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

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

297 replies

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 11/10/2026 12:57

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

OP posts:
noblegiraffe · 14/10/2026 21:49

DenizenOfAisleOfShame · 14/10/2026 21:42

In fairness to MN, there was a leader of a main political party at the time who wanted to cast doubt on Russian responsibility for the Novichok attack. It wasn’t necessarily bots and dark propagandists posting such crap: it might have been keen supporters of that party.

I can remember many, many threads that expressed support for said leader whatever rubbish - sometimes deeply offensive rubbish - he spouted.

For sure Corbyn's insistence that we should send it to Russia so that they could tell us if they did it was incredibly stupid. But it didn't feel like that was behind it.

DenizenOfAisleOfShame · 14/10/2026 22:06

noblegiraffe · 14/10/2026 21:49

For sure Corbyn's insistence that we should send it to Russia so that they could tell us if they did it was incredibly stupid. But it didn't feel like that was behind it.

Sure, hard to know.

But I think that at the least there’s a genuine (i.e. non-bot) cohort who do just post like that, whether it’s from the extremes of politics or by supporters of unpleasant foreign regimes or other dubious interests, or by devotees of deranged conspiracy theories.

Whether these posters are outnumbered by Russian or Iranian bots or spotty MAGA youths in America, who can tell.

noblegiraffe · 14/10/2026 22:27

DenizenOfAisleOfShame · 14/10/2026 22:06

Sure, hard to know.

But I think that at the least there’s a genuine (i.e. non-bot) cohort who do just post like that, whether it’s from the extremes of politics or by supporters of unpleasant foreign regimes or other dubious interests, or by devotees of deranged conspiracy theories.

Whether these posters are outnumbered by Russian or Iranian bots or spotty MAGA youths in America, who can tell.

I mean, you would hope that MNHQ would have methods of telling.

There was one poster who used to be vaguely sensible who started posting extremely copious amounts of dubious crap about Trump which raised many eyebrows, but they didn't think that was odd.

SwedishEdith · 14/10/2026 22:38

noblegiraffe · 14/10/2026 22:27

I mean, you would hope that MNHQ would have methods of telling.

There was one poster who used to be vaguely sensible who started posting extremely copious amounts of dubious crap about Trump which raised many eyebrows, but they didn't think that was odd.

Claig?

TemperanceWest · 14/10/2026 22:38

inerja · 14/10/2026 21:46

Tbf, I work in law and this is a slippery slope. The question nobody can answer is: who decides what's real and what's fake?
Imagine Trump banning "fake news." He already uses that label for any coverage he doesn't like. A law would hand him, or whoever comes next, the power to make that official.
Truth isn't always obvious at the time either. Plenty of stories that exposed real wrongdoing were dismissed as false at first. If you punish "falsehood" in real time, you risk silencing the stories that later turn out to be true.
The law doesn't even need to be used much to do damage. If journalists and ordinary people are scared of being prosecuted, they stop speaking. That's the chilling effect, and it's very effective.
Words like "false" or "misleading" are also so vague that they invite selective enforcement: go after your critics, ignore your allies. We've seen it happen. Russia criminalised "false information" about its military, which really meant anything contradicting the official line on Ukraine. Malaysia passed an anti-fake-news law in 2018, used it against critics, and scrapped it a year later.
And whatever power you create now gets inherited by the next government, which might be one you trust a lot less.
I'm not saying disinformation isn't a real problem, because it is. But the answer is narrow, clearly defined rules enforced by independent courts, plus transparency and media literacy. Not a blanket power to decide what's true.

Edited

We are talking about moderation of disinformation on MN. Not about prosecuting people.

LizzieW1969 · 14/10/2026 22:49

TemperanceWest · 14/10/2026 22:38

We are talking about moderation of disinformation on MN. Not about prosecuting people.

Exactly, it isn’t exactly too much to expect on MN, surely?

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 14/10/2026 23:00

I am also very surprised that MN doesn't think it would be targeted. This seems very naive?

OP posts:
inerja · 14/10/2026 23:01

TemperanceWest · 14/10/2026 22:38

We are talking about moderation of disinformation on MN. Not about prosecuting people.

Yeah but who are Mumsnet to decide what’s true or false?

C8H10N4O2 · 14/10/2026 23:08

inerja · 14/10/2026 23:01

Yeah but who are Mumsnet to decide what’s true or false?

Oh good grief.

This is a discussion forum, not a courtroom but one which (hopefully) aims to minimise disinformation and misinformation.

There are objective or at least well evidenced facts in many cases - simply saying something doesn't make it true and a conspiracy theory or ideology does not deserve equal weighting with decent qualitative and quantitative evidence. Not everything is subjective or a "matter of opinion" and just because the loon in the corner insists the earth is flat does not make it a position worthy of respect, equal consideration or taking seriously.

inerja · 14/10/2026 23:11

C8H10N4O2 · 14/10/2026 23:08

Oh good grief.

This is a discussion forum, not a courtroom but one which (hopefully) aims to minimise disinformation and misinformation.

There are objective or at least well evidenced facts in many cases - simply saying something doesn't make it true and a conspiracy theory or ideology does not deserve equal weighting with decent qualitative and quantitative evidence. Not everything is subjective or a "matter of opinion" and just because the loon in the corner insists the earth is flat does not make it a position worthy of respect, equal consideration or taking seriously.

Yes but again… Mumsnet have sponsors who pay them. Who decides what is true or false? If it’s the sponsors is it truly a free site?
misinformation infuriates me but it’s better than censorship

LizzieW1969 · 14/10/2026 23:22

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 14/10/2026 23:00

I am also very surprised that MN doesn't think it would be targeted. This seems very naive?

I very much agree with you.

Tootsurly · 14/10/2026 23:28

I once started a thread asking for help/advice on how to counter disinformation (anti-vax propaganda a family member kept sending me) and got banned by a mod who didn't read my OP properly (or at all). So that was nice.

Curbedenthusiasm · 15/10/2026 06:03

I think the main point is - MN do not apply their own TG evenly.

It’s nonsense.

Lexibletheflexible · 15/10/2026 07:21

C8H10N4O2 · 14/10/2026 23:08

Oh good grief.

This is a discussion forum, not a courtroom but one which (hopefully) aims to minimise disinformation and misinformation.

There are objective or at least well evidenced facts in many cases - simply saying something doesn't make it true and a conspiracy theory or ideology does not deserve equal weighting with decent qualitative and quantitative evidence. Not everything is subjective or a "matter of opinion" and just because the loon in the corner insists the earth is flat does not make it a position worthy of respect, equal consideration or taking seriously.

A lot of people here won't accept robust research that disproves or disagrees with their opinions. So they'll feel therr is misinformation if that information is allowed to stand

BeethovenNinth · 15/10/2026 07:23

Careful here. What is “misinformation”?

my friend got chucked off Mumsnet during dark Covid times for stating that closing schools might not be good for kids and that healthy kids might not take a rushed Covid vaccine. Lifelong ban.

I think most people read MN knowing it’s a set of opinions. Even wildly crazy incorrect fact might have a grain of truth in it. Times change.

post Covid, let’s please avoid any Ministry of Truth!!

BIossomtoes · 15/10/2026 07:30

Misinformation is something that isn’t true @BeethovenNinth. I can’t believe you’re trying to make a case for it. “Incorrect fact” is an oxymoron. Facts are correct.

Curbedenthusiasm · 15/10/2026 07:32

BIossomtoes · 15/10/2026 07:30

Misinformation is something that isn’t true @BeethovenNinth. I can’t believe you’re trying to make a case for it. “Incorrect fact” is an oxymoron. Facts are correct.

Then MN’s enforcement of their own TG is clearly not working.

Not fit for purpose, if you will.

TemperanceWest · 15/10/2026 07:34

BeethovenNinth · 15/10/2026 07:23

Careful here. What is “misinformation”?

my friend got chucked off Mumsnet during dark Covid times for stating that closing schools might not be good for kids and that healthy kids might not take a rushed Covid vaccine. Lifelong ban.

I think most people read MN knowing it’s a set of opinions. Even wildly crazy incorrect fact might have a grain of truth in it. Times change.

post Covid, let’s please avoid any Ministry of Truth!!

The type of misinformation people are objecting to is, for example, anti-semitic conspiracy theories. You think they have a grain of truth?

I bet your friend did more that you are saying. There were masses of negative posts on MN about the vaccines and lockdown. The only deletions were when things strayed into conspiracy theory territory.

BIossomtoes · 15/10/2026 07:37

Curbedenthusiasm · 15/10/2026 07:32

Then MN’s enforcement of their own TG is clearly not working.

Not fit for purpose, if you will.

Yes, you said. That’s the entire premise of the thread.

TemperanceWest · 15/10/2026 07:37

Curbedenthusiasm · 15/10/2026 07:32

Then MN’s enforcement of their own TG is clearly not working.

Not fit for purpose, if you will.

If MNHQ have let something stand that you think should be deleted, then discuss it with them is my advice. They will take another look IME.

Curbedenthusiasm · 15/10/2026 07:40

TemperanceWest · 15/10/2026 07:37

If MNHQ have let something stand that you think should be deleted, then discuss it with them is my advice. They will take another look IME.

I have, and they refused to remove it - even though it’s a blatant untruth.

I am confident that some of their advertisers would be extremely unhappy - perhaps that’s the route to go.

TemperanceWest · 15/10/2026 07:41

Curbedenthusiasm · 15/10/2026 07:40

I have, and they refused to remove it - even though it’s a blatant untruth.

I am confident that some of their advertisers would be extremely unhappy - perhaps that’s the route to go.

What was the blatant untruth?

bookworm14 · 15/10/2026 07:46

It’s been obvious for years that MN is a playground for those trying to foment unrest in the uk, and it’s very concerning that MN themselves don’t seem to grasp this. The sudden influx of pro-Russian propaganda in 2022, the spate of posts in recent years from people asking with wide-eyed concern if London is ‘safe’ to visit, the repeating of outright conspiracy theories eg migrants being secretly flown into uk airports, all the identikit posters who personally ‘know’ someone who fakes disability to claim PIP - it’s blatant. No idea why Mumsnet feel they wouldn’t be a target for this kind of thing when they’re one of the uk’s largest forums with a very politically engaged user base, but there you go.

Raiderofthelostbattenburg · 15/10/2026 08:10

I have some sympathy with the free speech arguments, and of course the site works best when there is robust debate and a plurality of opinions. But allowing blatant disinformation and known conspiracy theories to be part of that discussion actually stifles free speech, because it drives moderate voices out of the discussion. I am not, for example, going to have a debate with someone espousing anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, because to do legitimatises and normalises those theories.

The exact same thing happened to Twitter when it became X. Ironically, it is no longer seen as a place for free speech at all, because the rising volume of hostile rhetoric and disinformation drove moderate voices off to the platform - leaving only the loudest, most extreme voices. The result was it lost all cultural relevance.

There are guidelines for hate speech, and I do think there are ways they could be strengthened and more consistently applied to include conspiracy theories, especially those it is well documented are utilised by the Russian and Iranian propaganda machines.

Raiderofthelostbattenburg · 15/10/2026 08:12

bookworm14 · 15/10/2026 07:46

It’s been obvious for years that MN is a playground for those trying to foment unrest in the uk, and it’s very concerning that MN themselves don’t seem to grasp this. The sudden influx of pro-Russian propaganda in 2022, the spate of posts in recent years from people asking with wide-eyed concern if London is ‘safe’ to visit, the repeating of outright conspiracy theories eg migrants being secretly flown into uk airports, all the identikit posters who personally ‘know’ someone who fakes disability to claim PIP - it’s blatant. No idea why Mumsnet feel they wouldn’t be a target for this kind of thing when they’re one of the uk’s largest forums with a very politically engaged user base, but there you go.

Your post 2022 comment is really interesting, because I posted here regularly (different user name) about 12-15years ago, then left the site. Having started posting again recently, I have been genuinely shocked at how much more polarised and divisive the rhetoric on here is, compared to when I first joined.