even think it would be possible for them to do that, it would be such a Herculean task.

I think they do a pretty good job. Every time I have reported something there has been a timely response, and when they disagree with me about a post being deletion-worthy they often provide a brief explanation.
Also wanted to say that seeing the word 'misled' on this thread has reminded me that when I was a child I thought for ages that it was pronounced 'mizzled'.

You're welcome, @PinkFrogss. There are a few things we look at when deciding, that we won't go into detail about but it's fair to say it's usually pretty obvious when someone is not posting in good faith.

No harm in being cynical - and we certainly don't blame you - though our approach is generally to take people at face value until such time as we can't... if that makes sense!

Re pp's comment on reverse threads - we don't really consider this misinformation - though it is certainly misleading. People may do a reverse for the very best of reasons but in general we discourage it as most MNers dislike this behaviour.

I'd think misinformation would be something you can prove. If the report shows evidence that something is clearly wrong information, it should be easy for mnhq to remove/edit. As opposed to taking someone's word for it above the other person if it isn't common knowledge.

Oh and books are certainly 'censored' before they go to print.

Identifying misinformation beyond the obviously libellous or immediately dangerous is a task beyond the scope of mods and resources of a chat forum. Where do you stop? There are loads of 'bottle feeding is as good as breastfeeding' posts for example - are they all to be deleted? It's really up to users to read things critically and take everything an anonymous poster on a forum says with a pinch of salt.

Interesting about reverse threads, I hadn’t considered that.

Anyway thanks again @BeckyAMumsnet

Remember the Covid threads - people who disagreed with the narrative of the wet market and potential issues with the hurriedly produced vaccinations, being deleted and banned for “misinformation” left right and centre. Same as the initial “Trans” threads - long standing, well meaning posters banned forever for saying men could not be women etc.

Misinformation so often means information or political opinions I Don’t Agree With. “Misinformation” needs to be left for those in the discussion/on the threads to pull apart and prove as such where necessary, in the absence of clear, obvious trolling.

I think you need to intervene and these situations and make it clear that the post in question contains misinformation or plain lies but you've allowed it to stand as it has been corrected. Then you need to state the correct information.

You need to show and highlight that the information is wrong.

A huge amount of disinformation is allowed to stand on the Conflict in the Middle East board. The anti-Israel and antisemitic sentiment plus terror sympathy on there is such that I’ve reported Mumsnet to the CST and Prevent on several occasions