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:
bookworm14 · 15/10/2026 08:19

Raiderofthelostbattenburg · 15/10/2026 08:12

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.

It has got steadily worse over the years but the first time I remember properly noticing it was 2022 during Russia’s initial invasion of Ukraine. The sudden influx of new posters repeating Russian government talking points was extremely obvious.

Curbedenthusiasm · 15/10/2026 08:20

TemperanceWest · 15/10/2026 07:41

What was the blatant untruth?

P&C, I’m afraid.

TemperanceWest · 15/10/2026 09:19

Curbedenthusiasm · 15/10/2026 08:20

P&C, I’m afraid.

Hitchens' razor then, I'm afraid. But I think I can guess.

Curbedenthusiasm · 15/10/2026 09:22

TemperanceWest · 15/10/2026 09:19

Hitchens' razor then, I'm afraid. But I think I can guess.

You should change your handle to Claire Voyant.

C8H10N4O2 · 15/10/2026 09:44

inerja · 14/10/2026 23:11

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

Nice try but in many areas of endeavour there are well understood patterns of evidence gathering.

Unless you actually think "the earth is flat" is a position worth responding to with anything other than laughter and derision.

inerja · 15/10/2026 09:51

C8H10N4O2 · 15/10/2026 09:44

Nice try but in many areas of endeavour there are well understood patterns of evidence gathering.

Unless you actually think "the earth is flat" is a position worth responding to with anything other than laughter and derision.

The earth is flat doesn’t strike me as an especially harmful conspiracy theories compared to others I’ve seen here, and there is plenty of info on the internet to debunk it.

C8H10N4O2 · 15/10/2026 09:55

Lexibletheflexible · 15/10/2026 07:21

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

Well they can fee,l but that doesn't make them correct. When mis or dis information is harmful (with clear data_then its not longer a free speech issue - its a public harm issue and should be acknowledged as such by the moderation process.

As it stands, like pp on this post I have no idea what is the point of a misinformation category of report. When we are told to challenge misinformation on thread I'd like some reassurance that we won't be deleted for trolling hunting because inevitably we are questioning the validity or integrity of a poster.

The one thing Twitter has improved on its path to the sewage farm is the addition of community notes. At least then the post itself is clearly flagged as challenged - you don't have to read through another 50 posts to get a link to evidence against the false claims from a poster just told to "challenge on thread".

The purpose of much of the mechanised mis/dis information is not to persuade us the earth is flat - its to persuade us that nobody knows and no information is trustworthy or reliable.

I'd say its done its job already judging by a lot of what I read these days.

Curbedenthusiasm · 15/10/2026 12:03

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.

Sorry, but are you seriously suggesting that bad actors consider MN to be a platform from which to ‘foment’ unrest in the UK?

In the words of John McEnroe….

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 15/10/2026 12:09

Curbedenthusiasm · 15/10/2026 12:03

Sorry, but are you seriously suggesting that bad actors consider MN to be a platform from which to ‘foment’ unrest in the UK?

In the words of John McEnroe….

In light of the recent comments from the Director of MI5 about bad actors using social media to foment unrest, I don't think it's a ludicrous suggestion that MN could be targeted.

Can you explain why you think MN is safe from the threats that are clearly affecting other platforms?

OP posts:
TemperanceWest · 15/10/2026 12:11

Curbedenthusiasm · 15/10/2026 12:03

Sorry, but are you seriously suggesting that bad actors consider MN to be a platform from which to ‘foment’ unrest in the UK?

In the words of John McEnroe….

Thee are certainly posters who keep pushing the notion that civil unrest is just around the corner. I don't think they are posting in good faith.

Then there are the posters who push conspiracy theories, as we saw with the recently banned poster.

Curbedenthusiasm · 15/10/2026 12:26

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 15/10/2026 12:09

In light of the recent comments from the Director of MI5 about bad actors using social media to foment unrest, I don't think it's a ludicrous suggestion that MN could be targeted.

Can you explain why you think MN is safe from the threats that are clearly affecting other platforms?

Let me ask you this - what is the MN demographic? What is the MN reach? What better platforms are there?

I find the notion that bad actors are using MN fanciful and mildly amusing.
In the nicest possible way - the only people who care about MN are MN posters, nobody else.

Edit: If you dont believe me, ask MN themselves. Oh and btw, if you do find evidence of (state) bad actors, you’d better let MN know.

BIossomtoes · 15/10/2026 12:31

Curbedenthusiasm · 15/10/2026 12:26

Let me ask you this - what is the MN demographic? What is the MN reach? What better platforms are there?

I find the notion that bad actors are using MN fanciful and mildly amusing.
In the nicest possible way - the only people who care about MN are MN posters, nobody else.

Edit: If you dont believe me, ask MN themselves. Oh and btw, if you do find evidence of (state) bad actors, you’d better let MN know.

Edited

Has it escaped your notice that women are allowed to vote now?

Curbedenthusiasm · 15/10/2026 12:32

BIossomtoes · 15/10/2026 12:31

Has it escaped your notice that women are allowed to vote now?

Strawman (or woman).

BIossomtoes · 15/10/2026 12:35

Hardly. Why do you think these bad actors target social media? For the likes? It’s to influence behaviour.

Completeme · 15/10/2026 12:35

I reported some false and seriously dangerous medical advice and was also told that they couldn’t fact check and I should challenge it on the thread. The person the advice was given to could have died if they believed it.

I do believe such a big and profitable site should hire staff able to deal with this kind of issue.

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 15/10/2026 12:36

Curbedenthusiasm · 15/10/2026 12:26

Let me ask you this - what is the MN demographic? What is the MN reach? What better platforms are there?

I find the notion that bad actors are using MN fanciful and mildly amusing.
In the nicest possible way - the only people who care about MN are MN posters, nobody else.

Edit: If you dont believe me, ask MN themselves. Oh and btw, if you do find evidence of (state) bad actors, you’d better let MN know.

Edited

Sorry, but that doesn't actually answer my question as to why you think MN is safe from the threats that are known to be active on other platforms.

Mumsnet claims a monthly reach of eight million, including one in three women aged 35–54. Would you say that's insignificant?

Regarding the demographic. A previous MN survey suggested that 98% of respondents voted in all or most general elections. So more politically engaged than the average citizen, it would seem?

So why is it fanciful to think that MN might be targeted? What exactly is it about the reach and demographic that makes you think MN is immune? Is it because site users are predominantly female that you think they wouldn't be targeted or is it something else?

OP posts:
Curbedenthusiasm · 15/10/2026 12:36

Planet Zog.

Curbedenthusiasm · 15/10/2026 12:37

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 15/10/2026 12:36

Sorry, but that doesn't actually answer my question as to why you think MN is safe from the threats that are known to be active on other platforms.

Mumsnet claims a monthly reach of eight million, including one in three women aged 35–54. Would you say that's insignificant?

Regarding the demographic. A previous MN survey suggested that 98% of respondents voted in all or most general elections. So more politically engaged than the average citizen, it would seem?

So why is it fanciful to think that MN might be targeted? What exactly is it about the reach and demographic that makes you think MN is immune? Is it because site users are predominantly female that you think they wouldn't be targeted or is it something else?

Targeted by whom and to what end?
Have you shared your concerns with MN?
If not, why not?
If you have, how did they respond?

BIWI · 15/10/2026 12:37

Curbedenthusiasm · 14/10/2026 17:40

Thanks for your view - interesting.

Noted.

So what is your view then?

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 15/10/2026 12:40

Curbedenthusiasm · 15/10/2026 12:36

Planet Zog.

Dismissing people with ridicule does not answer the question nor add to the debate.

Please just give us a well-reasoned response to the question.

Or are you struggling to come up with one?

OP posts:
MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 15/10/2026 12:44

Curbedenthusiasm · 15/10/2026 12:37

Targeted by whom and to what end?
Have you shared your concerns with MN?
If not, why not?
If you have, how did they respond?

Concerns have been raised with MNHQ on this and similar threads. Their current position is already stated on the thread. Have you not read it?

With regard to the question of who might be targeting the British public and to what ends, I refer you to the recent statement from the Director of MI5, which has already been referenced above.

Now, back to my question. It has been established by reliable sources that bad actors are using social media platforms to target the British public and create division. Please can you explain why you think it's fanciful to suggest that MN could ever be the target of such activity.

OP posts:
Curbedenthusiasm · 15/10/2026 12:45

No pile ons, please.
It’s against TG.

A poster has hypothesised that MN is targeted by bad actors - I have asked them to support their assertion, and await them.

BIossomtoes · 15/10/2026 12:46

Curbedenthusiasm · 15/10/2026 12:45

No pile ons, please.
It’s against TG.

A poster has hypothesised that MN is targeted by bad actors - I have asked them to support their assertion, and await them.

A number of us have asserted it and explained why.

Curbedenthusiasm · 15/10/2026 12:48

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 15/10/2026 12:44

Concerns have been raised with MNHQ on this and similar threads. Their current position is already stated on the thread. Have you not read it?

With regard to the question of who might be targeting the British public and to what ends, I refer you to the recent statement from the Director of MI5, which has already been referenced above.

Now, back to my question. It has been established by reliable sources that bad actors are using social media platforms to target the British public and create division. Please can you explain why you think it's fanciful to suggest that MN could ever be the target of such activity.

Please see my earlier post, which answers your question.

Guidance from MN of 28 September is clear that you cannot pursue me with the same question, again and again.

BIossomtoes · 15/10/2026 12:49

Curbedenthusiasm · 15/10/2026 12:48

Please see my earlier post, which answers your question.

Guidance from MN of 28 September is clear that you cannot pursue me with the same question, again and again.

Yet that’s precisely what you are doing.