Another data scrape from academia

[ArabellaSaurus]

Hi, MNHQ.

Alas, a couple of twits have been scraping the site, again.

https://bulletin.appliedtransstudies.org/article/4/1-3/7/

'In this study, however, we excavate what it means to write like a GC by analyzing how GC forum users rely on reactionary language and deploy storytelling practices in ways that calcify their anti-trans ideologies as personal and natural while rendering transgender people as anti-feminist, dangerous, and monstrous. To identify how GC groups perform political mythmaking and construct extremist identities, we undertook a computationally assisted discursive analysis of two popular GC forums: Ovarit and Mumsnet’s “Feminism: Sex & Gender” board (abbreviated to “FSG”). Through comparative platform discourse analysis, we analyzed over 80k posts and comments scraped from Ovarit and over 60k posts and comments scraped from Mumsnet (Burgess and Matamoros-Fernández 2016; Lewis and Marwick 2017)'

Data Collection
This study relied on a computationally-assisted discourse analysis of data collected from FSG and Ovarit using Python notebooks developed by one of the authors. Data from each platform was collected and analyzed separately, using the means below.
...
Mumsnet
Mumsnet posts within the FSG board are organized in a single feed. While Ovarit has forum subcategories (circles), FSG is a subforum itself, and does not have subcategories. Given that the discussion on FSG regularly involves trans- and gender-related subjects, it was likewise important to grab a wide sample. We scraped the most recent 3,767 threads and an accompanying 57,791 comments.5 In each case, the text, username, datetime, post type, and thread URL were collected. Data was collected in April of 2024.'

Text and data mining for non-commercial research
Text and data mining is the use of automated analytical techniques to analyse text and data for patterns, trends and other useful information. Text and data mining usually requires copying of the work to be analysed.
An exception to copyright exists which allows researchers to make copies of any copyright material for the purpose of computational analysis if they already have the right to read the work (that is, they have ‘lawful access’ to the work). This exception only permits the making of copies for the purpose of text and data mining for non-commercial research. Researchers will still have to buy subscriptions to access material; this could be from many sources including academic publishers.
Publishers and content providers will be able to apply reasonable measures to maintain their network security or stability but these measures should not prevent or unreasonably restrict researcher’s ability to text and data mine. Contract terms that stop researchers making copies to carry out text and data mining will be unenforceable.

Yep, Jade doesn't understand.

The people who post in FWR are well aware that their discussions are public and are very grateful to Mumsnet for allowing the space to discuss women’s rights (on the whole) without censure.

Did you read the other thread? Admin didn't seem to feel they could challenge their assertion that they could scrape the data based on this exemption.

"share their views here with absolutely no consequence"...

I'd really like my views and posts to have a consequence, I'd like people to read them and realise that they were wrong to think that Gender Ideology is harmless, and that it is fundamentally detrimental to women and children. This is the majority view on FWR, but the authors reached a completely different conclusion (that we're far-right nutjobs). This suggests that they started off with preconceived ideas and didn't do a proper academic study at all.

I think you are being very generous in your thread title, @ArabellaSaurus to use the word academia. This article is academic in the same sense as a Fisher-Price toy phone is a phone.

It seems to have been written by someone who thinks knotting fashionable jargon together and peppering it with correctly styled references actually counts as research. It is laughable and depressing at the same time. Like ChatGPT on a cocktail of valium and gin.

Okay but you cant control what the researchers conclude from their study. You can criticise their methodology if you feel it didn't accurately interpret the data. Their paper is still up so anyone can do that at any time.

Perhaps they identify as academics. Definite 'passing' issues tho.

“Like ChatGPT on a cocktail of valium and gin.”

oh yes. We are starting to also see more and more people using ChatGPT here on FWR to inform them when they haven’t taken the time to actually read deeply and widely for themselves. It is remarkable when you see it.

So true. There was a poster the other day who posted an endless ChatGPT word salad (of Canadian origin if I recall correctly?) They appeared to have the mistaken belief that women on here, who've been educating ourselves for the last decade, would suddenly collapse in a puff of smoke and say "OK guys, we're wrong - welcome to the undressed women and girls"

It was very funny (albeit also a bit sad)

Yes. They posted the screed from ChatGPT and didn’t stop and think ‘what does this really mean?’ and obviously either didn’t care or didn’t look further to understand the line that ChatGPT took from an extreme activist’s writings that activity did not really have any evidence whatsoever to support it. ChatGPT simply regurgigated it as if it was a profound statement when it actually wasn’t if you interrogated the concept

Well, it appears to be supported by NorthWestern University, via that other centre. So I assume this is what passes for academia, currently.

We're talking about scraping. Read up the ICO statement on such, if you want to look into the matter in some depth before commenting. And the Aston Uni threads may be helpful.

No, I don’t think so.
The Aston thread had some references to excellent and ethical work which drew on MN as its source, as well as links about how to use data on forums like MN ethically.
There is also guidance from the U.K. research council on ethical practice with such materials. It’s not difficult to find best practice guidance.

I know you quoted my post by mistake but for me, it’s about ethical use of material. The second part of my post stated how I personally thought a better analysis of the issues covered on FWR could be approached, or indeed any other topic, but I am not being paid to do this as my job, unlike the lead author of this article. My main point is that I believe that the lead author of the article and the co-author have a professional responsibility to source and use data ethically in line with best practice.

You mean the Aston threads? Yes. I don't think you actually understand the UK law on this subject and I'm assuming you are US based too because licence is spelt with a c.

I dont think thats necessary and I don't think you should need a license to mine the data of publicly available posts.

No just a spelling error. Very much UK based and as I said, it seems there are exemptions that allow this. I think that is why some forums and social media groups are closed to the public. You have to be a member and sign terms and conditions to see the content.

Yes that's where I got the information about the exemptions.

Well, I'm sure MNHQ will give your opinion due respect.

This!

MNHQ didn't seem to have a rebuttal to it and as far as I can see, the paper was released and still accessible so it seems the data was ethically sourced.

so it seems the data was ethically sourced.

Hahahaha. Yep, not engaging with you any further. You are deliberately on the wind up here.

The last mumsnet post on the matter seems to say as much. If you have other information where they proved that is deemed unethical to use information anyone can access from websites, please provide it.

I suspect this is the same 'ethical' version of things where it's 'ethical' for men to use women's facilities and to arrest and harass women for resisting the removal of their legal rights.

Mince.

Interestingly, both the U.K. Research Integrity Office and the ESRC refer to the Association of Internet Researchers as a source for ethical guidance on using social media and other user generated data in research. I am looking at the AOIRs last report which is dated 2019 (so six years ago during which time I think AI and technology and legal cases have moved on but anyway), i just share this extract as a screenshot as it’s relevant.

It’s a long report and the UKRIO and the ESRC also contain multiple other sources as well as their own points to consider.

My point in sharing this is that it is not MN who have to prove research is unethical or ethical - the responsibilty for this lies with the researchers. Now, we may disagree as to where the line is between ethical and unethical in this case, but I would say it is beyond doubt that researchers need to engage with this question and if they have not sought ethical review, explain why not.