Could MNHQ please clarify its policy with regard to tackling misinformation and disinformation on the site?

[MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack]

There is a lot of misinformation and disinformation here on Mumsnet. I expect most site users will be aware of this. It is not unique to Mumsnet by any means - disinformation is everywhere on the Internet these days.

The Mumsnet reporting function has an option which explicitly allows users to report posts as "misinformation". However, it is not clear to me as to what MNHQ's policy is for dealing with such reports, and I would be grateful if this could be clarified.

On previous occasions, when I have reported unequivocally false statements on Mumsnet, I have been told that MNHQ doesn't have the ability to check whether claims are factual or not, and so I should challenge the false statements on the relevant thread instead. I know that other posters have received similar responses.

I can sort of accept the explanation that the moderators may not have either the time or the skills to fact check everything, though I do personally think there is still an argument that MNHQ should take more responsibility for preventing the spread of disinformation via their site. However, I have found it harder to understand why they still provide an option for reporting misinformation if they do not actually feel that they are able to tackle it in practice. Is it merely to give the impression that they might do something about it?

Yesterday, I reported a post which contained a false statement that was presented as fact. It was not a statement that could be open to interpretation or a matter of subjective judgement. It was simply false, and demonstrably so.

I did not receive any response to the report for many hours. Then eventually I received a response which stated that the post did not break Talk Guidelines and that it would therefore be left to stand so that it could be challenged on the thread.

I responded to the email to ask for clarification as to whether misinformation or disinformation is now permitted under Talk Guidelines, and to ask what the "report misinformation" function was for if this is no longer breaking Talk Guidelines. I have not received any response to that query. However, a few minutes after sending it, I received a separate email (from the same moderator), thanking me for reporting the post in question and confirming that the post had been deleted. The email made no reference to the earlier emails, didn't explain the earlier statement that the post hadn't broken any Talk Guidelines, didn't address the questions that I had asked. I checked the thread, and the false post had indeed been deleted. But I don't think it would have been if I had not pushed back.

It is difficult to have much faith in Mumsnet moderation when such inconsistencies arise. The most charitable explanation that I can think of is that the moderator didn't really bother checking the post properly before initially deciding to allow it to stand.

I do appreciate that the moderators are human, and that they will make mistakes sometimes, but this seems to happen far more often than it should. Could MNHQ please shed some light on the specific procedures that are followed when reports of misinformation are received, and what the actual policy is with regard to dealing with misinformation and disinformation when it is identified.

Thank you

Mnhq have responded, if it’s still a dodgy site for some why stay?

I’m happy with their take. If they remove a reporting descriptor it makes no odds. It doesn’t look like they’re doing more re any demands.

Nobody said it’s a dodgy site. Inconsistency in moderation is undeniable and that’s what the dodgy descriptor was applied to. You can’t see the problem and that’s fine but please don’t attempt to gaslight those of us who can.

The site stuff thread that was good and improved the site was LuckyHazel’s one which mnhq responded well to.

If the outcome of this one is removing a reporting descriptor then fine.

I think removing the misinformation reporting descriptor would be a backward step given the current climate. But I suppose those who might be content with MN hosting garbage like the Great Replacement theory will feel differently.

It's really interesting to see the pp trying to twist this into being about not liking to see different views when the thread is actually about mis/disinformation. Wanting MN to tackle mis/disinformation is categorically not the same as wanting it to be an echo chamber in which views are never challenged.

I would be so interested to understand the reasons why someone might attempt to conflate concerns about mis/disinformation with objections to people voicing opinions that they don't agree with. They are self-evidently very different.

The cynical response, I suppose, would be to say that people are eager to shut down any conversations about disinformation on the site, because MNHQ's current ability to tackle the problem actually suits their own agenda very well.

But I wonder, in this so-called "post-truth" era, whether the boundaries have become rather blurred and whether there are actually people who just aren't capable of distinguishing between the concepts of fact and opinion? Perhaps they genuinely believe that there are "facts" and "alternative facts" and that all are equally valid?

My concern is that the existence of the reporting function gives the false impression that MNHQ will remove mis/disinformation which is reported to them, and they have confirmed that this isn't their policy.

My worry is that the presence of the reporting function inadvertently gives more credence to the mis/disinformation because people assume (wrongly) that MNHQ will delete posts which are blatantly untrue.

Obviously, I agree with you that, in the current climate, MNHQ should be actively seeking to tackle misinformation on the site. But if they can't do that effectively, for the reasons that Becky has explained, then I think I would rather that they are upfront about this and don't attempt to do it at all.

Keep the descriptor, I don’t care either way. Some seem to below.

I’m happy with the mnhq responses. Some seem not to be so remain unhappy with a site they use. Stay or go, up to them.

If MN can't tackle mis/disinformation adequately, then yes I suppose no point having it as reporting descriptor. But it would play into the hands of those who might have reasons to want it to be removed, as you mentioned in your pp.

I am afraid most of us will probably stay, sorry to disappoint.😄

I think we should continue to report mis/disinformation. The more we do, perhaps the better MNHQ will get at recognising it.

Here’s the suggestion which a few agreed with. It’s not my suggestion. But if that’s the outcome of this thread it’s from these posts.

Absolutely!

From my perspective, mis/disinformation is a significant problem on the site and I do believe that MNHQ needs to do more to tackle it. But if they can't or won't, then I would prefer that there is no pretence at tackling it, and for them to just be upfront about the fact that they aren't going to do anything about it. At least, then, we know where we stand

Given that the current stance seems to be that it simply isn't possible for MNHQ to tackle the issue effectively (and to be fair, I do have sone sympathy with this position - it isn't an easy task), then I would like to see some further clarification from MNHQ about exactly what we are allowed to do with regard to challenging mis/disinformation on a thread.

We have previously been advised that we are not allowed to keep pressing for evidence in response to false claims - we can ask once, but if a poster evades the question (as people posting false claims usually do), we should not keep asking for them to answer the question. From my perspective, this is deeply problematic, as it effectively means that the false claims are allowed to stand largely unchallenged.

I think that approach would be reasonable if the false claims could be reported and dealt with via an effective moderation process. However, if MNHQ doesn't have a policy of deleting all mis/disinformation and actively encourages posters to challenge on the thread, then we need to be confident that we will be able to provide a robust degree of challenge without being deleted or suspended or whatever.

@BeckyAMumsnet did address this point to some extent in her response above, making it clear that we can ask for evidence but personal attacks will not be tolerated, and that we should not make allegations about who people are or why they are here.

I think that's all very reasonable, but I would appreciate some further clarification @BeckyAMumsnet on the following points:

1. A common scenario is that a poster makes a false or unevidenced claim. One or more other posters challenge that claim by asking the first poster to provide evidence for their statement. The first poster evades these questions by trying to change the subject, asking questions in response, claiming that they have already provided the evidence or some other deflection tactic. This can happen over and over. Are we permitted in this scenario to keep pointing the poster back to the request for evidence and/or to point out that the evidence requested has not been provided? (As long as we do so politely and without making allegations about who the poster is or why they might be here?)

1. You said "If you suspect deliberate deception or a pattern of misleading posts, please include that info in your report so we can look at it." Please could you clarify how you handle such reports, what timescales are involved and whether we can expect any feedback on your findings? Because I have reported one poster who only ever posts satirical piss-take posts that are evidently not posted in good faith - I'm sure most on this thread will know who I mean - but the poster continues to post in the same style without any apparent consequence.

I think they should definitely attempt to do it otherwise the site will become overrun with vaccines cause autism or whatever.

Some people clearly think that it's a free speech issue and people should be allowed to repeatedly post that vaccines cause autism on a (nominally) parenting website but clearly in that case it is also a matter of public safety.

Some of us like the site but would like to improve it.

Differing political views definitely play into some of it.

Some posters are tempted to be loose with the facts to support their own political agenda.

This site was a mess with anyone non-Labour accused of being a bot until mnhq started deleting that. So they have improved the site, tg.

Plus LuckyHazel’s site stuff thread was good, mnhq responded well.

That’s absolute nonsense and a prime example of blatant misinformation.

And that’s an example of why it’s great mnhq respond as they do.

And round and round we go…

Tg mnhq do get it. I’m fine with that and ignore much of the rest.

Same here - all good.

So you are agreeing that manipulation of the facts happens on MN and should be addressed?

I will not employ your words.

Do some posters on here try to ‘bend or amend’ the facts in an attempt to fit their argument? Of course, they do.

Is it a concerted effort on behalf of a state actor? Of course, it isn’t.

Should MN address it? Individual moderators will continue to apply MN’s TG unevenly, and will inevitably frame their response to any reports based on their own personal bias/skew.

I read absolutely batshit stuff all the time on MN. Yes. As I do all over Facebook. Twitter. I just don’t think it’s possible to police the internet in terms of every thread.

I have sympathy with MN here, thousands of comments daily and how on earth do you moderate that easily? They end up taking the whole thread down

and yes - once you silence debate then you do cause massive mistrust. Another example is the cry of “racism” of people object to economic migrants in local hotels. If that debate is shut, people vote Reform,

and yes / I completely stand by my earlier post about Covid vaccines. We now know that in some people they caused grave harm and most healthy kids didn’t need them. That was most certainly “misinformation”. Now we have millions of people who feel that all vaccines are now not to be trusted and we are setting back healthcare by decades as parents shun all child vaccines. How is this remotely helpful?

sneer at me all you like - this is what is happened due to the desire to banish anything that isn’t left wing “fact”. It’s worrying whatever side you come at it. The whole of Europe is swinging to the right and I believe this is because people are silenced when concerned

In the clear antisemitic example of ‘Jews created the vaccine to turn us into robots’ you think it’s ’impossible to police’? Moderators don’t police every thread at all, they only ever respond to reports.

Do you think there should be no moderation? That nothing crosses the line? Or is it just that “Jews created the vaccine to turn us into robots” doesn’t meet your threshold?

The whole of Europe is swinging to the right and I believe this is because people are silenced when concerned

I’m really tired of this line. They’re not being silenced, they’re all too bloody vocal. It’s like the ridiculous Brexit line that people voted leave because they were called stupid so they went ahead and proved it. It makes no sense.