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

Funny that.

Then, let’s stop.

There isn't a pile on. There are just a number of posters with a different opinion to you.

With regard to the hypothesis that MN might be targeted by bad actors, as already stated, there is an established threat, as referenced recently by the Director of MI5, that bad actors will use social media platforms to create division and drive unrest. MN is a large, predominantly UK-based social media platform with significant reach and a relatively politically engaged user base.

So that's your question answered. Now please could you answer mine? Why do you think MN would not be targeted when other platforms clearly have been?

I decline to answer further, thank you.

If you think state actors only care about the bigger platforms, then I think you are misunderstanding cyber warfare. There’s evidence of much more niche hobby forums than Mumsnet being targeted. Yesterday, a user did share blatant divisive disinformation. That user was banned - presumably because there was enough evidence they may indeed have been a bad faith actor. It is a credit to @BeckyAMumsnet and the team that they acted swiftly, but I do think there needs to be a strengthening of the guidelines so that that kind of deletion can happen more quickly, efficiently and consistently. Otherwise, I think there’s a genuine risk moderate users abandon the site altogether. Allowing hate speech and conspiracy theories to run rife doesn’t help free speech - it harms it.

I referenced that guidance in my OP. Becky's response was to say:

"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."

I have challenged your posts and asked you to explain your assertions. I haven't made any personal attacks or suggested that you are a troll. And I haven't made any accusations about who you are or why you're here. So I don't think that I have broken any talk guidelines by asking you more than once to explain your position.

If you decline to answer any questions, then that's entirely your prerogative.

We will note that the questions remain unanswered.

Mnhq have answered the question anyway. On this and other threads. They haven’t said never. But less likely.

In any case the use of ‘bot’ is so prevalent on here as a form of attack against a different view mnhq deletes it now.

I have certainly reported bad faith actors in the past and MN has banned them. Problem is that they can hide behind VPNs and come back time and time again.

It’s interesting.

I have asked a poster to support their assertion that ‘bad actors’ - able to exert influence - operate on MN.

They have been unable/unwilling to do so - but instead insist on asking me to prove why there are not. That’s now how it works, of course….

Eg. Elvis is living on the moon - prove he isn’t!

That must suck.

Mn is better for deleting all the unfounded ‘bot’ accusations. It was aimed at anyone not Labour pretty much.

It won’t be liked by everyone but it’s not just a site for one political view anyway.

People have already answered your question. You have just declined to engage with their answers.

In all seriousness, if any poster has evidence of a state or proxy bad actor (not simply an MN poster with a differing political view), I would respectfully suggest they inform MN.

FWIW, I'm not a fan of the "bot" accusations either. If someone has suspicions, they should be reported to MN and not accused of being a bot on the threads.

But we should be able to have confidence that MNHQ is alert to the risks and that it has effective mechanisms in place to tackle such issues if and when they arise. My reading of the current MNHQ stance, as stated on this thread, is that they are a little too complacent about the threats for my liking.

I think the ever-returning posters concerned enjoy it tbh. I guess it is part of the game for them.

Yes, there’s often unfounded and non-specific accusations but if someone can specify the poster do it directly to mnhq. Which is what they ask posters to do.

The weird thing is, I understand persistently pursuing people for answers to questions that haven't been answered, and personally, I think that's fair enough - people should be held to account for what they say in a discussion. And if it gets too difficult, people can always choose to walk away.

But in this instance, I think the question has already been answered multiple times, so I'm not quite sure why it's necessary to keep asking it.

Thank you, I agree with your first para, and part of your second para.

I think if multiple long established posters notice a change in posting after a major international event like Russia invading Ukraine, then they are probably more likely to have a better handle of what’s happening than moderators who merely respond to reports on individual posts,

It is, however, very difficult to report a ‘vibe’ or ‘multiple posters posting the same unusual talking points’ so specific evidence may be hard to pin down. That doesn’t mean it isn’t happening though. Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence.

You are perhaps best placed to comment, given your historical reporting of ‘bad faith actors’, as you say.

Thank you. I have had some interesting conversations with MNHQ about this.

Another thing - in my brief experience, I have yet to see anyone influenced, persuaded or coerced to change voting loyalty.

So, the alleged bad actors must be pretty amateurish…..

Did they mention the involvement of any state or proxy bad actors? Only if you can say, of course.

Who was that post you’re replying to aimed at anyway.

The site is better for having more views, rather than the usual you’re all bots if not saying what I want to see. A couple of years ago that was rife but fortunately mnhq delete the same attacks now.

So I suppose it’s the vague inference instead. Mnhq respond the same way to each of these threads.

I don’t think it was aimed at anyone in particular, right @TemperanceWest?

TBF I think everybody on that thread yesterday probably reported that particular poster, because what they shared was so blatantly beyond the pales of legitimate debate.

But the concern is that not all conspiracy theories are as obvious as that. Some are more insidious. And that’s where I do think clearer, more up to date guidelines on hate speech, that take into account particular conspiracy theories, could be useful.