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

Thank you Temperance.

Some posters are vile in the way they debate and I don't like feeling like MN are throwing me to the wolves suggesting I "challenge" them.

That ends where it always ends - personal attacks.

Well said @MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack

Honest just when you think MN can't sink any lower it does its obvious they only care for the clicks that bring in money. I've just seen this weekend a thread deleted by MN only to be reinstated by MN still full of quite frankly liable posts. Posters have decided amongst themselves that something is true with no facts of this available at all and comes down on any poster who raises this point in a hysterical manner. It's threads like the one I'm talking about can hinder an inquiry or future learning. If I was involved I would sue MN for allowing made up speculation to run so publicly.

That thread is a cesspit.

I agree - there are times when challenging on the thread just makes the whole tone of a discussion more hostile and aggressive.

I also agree there needs to be more clarity around the rules on misinformation - there are certain threads where dangerous, divisive conspiracy theories are frequently presented as fact. Personally, I often just hide those threads, but the worry is then you then have whole threads that became echo chambers for dangerous misinformation. And it feels counter productive to a forum which at its best should be about genuine discussion with a plurality of voices, if what actually happens is we all just get siloed off into echo chambers, and further entrenched in our pre-existing positions.

I would assume it’s to do with risk of harm.

So if someone starts a thread asking if they should ring an ambulance for chest pain and someone posts that chest pain radiating down the arms is likely to be muscular and doesn’t require an ambulance, MN will see this (if reported) as dangerous misinformation and may delete it.

On the other hand if someone says that Spain is in Asia, this is equally disinformation but is not going to cause any harm. I think any statement about electrons or in a similar vein would fall in the same bracket. MN wouldn’t bother deleting this.

If MN start deleting every wrong statement that is reported to them then firstly I agree with pp, there would be little left but more importantly, they would be implying that anything they don’t delete is true. How can they be expected to arbitrate on every single instance reported to them, however benign and nonhazardous?

I know you don’t want to say what your example is but it is relevant. Someone giving incorrect and dangerous medical advice is dangerous misinformation and should be deleted. Someone mis-stating the second law of thermodynamics is misinformation but is not dangerous and tbh I question why anyone would think it needs to be deleted. It’s a discussion forum not a text book.

I don’t disagree that conspiracy theories are ludicrous and, so far as the term fits such abject nonsense, false. And they can be obnoxious and dangerous - some allude to horrible tropes about Jews, for example. And even if they’re not pointing the finger at some group they tend to make stupid people stupider.

But a poster who wants to argue that the earth is flat or that aeroplanes spray mind control chemtrails just looks silly. Nobody with any sense could take that seriously. It doesn’t need deleting.

A policy on misinformation can’t ever be consistent. That’s a hopeless and misguided wish. It would be better if the guidance was that MN will remove dangerous or offensive misinformation. That’s would at least allow the necessary judgment by MN.

Yes, this has been my experience. It is very inconsistent.

I think that would be a perfectly reasonable and defensible approach, if applied consistently. However, I have not been able to identify any evidence of a consistent approach to date.

What I want from MNHQ really is an insight into what guidance is given to moderators and an explanation of how they make their decisions at present so that there is a degree of clarity and transparency. What exactly does MNHQ do when they receive a report of misinformation? What checks do they undertake, if any? How do they decide when to delete and when to let things stand - e.g. is it based on a risk assessment as you suggest, and if so, how exactly is the risk assessed and what factors are taken into account? Or is it based on the extent to which the statement is deemed to be accurate or potentially accurate, and if so, how is that assessment made - is it based on the moderator's own knowledge and perceptions or is there some sort of process in place for checking facts?

I am not expecting MNHQ to do the impossible, and it is inevitable that some mis/disinformation will probably slip through the net no matter what they put in place. I just want to understand how their decisions are made so that we are all clear on what will be tolerated and what won't.

Thanks for this, @MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack . You’re asking a fair question. If we give people an option to report misinformation, we should explain what we mean by it and what happens when it’s reported to us.

First, on the terms themselves as there's some back and forth here about definitions. By our assumption, misinformation means information that is false or misleading. Someone might share it because they’ve misunderstood something, misremembered it or trusted a source that turns out to be wrong. Disinformation means false or misleading information shared deliberately to deceive people. The difference really is intention, which isn’t always something we can establish from a post.

Neither term means simply “a view I disagree with”. People can reach different conclusions from the same evidence, disagree or question accepted thinking. There has to be room for that on Mumsnet. Equally, a factual claim doesn’t become a matter of opinion just because someone prefaces it with “I think”.

Our starting point, as it has always been, is to let the conversation flow and keep intervention to a minimum. We don’t have a blanket policy of deleting everything that is factually wrong and it's hugely important to note that we are not fact checkers. In many cases, a correction or a link to better evidence is a useful part of the discussion and hence why we often push back on deleting things that are evidently incorrect. People do get things wrong, and we don’t want every mistake to become a moderation matter.

All that being said, it really doesn’t give people a free pass to deliberately mislead others. Our Talk guidelines cover misleading and deliberately inflammatory behaviour, as well as trolling, hate speech and other harmful content. We can remove posts and ban posters where those rules are broken.

So the misinformation report option is there to bring something to our attention for consideration under those guidelines. It isn’t a promise that we’ll investigate every disputed fact and delete anything we find to be incorrect and we appreciate that the label alone doesn’t make that distinction particularly clear.

Where we suggest challenging something, that should be understood as an option, rather than us handing responsibility back to the person who reported it. It also doesn’t mean we regard a false claim and a well-supported correction as equally valid, or that we’ve checked and endorsed a post because we’ve left it up.

It's also perfectly reasonable to ask someone what supports a factual claim and to point out when the evidence doesn’t support it. The usual rules about personal attacks and troll hunting still apply. You can challenge what someone has said without making accusations about who they are or why they’re here. If you suspect deliberate deception or a pattern of misleading posts, please include that info in your report so we can look at it.

As we’ve said previously, we can’t publish all the checks we use to spot trolls and people trying to manipulate discussions, because that would help them work around those checks, but that shouldn’t ever prevent us from explaining the principles behind our decisions.

On the particular exchange you describe, @MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack we’d need to look at the report and replies before explaining why the decision changed and I'm not going to hazard a guess. Sometimes a second look leads us to a different decision, and sometimes we get the first decision wrong. If that happens, we should explain it rather than send two apparently contradictory replies and leave you to work it out. Could you please send some more info to [email protected] and we'll certainly review what happened.

We know you’re not asking us to guarantee that nothing inaccurate ever appears on Mumsnet. You’re asking for a clearer account of where we draw the line, and for decisions and replies that make sense. That’s a reasonable thing to expect and thanks again for taking the time to set it out.

@BeckyAMumsnet Where we suggest challenging something, that should be understood as an option, rather than us handing responsibility back to the person who reported it. It also doesn’t mean we regard a false claim and a well-supported correction as equally valid, or that we’ve checked and endorsed a post because we’ve left it up

But do you not accept that when guidance also tells use that we shouldn't push people too hard to evidence their claims (from @MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack post) this puts us in an impossible position? Either we challenge on thread and risk deleting/banning for troll hunting or we leave sometimes dangerous incorrect data to stand. I've seen entirely polite challenges deleted for troll hunting which not only leaves incorrect info to stand - it reinforces the negative messaging.

I'm fully aware that moderating is as much art as science but in the past have felt decisions did not take the full context of the thread (or OP's posts plural) and don't distinguish between evidenced falsehoods and "I don't agree with their opinion".

How are we, as posters, supposed to distinguish between directly conflicting pieces of guidance? And what is the point of the 'misinformation" category? What is it actually intended to cover? Leaving dangerously incorrect data and claims to stand is hardly consistent with a supporting site.

I think someone needs to justify their claim that It's just about getting clicks.

Sorry to weigh in @MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack but @BeckyAMumsnet I think a lot of concerns aren't really being addressed here.

I've been on MN under one name or another for nearly 20 years (shocking in itself).

The quality and professionalism of the moderation has severely declined in the last ~2-ish years. And this:

"Where we suggest challenging something, that should be understood as an option, rather than us handing responsibility back to the person who reported it. It also doesn’t mean we regard a false claim and a well-supported correction as equally valid, or that we’ve checked and endorsed a post because we’ve left it up."

I'm sorry to say is lazy and feeble. It quite literally hands responsibility back to the site users, and says you are quite willing to ignore flagrant breaches of the TGs because... I don't know why.

These responses are also not limited to misinformation.

I have had responses from mods asking me why I reported a post from one user but not another. I have had responses saying that they're going to let a personal attack stand because the poster it was aimed at seemed a bit of a wrong 'un. So it seems mods are quite willing to make personal judgements when it suits (and to be frank in these cases that should not be happening - mods should be modding according to the rules, not whose "side" they're on).

The strong impression I get from recent mod responses to reported posts, which a few years ago would have been zapped on sight, is that posters now really have to justify why something breaks the rules and that the mods are essentially not bothered. I don't know if you're too stretched numbers wise, I don't know if you've been given new guidance from higher up, but it's really appalling - and saddening - to see, as someone who remembers when all this were fields.

I wish MNHQ could be honest about what's happened to their approach to the TGs and what's happening with the mod team.

Yeah then when I correct them I get told off by randoms 😂 always

Thanks for your post, @Limeandfigs, there are a few separate points here.

The suggestion that users may challenge a claim should be understood as an option available within a discussion, not as us handing responsibility back to the person who reported it. Mumsnet is a discussion board and so respectful disagreement, asking someone to clarify what they mean, and offering a well-supported correction are all normal parts of the experience.

That does not mean every claim must be challenged on-thread, nor that a post remaining up means we have endorsed it. Reporting is still appropriate where a claim is presented as fact and appears materially false. The misinformation reporting category is intended for those circumstances and not ordinary differences of opinion.

In the particular case being referred to, the issue was not that someone was pushed too hard to provide evidence. They were repeatedly asked to clarify what they meant, and when they did not do so quickly enough, other posters made personal attacks and rounded on them. This was reported by numerous other users who felt it an uncomfortable thing to watch. That is not acceptable. Challenge should address the point being made and it should not become a way of targeting someone or getting personal.

We should not give the impression that users need to build a full case before reporting, but obviously the more info and context provided the better. We'll look at every report even if no info is given. Equally, moderators should not make decisions based on who appears more sympathetic or whose position they personally prefer. If you think that's the case, please reply to the report to say so. We tread a difficult balance here and will not get every judgement call right by any means.

I think you may as well do away with the misinformation report @BeckyAMumsnet unless it can be applied consistently & fairly.

For the user, it’s too complicated to understand why you list misinformation as a rule break while also not deleting misinformation but expecting posters to correct it themselves. Which often leads to an argument.

@BeckyAMumsnet

I agree with the PP.

I have reported patently false information, and after dialogue with MN, the post has been allowed to stand with the OP receiving an apology!

I agree. It’s entirely pointless.

Thanks for your feedback @BIossomtoes @Twiglets1 @Curbedenthusiasm - we'll have a chat about this and get back to you.

Half of the issue here is that some users won't accept research that disagrees with them and count that as misinformation. For that reason, they will often feel like posts that spread misinformation are allowed to stand.

Given that the Chief of M15 literally spoke in his statement today and explicitly addressed the dangers of online propaganda and radicalisation being deliberately used to sew division and de-stabilise society, I really think it is important that Mumsnet take a harder and clearer line on misinformation. I appreciate it isn't easy, but I do think it's important for the integrety of the site.

That reminds me, there was a poster a few weeks ago proudly proclaiming that they were on the side of Iran and Russia and posting how we deserved the high petrol prices and how awful we are. I reported the post and said this kind of propaganda shouldn't be allowed on MN and got the response that they didn't appear to be a troll or a bot so it was allowed to stand.

@BeckyAMumsnet what is MN's policy on overt (or even more subtle) posting of pro-Iranian and Russian propaganda given the Chief of MI5's warning about online radicalisation?

I agree - it more complex than just preventing bots posting on the site directly because what is also dangerous is posters taking misinformation, the seeds of which may well have been planted by bots elsewhere, and spreading it across the site.

Given that the UK has banned support for Iran’s IRGC, people shouldn't really be allowed to spout their propaganda on Mumsnet or be allowed to openly post that they are on their side.

They do give the impression of being very unsophisticated in their recognition and dealings with online bad actors. This has been going on for over a decade. They might not be; they might have a highly knowledgeable and trained team monitoring bots and influencers but they do give the impression of being unsophisticated.

I think when they advise users they can challenge information if they wish, as if nobody on Mumsnet knows they can respond to another user, the unsophistication is definitely showing.