Name changing should be limited.

[MrMurphysComeuppance]

There have been several discussions recently about the number of very formulaic and almost certainly fake dilemma/ AIBU threads, always designed to strongly polarise opinion or get people's backs up somehow, always started by brand new user names who are never seen again outside of that thread.

These posters rarely or never even bother to engage much in the thread they started, while it rumbles on for pages and pages without them. It's pissing quite a few people off and ultimately leading to the dumbing down and 'enshittification' of the forum.

It's been discussed at length who might be motivated to do this and why, but pretty simple to stop, or at least massively curtail those sorts of threads.

I appreciate the ability to name change and I do it fairly often to keep as anonymous as possible, like many people. Gone are they days where we have one user name for years, everyone knows us by it and anyone who wanted to piece together our life story and therefore our real identity could do so.

However, is it really necessary to have unlimited name changes with no restrictions on the frequency at all? Of course it isn't. As it is, I could literally start twenty fake threads a day under twenty different user names and not engage with any of them beyond my OP, or engage on anyone else's threads either. Just sit there all day long creating fake threads to wind 'em up and watch 'em go. Rinse and repeat daily for a year. It could be my job. I mean it's clearly someone's job.

Is this really the forum anyone wants?

Why not limit the number of name changes a person can have in a week? Or certainly within a day. That would be easy for tech to do and would not stop people being able to name change for their own genuine and valid reasons. But let's be honest, no real poster has ten of those reasons in one week all requiring a separate user name, do they?

It's been suggested that clicking on a user name could show the number of posts (or threads started) under THAT NAME ONLY, how many other user names they have had under that account,and the date that account was registered. Obviously you wouldn't show their other names so there could be no cross referencing, but it would highlight the people/bots who are only here to create fake content multiple times a day. If you've had 30 user names in 36 days something's not quite cricket, is it?

Of course all of this assumes MNHQ actually wants to stamp out fake content that is irritating the hell out of many of us. Does it?

MNHQ have no interest in stamping out fake posts because it is that content that is driving the advertising revenue

It generates money. That's it.

It's been suggested that clicking on a user name could show the number of posts (or threads started) under THAT NAME ONLY, how many other user names they have had under that account,and the date that account was registered. Obviously you wouldn't show their other names so there could be no cross referencing, but it would highlight the people/bots who are only here to create fake content multiple times a day.

I think that's a really good suggestion OP.

Last night's absolure deluge of ridiculous threads was just so.damaging to the credibility of the site. I know it's been steadily getting worse but last night was out of order. It must be really putting off genuine posters from starting threads. And putting off genuine pp bothering to engage with threads - it's certainly having that affect on me.

From experience, this suggestion will come to nothing (it has been requested hundreds of times before).

Well it does until the forum plumbs such depths of nonsense that most of us humans can't be bothered to be here at all any more.

We'll surely reach some sort of tipping point where the vast majority of threads are fake and there is such a lack of engagement from humans who clearly see it that the bots start engaging with themselves and one another, just to make something move along.

When the advertisers catch on that the only 'posters' engaging and therefore being exposed to their ads are not actually human, the whole business model implodes. MN will finally have eaten itself.

Probably. But if it's no I'd like to hear MNHQ say no and give their reasons why, instead of just ignoring it.

Why is it though? There used to be tons and tons of genuine, interesting, funny, moving, educative and engaging content and debate created by actual humans.

The more of this made up shit we tolerate the less of the good stuff we get, because most reasonably discerning people have given up and gone.

They probably use disposable email addresses to sign up so have no need to name change.

Given that someone admitted to putting a load of posts and usernames through AI to analyse arguing style and decide what people were like, I think limiting the ability to name change would be disastrous.

And it’s probably best not to get emotionally invested in posting history.

Maybe an anonymous poster option would be easier than multiple names changes to avoid outing.

I change my name regularly to keep anonymous.

sometimes if I answer a question with quite a bit of honest information in , I change my name afterwards to stop people potentially finding out who I am

I agree with once a day limit - but as with everything else, it’s driven by money

I'm sure they do, but that takes a considerable amount of effort and maybe there is a limit to how many email addresses you can sign up for from one email provider in a given space of time? What they really want once they have an MN account is to be able to name change multiple times a day within that account.

But assuming what you say is true, then we'll be able to see that that 'poster' just signed up to MN today, won't we? That in itself doesn't mean they are not genuine, lots of people sign up in order to start a specific conversation, but it can at least alert us early to the fact that we might be having our time wasted, if the thread fits the formula that most of these fake threads tend to follow.

What you'd normally expect to see is that a genuine user would feel their way around the forum, dipping in and out of other people's threads and engaging across the board, not just starting one thread then disappearing forever. Either immediately leaving or immediately name changing. That doesn't happen unless you are up to no good, either trolling or blatantly engagement farming.

Apologies for hi jacking your thread but when I attempt to change names it won't allow me to any advice please?

Why not limit any person to a maximum of three user names? That would enable someone to post something embassaing without saying who they are.

Hello @MrMurphysComeuppance and thanks for posting.

We appreciate how annoying it is when a troll wastes people's time. We don't want that here and when we do have sufficient cause to think someone isn't on the level, we will remove them and their posts.

Limiting name changes would not put off someone determined enough to troll, we don't think. Trolls can make new accounts or use disposable email addresses and any restriction would mainly affect genuine users who name-change to protect their privacy when posting about personal or identifiable matters.

We have already stopped people changing names within a thread they have posted on, specifically to prevent them appearing to be different contributors in the same conversation. We would be very wary of showing account age or a person’s wider posting history, though as that would surely undermine the anonymity name-changing is there to provide, and it would encourage people to assume that every new-looking poster is suspect.

And, just to address this directly as it comes up quite often - no, fake content is not good for Mumsnet. The point of Talk is real people having useful, funny, supportive and sometimes argumentative conversations.

We do investigate reports and act where we find trolling. Please keep reporting threads that concern you. We’ll take the feedback about name changes away, but we would need to be convinced that a limit would deter bad actors without making it harder for genuine users to stay anonymous.

Thank you
MNHQ

Agree, it's more likely to be a problem with spammers, bots and trolls who create multiple new accounts, and wind-up merchants who change name to lob in a goady thread once in a while.

But this isn't about 'trolls' in the traditional sense, is it? I think you know that very well but you are avoiding the conversation. I don't know how much clearer I and several others can be about the types of wholesale, manufactured engagement farming threads we are talking about.

This is specifically about the practise of one or several account holders creating a new name for each and every thread, where they pretend to have a dilemma or a problem they want opinions on, usually with someone behaving appallingly or in a very entitled way at the heart of it.

They never engage in anyone else's threads, just start one thread per user name, hang around just long enough to get that thread going, then they bugger off to start a new thread under a new name. Over and over and over again. Like a thread production factory. Absolutely zero interest in joining in the debate they started and zero interest in coming back to respond to the people who have taken time to advise them on their fake 'problem.'

Unlike your actual troll, they don't crave the personal attention or the validation, or get off on the argument they've started, or the offence they've caused. THEY AREN'T EVEN READING! THEY'VE MOVED ON!!! They've got a target of lots of threads to start in a day and the clock is ticking. They've probably name changed and started another thread already, where they are completely different person to the one they were half an hour ago. Hence the need for an immediate name change, so they don't have to remember to carry any themes or backstories from one thread to another.

At least most trolls have the decency to have some consistency in their own fake story and keep coming back to string it out with outlandish updates for days on end. These engagement farming posters don't even bother to do that.

Limiting name changes would not put off someone determined enough to troll, we don't think.

It would certainly curtail it and make it significantly harder to do that sort of thing, don't you think? Why would you not want to make things harder for them, if, as you say, fake content is bad for MN?

Just put a limit on the frequency with which someone can create a new user name. No-one should be able to create a new user name within 7 days of their last NEW name. They could still NC back and forth between the user names they already have, just not create any new ones without waiting 7 days in between them. Even that is far more generous than it needs to be. Personally I'd do a month. Facebook makes you wait three months between name changes.

any restriction would mainly affect genuine users who name-change to protect their privacy when posting about personal or identifiable matters.

Oh come on now, that argument simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. No genuine poster needs to create a new name daily, or even weekly in order to protect their anonymity. That's just ridiculous.

We appreciate how annoying it is when a troll wastes people's time.

And, just to address this directly as it comes up quite often - no, fake content is not good for Mumsnet.

While you continue to avoid taking any of the obvious steps to make it harder to post fake content or to troll, that just sounds like patronising, disingenuous and dismissive lip service.

The point of Talk is real people having useful, funny, supportive and sometimes argumentative conversations.

Yes, it is. Which is why it's important that you do what you can to retain whatever genuine 'funny, supportive and sometimes argumentative' posters you still have here, instead of alienating them by sitting back and allowing the site to be swamped by fake AI nonsense for the traffic and the £££.

It might seem good for business right now, but eventually all the bots and engagement farmers will simply be talking to one another because all the interesting humans with half a brain and any money to spend will have gone. And then who will see the advertising that people pay you for?

I do not want any restriction on how often I name change thank you (normally about once a fortnight whenever one of my long running threads re-starts, I'm on about 6 of these) but when I decide to do it I want to do it there and then.

Are these mostly in AIBU? I have had that hidden for years. I do see threads like this in chat sometimes but if after posting once the OP hasn't re-engaged next time I look in I just remove the thread from TIO and that's the end of that. There is still plenty of good discussion on MN.

I agree OP.

But this has come up repeatedly in the 15 years I've used MN and if you're lucky, you'll get a 'We'll look into it/discuss it' from MNHQ but nothing ever happens.

I know, but since AI it's got really, really out of hand and it's dumbing down the site to the point that it's a joke. It sometimes feels like nothing is real outside of things like the feminism, education and pregnancy boards any more. Certainly on AIBU and Relationships it's absolutely riddled with AI fake content. I can tell them a mile off.

I've said before, if people are happy to contribute to WWYD? type hypothetical scenarios then let's just do that. People will still engage if it's an interesting enough topic to discuss.

Why the need to keep name changing in order to pretend there are real people behind these fake dilemmas? Especially as AI can't yet quite write in a way that feels authentic and plausible, continually repeating the same hackneyed phrases and predictable construction patterns across all these posts supposedly written by different people. It's dishonest, patronising and bloody tedious.

Why not limit any person to a maximum of three user names?

I've been here years. I namechange fairly regularly, and especially if I think I've given away too much personal info over a few threads. A limit of three usernames would be no use to me or I suspect many others.

If there's a thread with many pages of replies, I always look to see how often the op has replied before I start reading. If no op replies after 2-3 pages, I don't bother with it.

Yeah, it's just not a good idea.

I'm not saying there's no downsides, but this is a site that's hugely popular and contains people discussing mundane things that are often very recognisable if you piece them together. It isn't going to work if people can't namechange a lot, when they want.

And even relatively minor restrictions like the ones OP wants will still be easily got round by anyone with a particular interest and half an hour.

If you make people post for a reasonable amount of time under one name , I’m willing to bet AI could make a reasonable stab at your previous user names based on vocabulary, typing style and topics of interest

I think being limited to say 15 or 20 names per account, or no more than say 10 new user names per year, and being limited to one newly created user name in a seven day period is more than fair. It very adequately protects our anonymity. You should still be able to swap back and forth between the names you already have, just not start endless new ones on a daily basis.