The MN Mail Column - what we think, and what we plan to do next...

[JustineMumsnet]

Evening all - sorry for general absence today - niece's birthday do, packing for hol etc, etc.

So, thank you to everyone for your input on this particular issue. It's been a thought-provoking debate and clearly strong views prevail about exactly how much of a enhanced security risk publication of this column means to Mumsnetters.

We tend in broad terms to come down on the side of the risk being pretty much as it ever was fence but we also buy the argument that there is certainly an increased risk of identification/embarrassment or worse for the OP of a chosen thread - particularly if it of a very personal nature.

We would say as we always have that you should always bear in mind this is a public forum, searchable by Google, legally quotable by all and linkable to by all and sundry.

Clearly having an open forum brings with it risks but it also brings with it great benefits we've always felt. Openness means volume of users and volume of users means Mumsnet in its many guises is available to anyone who needs advice 24-7. It also means fresh faces, differing points of view and debate, and the wisdom that comes from a very big crowd - wrong or dangerous advice doesn't tend to last very long on MN.

Whether the risks outweigh the rewards for each individual only they can decide. Clearly there are basic things you can and should do to protect yourself (ie not reveal basic contact info, namechange to reveal personal stuff etc etc). And bear in mind we are always happy to delete injudicious posts - just report them if you're worried about having revealed too much.

Putting the general risk stuff to one side however, we recognise that many folk (understandably) have qualms not just about being quoted in general but being quoted by the Daily Mail in particular.

If I could just reiterate that this column was not our idea and neither did we know anything about it until it appeared. Neither the journalist involved nor anyone from the DM contacted us about running it beforehand. (And if those of you who are convinced we're lying to you about that keep on impugning our good name, there's nowt for it, we're going to have to sue you for libel ).

In fact the first contact we had was this week (only after the column was brought to our attention by a Mumsnet thread about it) when I wrote to the author of the item in question - whose name we recognised as a Mumsnetter - to ask whether the Mail were planning on this being a regular thing.

At that point we, wrongly we now think having had a chat with a lawyer, didn't believe that we had any redress anyway (see endless posts about the journalistic defense of fair use) but we were, privately, a little surprised that they'd not consulted us.

Whilst we shared/share some of your misgivings about the idea of a MN-DM collaboration, I was, for sure heartened by the fact that the item was being written by a Mumsnetter who, though I don't know her personally, always seemed to be well respected by lots of Mumsnetters. I am quite sure after a couple of email exchanges with Leah Hardy, that she has/had no wish to sensationalise events on Mumsnet and that she would endeavour to protect people's identities. I'm also sure that she didn't feel she was compromising anyone's identity more than they'd already been compromised by posting on a public forum. We do think some of the comments about her have been overly harsh. After all many on here do that she's done nowt wrong in lifting quotes save perhaps for not consulting with us at HQ. That may be because she wouldn't think we could possibly object to her giving Mumsnet weekly publicity - as I've said before most websites/PRs would be in a frenzy of excitement about the Daily Mail doing a weekly column about them. But I don't know that's why, I'm just speculating. She could equally have meant to and forgotten or the dog could have eaten her email. It would be better if she'd come on to talk for herself than me blathering on - maybe she will at some point.

Whatever, we don't think that her actions deserve the general vilification/ outings/ witchunt she's received - bet there are a fair few MN journalists who would love a crack the same gig - maybe for a different publication, but still.

Anyhoo that's all history - sorry for banging on but wanted to be clear - the real question now is what next?

Well... we tend to agree with the view that it's this is not an ideal collaboration for Mumsnet - particularly as we have no editorial control over what gets chosen/ printed etc. So we plan to contact the daily mail on Monday and let them know have we feel about it. We promise to keep you posted about their response.

That's it really. Tanks again to all for your input - please don't interpret any future periods of silence as us hiding under the bed, swigging from the bottle and hoping things go away. It's much more likely to be because I'm going off on hols tomorrow and we're thin on the ground and the DM may not respond straight way but I'll aim to make some calls as soon as I'm on board ship!

ps a few more answers to some direct questions...

Someone asked about stats in response to the DM column. Our stats for thursday don't seem to show any marked influx of new people either in page impressions or new registrations

MaggieBeauLeo asked about a facility to allow members to delete their own posts - we don't think it works for a board like ours tbh - if you're catching up with a thread and the post that someone's agreeing with/taken issue with has been deleted it essentially makes a nonsense of the boards...

Someone else asked about making search for nicknames available only to those who'd paid a CAT. It's certainly a thought but we'd hate to make MN function less well for the majority unless it was for something really wanted by folk - we would welcome further thoughts.

As said we are working on private boards for particular subject groups - which would not be easily mineable for quotes or indexable by Google - they should be here in a couple of months at the latest. We'll keep you posted about their ETA and how they'll work.

"our" politics? aitch you have given yourself a generous remit

and I speak as a born and bred Labour voter, picket, demonstrator and a few other things extremely unlikely to endear myself to the Mail demographic

no, not all papers give these issues such prominence

however, my list was rather glib and careless when it comes to the very serious issues which can be dealt with very sensitively here and I apologise for that

Also must add that I have a very robust respect almost amounting to awe for the extensive knowledge some have in their particular issue

what I'm saying is, the image is Mail. That's why the Mail bought it, that's why she sold it.

Political discourse is one thing, and yes, a niche MN topic. However politics is not merely restricted to the immediate concerns of political life, it informs all our lives and our attitudes. The DM has an political attitude towards life that many here disagree with, and feel is objectionable.

And come to think of it, MN copyright has already been established through the publication of the MN books.

KingCanuteIAmAndTheDMCanFOff - I think that even if the Daily Mail feature is a regular one, taking 174 words from a thread that has 1,475 would not legally be breaking the law.
Reading the thousands of posts over the last 24 hours, to me is appears the real problem with many members is that the feature appeared in the Daily Mail and not The Guardian !

The different slant that the mail has is everything on certain issues

If someone is looking for advice on a benefits claim becuase say they are a carer- what slant will the Mail give that? Or soemone is looking for help with a child who has SN (and quite possibly an SN that Mail readers as a specific target group 'know' are made up) and is trashing their nice middle calss school? Or someone who is here homeless but perhaps mentions that they are an asylum seeker?

That twists eerthing

What happens when posts are edited. We say we're happy-

Ok

' made up scenario

' My DH just called the GP a bitch and hit her ahrd. He actually has advanced alzheimers and cannot help it, but can this be used as evidence of needing supervision on his DLA claim- I have a poor grasp of English so am struggling with it'.......

edited to

' MY DH just called the GP a bitch and hit her..... I am not English, can I get benefits?'

There may be nothing we can do about it, still scary though. Not for me now, but for people who pass by say next week when we've all done the

thing and poeple get back to normal.

PrincessT- its not for the main an apology people want

It just isn't

Priyag, I agree that a lot of people are not happy that it is in the DM but I don't think many have said they would be perfectly happy if it were the Gaurdian. Even if they have please do not try to tar us all with the snobbery brush in an attempt to make yourself sound good. If you have indeed read the 1000s of posts then you will be well aware it is more than snobbery for the vast majority of people.

For me the issue is that it is the mail, I probably would not have an issue with the Guardian or Independant using any of my posts. Infact I have contributed to articles in the past with these newspapers, not from here though.

I would not want anything I have posted on here to be used as Daily Mail fodder.

I'm much more concerned about Mumsnet's swingeing copyright policy. Especially if Mumsnet aren't going to use it to protect their members, even when their members' best interests definitely aren't being served.

PT I am sad 6that she didnt at the very minimum CAT td and say shit I fucked up sorry

I dunno, maybe she will

Canute, you are right, the principle's the same, guardian or mail is tangential

but I don't understand how it's snobby to notice that the focus of ire has been equally shared between the principle and the outlet, especially given how much people really hate the Mail on here

on the point of principle, i think it shouldn't happen in any paper without some kind of vote, and if anyone is to make money out of it, it should be the people that set it up

Message deleted by The Daily Mail.

AlistairSim

I would think that if MN were not prepared or able, for whatever reason, to assert copyright, then copyright assignment in the t's and cs should be scrapped and should revert to mnetters.

Then we can have a groovy class action against the DM!

Anyway, I do hope it turns out to be a storm in a hyacinth bucket.

Its the learning curve of new technology.

stuffitlama I disagree that their would be preening if it were the Indie.

There would be the same worry from people who posted here in the belief that whatever they posted would be highly unlikely to come to the attention of people in RL.

And there would be the same consternation that we were not consulted, and for my part, that a journalist should be so unprincipled and lazy as to simply lift stuff from a website

< gets off high horse and adjusts bee-filled bonnet >

Jeez, there, not their

Well, stuffit, its annoying on both counts! That's why people are annoyed about both the principle and the outlet.

I am personally capable of being very very cross indeed about five or six things at a time! Multitasker that I am.

i think there might be a little bit of preening

just enough to spread on toast

but yes all this it's the Mail spawn of the devil does distract from the central principle

I don't care where stuff goes, I think, as long as editorial control is maintained by MNHQ

then we know who to abuse

OK so I posted my idea elsewhere so will share it

Right so this is going to ahppen, yes? What we need is to work with that

We ha4 options:

A. Accept it

B. delete all posts we ever made

C. private rooms- but there's issues about cliqueyness, accessibility iof info and the basic fact of how many people would evven know MN covered if its all locked away?

So I think we need a version of chat with a much shorter delete date- 2, 3 days.

People can post there if its a crises, if its funny but embarassing etc- if they feel they want to share a pic whatever, using a different anme if they need

Poeple can either then say Hi- look we think you belong here and invite them to private rooms, or just help there. If they need certain tpes of help they couild for eg pop a post in SN saying 'emergency threads here'

It could still be picked up if said Journo were sharpish, but when 80,000 paper readers came to search, it would be long gone.

As for the vote thing, in theory we have no right to demand inclusion in those decisions..we assigned copyright to MN. MN can do what they like with the content here. LIke someone else said, they could sell the content to any paper, and then come and tough out the responses.

it being the mail is not the Issue for me.

I just think the whole copyright confusion is a bit pants and perhaps MNHQ should be standing up and sorting that out rather than saying that other journalist posters would probably kill to have the same kind of column. That's just a terrible thing to say IMO.

IMO there's also an issue with the fact that this so called respected regular thought it was a good thing to start this series without 1. checking it was ok first and 2. without getting their facts right.

Another issue is that MNHQ don't seem to really care that much about it.