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:
BIossomtoes · 15/10/2026 14:10

Curbedenthusiasm · 15/10/2026 13:30

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…..

They’re not interested in the politically engaged who have already worked out where their loyalties lie. They’re targeting floating voters and aiming to convert those who are most susceptible to them.

Curbedenthusiasm · 15/10/2026 15:22

BIossomtoes · 15/10/2026 14:10

They’re not interested in the politically engaged who have already worked out where their loyalties lie. They’re targeting floating voters and aiming to convert those who are most susceptible to them.

Thanks.

I wonder what the ROI is? Seems like an awful lot of work to attempt to turn an individual voter. And how do they measure their KPI’s etc?

Surprised MN has not issued some kind of formal guidance in order to protect the ‘most susceptible’.

I shall be vigilant going forward.

BeethovenNinth · 16/10/2026 06:45

It was my friend who posted multiple times about shutting schools and a rushed vaccine. She worded it carefully but MN emailed to say her views were indeed “conspiracy theory”

which is now another way to shut down debate. Along with screens of “far right” and “transphobia”

“I may not agree with what you say you but I willl defend to the end your right to say it”.

noblegiraffe · 16/10/2026 07:10

i remember over Covid reporting a poster who claimed that the vaccine was invented by the Jews to turn us all into robots.

I'm not sure I'll defend anyone's right to say that.

BeethovenNinth · 16/10/2026 08:08

Why Noble?

any sane and normal person would read that comment and think it was utter nonsense and written by someone who is clearly disturbed. The conversation then moves on. These are the extremes of course. But there is an enormous middle ground of opinions and statements we all have to agree or disagree with and if you try to police it then it is an impossible task with no ultimate orator of “truth”

interestingly, we saw that post Covid, there is now huge vaccine mistrust and lower uptake due to the silencing of debate at the time.

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 16/10/2026 08:19

BeethovenNinth · 16/10/2026 08:08

Why Noble?

any sane and normal person would read that comment and think it was utter nonsense and written by someone who is clearly disturbed. The conversation then moves on. These are the extremes of course. But there is an enormous middle ground of opinions and statements we all have to agree or disagree with and if you try to police it then it is an impossible task with no ultimate orator of “truth”

interestingly, we saw that post Covid, there is now huge vaccine mistrust and lower uptake due to the silencing of debate at the time.

Are you seriously suggesting that offensive antisemitic content should be allowed to stand?

OP posts:
noblegiraffe · 16/10/2026 08:19

BeethovenNinth · 16/10/2026 08:08

Why Noble?

any sane and normal person would read that comment and think it was utter nonsense and written by someone who is clearly disturbed. The conversation then moves on. These are the extremes of course. But there is an enormous middle ground of opinions and statements we all have to agree or disagree with and if you try to police it then it is an impossible task with no ultimate orator of “truth”

interestingly, we saw that post Covid, there is now huge vaccine mistrust and lower uptake due to the silencing of debate at the time.

Because people should be allowed to peddle antisemitic conspiracy theories? Do you defend people's right to be racist on MN in other ways? Or do you draw the line somewhere?

Curbedenthusiasm · 16/10/2026 08:20

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 16/10/2026 08:19

Are you seriously suggesting that offensive antisemitic content should be allowed to stand?

For context, MN evidently allows other equally offensive material to stand, even after entreaties to remove it.

noblegiraffe · 16/10/2026 08:20

Curbedenthusiasm · 16/10/2026 08:20

For context, MN evidently allows other equally offensive material to stand, even after entreaties to remove it.

Edited

Yes, well we all agree that MN's moderation is dodgy or we wouldn't be on this thread.

Curbedenthusiasm · 16/10/2026 08:21

noblegiraffe · 16/10/2026 08:20

Yes, well we all agree that MN's moderation is dodgy or we wouldn't be on this thread.

Dodgy? That’s one way of describing it.

My point was to the PP.

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 16/10/2026 08:23

Curbedenthusiasm · 16/10/2026 08:20

For context, MN evidently allows other equally offensive material to stand, even after entreaties to remove it.

Edited

Yes, and I frequently complain to them about their failure to take down deeply offensive content.

The consistency of MN's moderation is one thing, but the pp seems to be arguing that deeply offensive antisemitic material should be left to stand. That is a question about principle, and not one about the extent to which practice is consistent.

I cannot support the idea that racist or antisemitic posts should be left to stand.

OP posts:
TemperanceWest · 16/10/2026 09:09

Curbedenthusiasm · 16/10/2026 08:20

For context, MN evidently allows other equally offensive material to stand, even after entreaties to remove it.

Edited

MNHQ is pretty good at removing racism and anti-semitism. Terrible at removing ableism though and always has been. So I agree.

noblegiraffe · 16/10/2026 09:19

Opinions clearly vary as to how good MNHQ are at removing racism and antisemitism.

BIossomtoes · 16/10/2026 09:20

interestingly, we saw that post Covid, there is now huge vaccine mistrust and lower uptake due to the silencing of debate at the time.

Less due to silencing debate and more due to crackpot theories like the one you quoted earlier. You’re making a compelling argument for their removal.

EasternStandard · 16/10/2026 09:22

noblegiraffe · 16/10/2026 08:20

Yes, well we all agree that MN's moderation is dodgy or we wouldn't be on this thread.

It’s not dodgy. It sometimes gets it wrong and we’ll all have different examples of that.

I’m glad they respond as they do on each of these threads. Plus it’s a site for more opinions than BlueSky. It’s not going to be that, tg.

TemperanceWest · 16/10/2026 09:29

What has BlueSky got to do with MN? It is a completely different format, a version of X.

mumumental · 16/10/2026 09:30

noblegiraffe · 16/10/2026 09:19

Opinions clearly vary as to how good MNHQ are at removing racism and antisemitism.

Depending on one’s definition, obviously.

TemperanceWest · 16/10/2026 09:32

noblegiraffe · 16/10/2026 09:19

Opinions clearly vary as to how good MNHQ are at removing racism and antisemitism.

Actually now I think about it, maybe I was being too generous.

TemperanceWest · 16/10/2026 09:33

EasternStandard · 16/10/2026 09:22

It’s not dodgy. It sometimes gets it wrong and we’ll all have different examples of that.

I’m glad they respond as they do on each of these threads. Plus it’s a site for more opinions than BlueSky. It’s not going to be that, tg.

Edited

It is not dodgy in your opinion. Many of us disagree.

EasternStandard · 16/10/2026 09:40

TemperanceWest · 16/10/2026 09:33

It is not dodgy in your opinion. Many of us disagree.

And? It’s not compulsory to be on here in any case. If BlueSky or wherever has the amenable opinions then go with that.

Many are constantly trying to change mn, even advertisers threatened over women’s rights and mnhq stood strong. Good on them.

noblegiraffe · 16/10/2026 09:47

"It's not dodgy, it sometimes gets it wrong" potato potahto

TemperanceWest · 16/10/2026 09:48

EasternStandard · 16/10/2026 09:40

And? It’s not compulsory to be on here in any case. If BlueSky or wherever has the amenable opinions then go with that.

Many are constantly trying to change mn, even advertisers threatened over women’s rights and mnhq stood strong. Good on them.

Why do you keep going on about Bluesky? I am not on it and don't want to be.

You appear to be suggesting this thread is about people being unhappy that others have opinions different to their own. It isn't. Perhaps read the whole thread to better grasp what is actually being debated?

EasternStandard · 16/10/2026 09:51

noblegiraffe · 16/10/2026 09:47

"It's not dodgy, it sometimes gets it wrong" potato potahto

Not at all. I’ve seen a few deletions where I’ve thought hang on why. And others will focus on different ones. That’s the nature of moderation on a site like this.

Still if people think they’re dodgy idk why people would stay. There’s other platforms.

I’m pleased mnhq have responded on all these types of threads as they do. It’s a site for different political views which some won’t like.

BIossomtoes · 16/10/2026 09:56

It’s got nothing to do with different political views. The subject of the thread is misinformation, ie truth. Facts are facts, they’re not the same as opinion. There’s a notable inconsistency in the moderation here with removing opinion presented as fact. Enough posters have observed and commented on it for it to be undeniable.

TemperanceWest · 16/10/2026 09:56

EasternStandard · 16/10/2026 09:51

Not at all. I’ve seen a few deletions where I’ve thought hang on why. And others will focus on different ones. That’s the nature of moderation on a site like this.

Still if people think they’re dodgy idk why people would stay. There’s other platforms.

I’m pleased mnhq have responded on all these types of threads as they do. It’s a site for different political views which some won’t like.

It’s a site for different political views which some won’t like

You are still not understanding the issue. It is not about differing political views.

Swipe left for the next trending thread