MNHQ do your advertisers know what happens here at night? Not very advertiser-friendly is it? The tabloids will be picking this up one day.

[NoCommentingFromNowOn]

AIBU to make my DH lick my arse while I shart straight into his mouth and he swallows every drop

If I have to read that then so do you.

Do you want screenshots? I mean, they’ve already been accepted by whoever or whatever is checking them, so I can put them here, yes?

So, at what point are your advertisers going to cancel their adverts with you and start advertising on a porn site which is more family friendly than here?

I believe this is the second or third night in a row? And you don’t even pay people to monitor this?

The harder job is stopping someone who keeps changing accounts and tactics from getting it in front of users at all. A lot of the work that protects the site overnight is actually the less visible stuff, with systems designed to stop malicious content getting through in the first place and we are constantly working to improve on it.

Surely you could say the same about during the daylight hours? Yet those who run the site choose to have active moderators during the day.

If you know your site is a target for trolls and worse, (we all know about the horrific images that were posted). Then choosing the avoid having moderation during the hours that those posters are targeting the site is an incredibly foolish and irresponsible decision.

If the site needs moderating during the day, why is the night time different? If anything, it’s the more vulnerable users who are on the site overnight. The ones who need more protection, not less.

@BeckyAMumsnet but do you think anybody who genuinely posted last night would have been helped by what was being posted , if anything it could have made matters worse and frankly if the site becomes unusable from midnight what’s the point of it being up at night at all .

Does Mumsnet attract more (or worse) spam
or does it have weaker defenses?

@BeckyAMumsnet how is that guy able to post images last night? I thought you couldn't post images at night.

MN is worldwide.

I am not in the UK timezone for example.

And yet their paid moderation only seems to happen during the daytime hours in the UK.

Exactly. I haven’t used MN overnight since the CSA debacle, even though I’m often awake with my disabled child and could use some distraction.
It’s essentially unusable overnight.

Hi @OrangeFlower14 images can be posted at any time, but they’re all subject to the same screening. As far as we can see, in this case the troll posted a GIF that was already available in the GIF library, rather than uploading a new image. GIFs have their own settings and controls, which we’re reviewing in light of what happened.

@tinyspiny the vast majority of user reports and moderation issues still happen during the day, when the site is much busier. We don't think that people using the site at night should have less protection, but it's about matching different kinds of protection to where and when the greatest volume of issues occurs.

All of the truly awful problematic issues have happened at night over the years.
yet apparently the site doesn't need 24 hour
moderation.
one suspects it would dent the profits so won't ever happen

That’s what it boils down to.

Ah right! What the hell is going on, it it some kind of hacking thing or bots or freaks/weirdos getting their jollies? Its a bit disturbing & yes, limited brain capacity.

That might have something to do with the fact that reports at night don't actually sort out problems. What's the point in reporting if you know that no one is going to be there to respond to or deal with your report?

MNHQ can argue that there might not be a need for as much moderation, but there's clearly a need for some moderation. What we have now is a site that isn't moderated during the night and a lot of people exploit that knowledge.

If the rationale for keeping new registration open at night is that people may arrive desperate and in need of help, okay. But what's the rationale for exposing people who are desperate and in need of help to an unmoderated space vulnerable to misogynistic attacks?

I think Mumsnet needs to take on the responsibilities of a crisis space if it is going to present itself as a crisis space. Having a moderator on the job seems pretty minimal. Without that, might people not be better off somewhere else?

Can the nightwatch quickly get in touch with a paid moderator? Or are they expected to deal with all the trolling with limited powers and no urgent support if needed?

I think the ability to name change is important for privacy reasons, especially after various data leaks and some very public 'outings' of certain posters over the years. But I do think there should be limits on how frequently you can name change and/or how many names you can have in total.

For example, MNHQ should definitely limit the ability or frequency for one account to name change if they've only ever created one thread under each name then immediately moved on to a different name. Especially if they rarely or never engage in anyone else's threads and don't bother to respond to comments on their own.

If you've come onto MN to start a thread about some major moral dilemma or problem or outrageous scenario going on in your life that stimulates so much discussion that it can run to 30 pages of debate, what are the chances that you have so little interest in that debate that you barely come back to engage with it, bar the odd one or two sentence responses within 15 mins of the thread being started? I mean come on now. Let's use our brains here.

When I sniff these threads out (which is easy because they follow a formula and there are classic tell-tale signs) I always do a search on the name and it's always a first time poster. Even the user names and the time of day the threads are posted are often giveaways. Then I wait to see if they bother to engage much in their own thread. Then I'll check again a week or two later to see if they've posted anything else or joined in on any other threads.

Blocking first time posters from name changing after only one thread would help. Maybe don't let people name change for the first three months, or only after they've hit a certain word count by engaging with other people's threads. It's not bulletproof but it would at least cut down the frequency of the spammy AI generated crap.

It would not be difficult at all for MN to put this in place. Given that 'trolling' (ie repeatedly lying or misleading) is a banning offence, then if they don't do this, you have to start asking yourself why not. And who is motivated to do it.

@BeckyAMumsnet I think we all know I have zero respect for the mods regarding their moderation, but don’t lie to us.

in this case the troll posted a GIF that was already available in the GIF library

You do not have gifs of women sucking large pink dildos with balls hanging down.

All these points have been made before and very obvious solutions have been put to MNHQ which have clearly been dismissed an unnecessary.

1. Proper, paid moderation, 24 hours a day.

2. Suspend the ability for accounts to name change prolifically in a very short space of time, especially if they do not appear to engage in the forum generally, but only post to start their own threads.

I hope this can be dealt with . MN was a haven for me when I desperately needed it . Last night was unusable and I needed the distraction. But MN has been letting a lot of women down recently. The whole premise has been shaken . Guess it's inevitable as such is the way like FB, Twitter and dating apps . I thought Justine had already sold out as her affair and divorce seemed to have gotten her a lot of grief in the media .

No idea that MN despite it's large income actually asks for unpaid moderators . It's not the local WhatsApp group for fucks sake .

Given the site is targeted for the worst of the trolling at night, such as the CSA images, it’s frankly ludicrous that the excuse of the site being busier during the day makes it acceptable to leave it unmoderated at night.

So paid fully covering - moderation - how much more would that cost ?

Would making everyone pay then mean that some sections of society would be excluded from the help and advice ?

ad revenue for most platforms is falling I understand so the only way to raise more money - unless you believe there is excessive profiteering - is to charge

And if they do, then why?!

I know, a multi million pound business relying on unpaid volunteers overnight. It’s farcical. I can’t believe anyone actually volunteers for this, they’re being taken advantage of.

They aren’t on the ball at all with security. The site must make enough profit.