Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

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.

125 replies

NoCommentingFromNowOn · Yesterday 01:36

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?

OP posts:
NoCommentingFromNowOn · Yesterday 15:28

IAmKerplunk · Yesterday 15:20

They were posting things like this

At this point I am saying to that person you can do it all again tonight. And the next night. And…..

It’s up to @BeckyAMumsnet to up her game, or to tell Justine to actually do something.

Until then, trolls - you know you can do it again tonight if you want, yes?

OP posts:
IAmKerplunk · Yesterday 15:42

Jaimelefromage · Yesterday 15:25

I mean, that person needs to get a life 😂.

🤣 I know - but when they are spamming the boards it is annoying!

Oftenaddled · Yesterday 15:50

NoCommentingFromNowOn · Yesterday 15:28

At this point I am saying to that person you can do it all again tonight. And the next night. And…..

It’s up to @BeckyAMumsnet to up her game, or to tell Justine to actually do something.

Until then, trolls - you know you can do it again tonight if you want, yes?

Yes. Imagine having the time and ego to go all James Bond villain about your stunning ability to post spam on an unmoderated forum. I'm sure we are all a-tremble.

But - this stuff appears and stands by night. Not so much by day. So it doesn't need a Bond villain to work out that it must be harder to do this by day than by night. Moderation may not be the only way to prevent it, but signs are that moderation would work to prevent it.

RedTagAlan · Yesterday 15:53

Oftenaddled · Yesterday 15:50

Yes. Imagine having the time and ego to go all James Bond villain about your stunning ability to post spam on an unmoderated forum. I'm sure we are all a-tremble.

But - this stuff appears and stands by night. Not so much by day. So it doesn't need a Bond villain to work out that it must be harder to do this by day than by night. Moderation may not be the only way to prevent it, but signs are that moderation would work to prevent it.

Or it could be someone in a different time zone.

Oftenaddled · Yesterday 16:09

RedTagAlan · Yesterday 15:53

Or it could be someone in a different time zone.

Could be, but I think it's unlikely that there's only one spammer like this anyway, and this isn't the first series of nighttime attacks. And it's it's clear that his posts remain undeleted for a while at night, which is less likely to happen by day. Both Mumsnet's filters and its moderation have to fail for this to happen

RedTagAlan · Yesterday 16:09

bluegreygreen · Yesterday 14:54

So I would say that system works.

Whereas I might say that a system that exposes volunteers to the sort of abuse images that appeared last year, and is based on volunteers being available to hide offensive text and images that are reported overnight, manifestly does not work.

That appears to be my post you are quoting. Very selectively. Why not reply to what I posted rather than pick one line of it and making it about something different ?

Do you agree or disagree with the premise of my whole post ? That the effectiveness of a preventative measure can be difficult to gauge for the end user ?

RedTagAlan · Yesterday 16:22

Oftenaddled · Yesterday 16:09

Could be, but I think it's unlikely that there's only one spammer like this anyway, and this isn't the first series of nighttime attacks. And it's it's clear that his posts remain undeleted for a while at night, which is less likely to happen by day. Both Mumsnet's filters and its moderation have to fail for this to happen

There is stuff in the news often enough about "foreign actors" setting out to cause disruption, so one never really knows. A teen in California or wumao department the PRC trying to force western sites to turn up their Cloudflare settings a few notches.

I think this is why it is important to let the techies do their stuff. Because it might be random individuals or an organized attack. And I think that should affect what long term action is taken. Because a security level put in place (such as geoblocking), might affect innocent users.

Would you agree with that ? Or disagree ?

Oftenaddled · Yesterday 16:34

RedTagAlan · Yesterday 16:22

There is stuff in the news often enough about "foreign actors" setting out to cause disruption, so one never really knows. A teen in California or wumao department the PRC trying to force western sites to turn up their Cloudflare settings a few notches.

I think this is why it is important to let the techies do their stuff. Because it might be random individuals or an organized attack. And I think that should affect what long term action is taken. Because a security level put in place (such as geoblocking), might affect innocent users.

Would you agree with that ? Or disagree ?

I would see nothing in that hypothesis that would prevent Mumsnet from explaining whether attacks were more prevalent at night and explaining why moderation wasn't part of their toolkit to address that, if so. So if letting tech do their thing means the current state of non-communication, I disagree.

In the same way, if Mumsnet is dealing with some new and critical risk, positing the site in its unmoderated hours as a resource for desperate people in crisis is irresponsible.

So I agree with you that we don't know all of what is going on and cannot know to what extent moderation can solve things. These are fair points and useful to make on this thread. I don't agree that this justifies letting the techies do their stuff without asking questions of Mumsnet, in particular about levels of moderation on the site.

RedTagAlan · Yesterday 16:43

Oftenaddled · Yesterday 16:34

I would see nothing in that hypothesis that would prevent Mumsnet from explaining whether attacks were more prevalent at night and explaining why moderation wasn't part of their toolkit to address that, if so. So if letting tech do their thing means the current state of non-communication, I disagree.

In the same way, if Mumsnet is dealing with some new and critical risk, positing the site in its unmoderated hours as a resource for desperate people in crisis is irresponsible.

So I agree with you that we don't know all of what is going on and cannot know to what extent moderation can solve things. These are fair points and useful to make on this thread. I don't agree that this justifies letting the techies do their stuff without asking questions of Mumsnet, in particular about levels of moderation on the site.

Cool.

Quote " ... without asking questions of Mumsnet..."

I am not saying that. I am suggesting it might take time.

Oftenaddled · Yesterday 16:47

RedTagAlan · Yesterday 16:43

Cool.

Quote " ... without asking questions of Mumsnet..."

I am not saying that. I am suggesting it might take time.

That's fair enough, yes

bluegreygreen · Yesterday 18:53

RedTagAlan · Yesterday 16:09

That appears to be my post you are quoting. Very selectively. Why not reply to what I posted rather than pick one line of it and making it about something different ?

Do you agree or disagree with the premise of my whole post ? That the effectiveness of a preventative measure can be difficult to gauge for the end user ?

I haven't objected to anything in your post.

You made several points, and a statement that (in your opinion) follows from those points.

I made a statement which I consider equally valid, based on some different points.

SnowFrogJelly · Yesterday 22:40

@BeckyAMumsnetthe gifs I saw definitely did show sexual activity and were very offensive

DierdreDaphne · Yesterday 22:49

ImpossibleGermany · Yesterday 11:52

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. Hmm 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.

These all seem excellent ideas.

WineNotBeerNotVodka · Yesterday 23:10

Thankfully the trolling doesn't seem to be happening tonight. What a relief

Thestealer · Yesterday 23:25

WineNotBeerNotVodka · Yesterday 23:10

Thankfully the trolling doesn't seem to be happening tonight. What a relief

Not yet anyway.

SabrinaThwaite · Today 00:10

This reply has been hidden

This reply has been hidden until the MNHQ team can have a look at it.

McSpoot · Today 00:13

WineNotBeerNotVodka · Yesterday 23:10

Thankfully the trolling doesn't seem to be happening tonight. What a relief

It has. I’ve already reported some.

SilveryBear · Today 00:17

I was just about to report they’re at it again FFS

YourGreatQuail · Today 00:18

This reply has been hidden

This reply has been hidden until the MNHQ team can have a look at it.

YourGreatQuail · Today 00:18

This reply has been hidden

This reply has been hidden until the MNHQ team can have a look at it.

YourGreatQuail · Today 00:18

This reply has been hidden

This reply has been hidden until the MNHQ team can have a look at it.

SabrinaThwaite · Today 00:24

You’d think a company with a £2.5 million take home after tax could do a better job of stopping this crap. We all know that we’re the product, we don’t need the previous CSA stuff and current crude shit postings to point out that MN is failing to protect its users.

cariadlet · Today 00:32

I've reported 2 posts by Your Great Quail, clearly the same dickhead as last night, came to see if anyone else had seen the posts and find he's been in here.
How hilarious 🙄

NavySeal · Today 00:52

Lied to us again. Said they sorted the gifs but today they were arguably worse than yesterday.

ScarletLisa · Today 04:10

OtterlyAstounding · Yesterday 02:01

They need to hire a white hat hacker to make sure everything is secure, and get a paid mod on at night. Even just one would make quite a difference, I'm sure.

If this troll wasn't so annoying I'd give them a job as moderator as they know how to play/bend the system,

New posts on this thread. Refresh page