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.

The idea that allowing an "edit" facility would make threads unreadable is ludicrous. Every other forum I've been on has this option, and they all function fine. Mumsnet is the only forum I've seen where you can't later edit your posts. (One consequence of this is you get people posting extra posts to correct typos or faulty links, which would be unnecessary if they could just go back and correct their original post).

yes, fio, i am TIRED of being lectured that we shouldn't be posting personal details.

maybe we shouldn't, but some of us have, so what are we to do about it?

There are posts from me on the internet from 1993 moaning about my FIRST husband

At that point, "the internet" was basically me and some boys in Pennsylvania

I didn't think my posts would last forever

That's the nature of the internet, TBH, always has been. It's an archive.

"I think some of the problems are that mumsnet has not always been this BIG"

exactly.

Much as people may not like it Mumsnet has become a victim of its own success. With that success comes recognition in the media, the Daily mail debacle is just another example of how big it has become.

Now is the time for MNHQ to start treating mumsnet more like the huge business that it is and that IMO includes taking a look at the ancient style it uses and tightening up its commercial interests etc.

Unfortunatey this will probably result in people just not liking it here any more and leaving for good but I have seen this happen so many times on so many forums... mumsnet is not unique you know, it's all happened before.

I don't agree with wholesale deletions either. Don't post personal information unless you are clear what will happen to it. And if you are not clear then contact the forum owners to check beforehand. This is not rocket science.

Anyone who posts without this knowledge is either dangerously naive or needs their heads examined. This is the internet not a pen friend.

And yes, while the recent copyright notice etc may need a bit more work, it has always been the case previously that MN stated they woned the copyright - so it was not the case that in the past you were guaranteed any more privacy.

so if it's an archive then why can't we delete posts? like EVERY other forum on the interweb?

it does treat us as naughty children i think. when in fact we're naughty adults.

It is the nature of the internet, yes, but mumsnet sells itself as a community. We are fast becoming a community that is never consulted as to our opinion. Plus part of a community is sharing a part of yourself and trying to help others. If people post nothing about themselves, well you lose some of that dont you?

I agree with respect to not thinking your posts will last forever. I think MOST people are quite naive when they begin using forum boards as to what they are actually doing!

You can't delete posts from every other forum - believe me, I've tried

You can't delete from Usenet, google groups, yahoo groups (at least the old stuff, don't know about the new stuff) - I've no idea about other parenting forums

aitch, i love you.xx

You saw what i want to say- and you do it so well.
I ramble and lose the impact.

"Don't post personal information unless you are clear what will happen to it. And if you are not clear then contact the forum owners to check beforehand. This is not rocket science"

no it's not rocket science but it doesn't help the hundreds of people who have already posted personal stuff which may identify them and it doesn't help those who come on here in a panic seeking immediate help where the last thing on their mind is the thought that they may end up in the national press.

Simple fact is there is a forum for media requests, this journalist should have got permission from someone, she didn't, what are mumsnet doing about it?

All they need to do is follow their own bloody procedures rather than saying 'oooh there's loads of journalists on here who would kill for this gig' and 'watch out people, be careful what you post now' which is frankly quite a ridiculous form of defence/excuse and makes me snort with contempt it's so pathetic.

Sorry just seen Fio's post. I agree - MN hasn't always been this big or as widely known, but it has always been public, so there has always been the potential for vast swathes of people to read what is written, and people risk being taken unawares if they post without checkign first what could happen to their posts.

And in the same way that MNetters have often linked to other talk boards, those talk boards will no doubt have linked to MN, and increased the audience that way too.

We are fast becoming a community that is never consulted as to our opinion

This is just insulting

google groups, yahoo groups - these are not Fiorums, they are groups.

But Aitch, MN has always beeb constructed on the basis that it its archive which is so valuable - to change now and allow deletions changes the whole basis. There are other boards which do allow this, so there are alternatives for those people who want the comfort of knowing they can delete things easily - MN isn't a monopoly.

The whole point of mn (to most people who use it) is to share the load of personal problems.

If you take that away then all you've got is where can I find a bicycle seat for a 3 year old etc (nothing wrong with that, but no great shakes).

Even if you change your name and no one is ever going to guess it's you. I bet no one wants to see their marital problem etc in the daily mail. Here, fine that is what they signed up for.

I don't even want deletions from archives, I don't mind the odd quote in the paper, I just don't want this week's round up regurgitating and editing a thread focussing on some poor op who has shared a personal problem.

The are publically searchable

Surely the DM series has only served to highlight the vulnerability of Mumsnetters. It's due to Mumsnet's desire for total control over our posts, both in terms of copyright and not allowing us to delete or amend our own posts.

I quite like the idea of a revisionist Mumsnet. We could go back and replace the word Moldies with Christans and make the whole thing sound much more exciting than it ever was.

"Anyone who posts without this knowledge is either dangerously naive or needs their heads examined. This is the internet not a pen friend."

But I've read posts where the poster has posted in the middle of the night, feeling desperate. Rationally, they may know this is the internet but at that moment they are vulnerable and need an outlet/advice pronto. At that moment they may not be rational.

But I definitely don't want private rooms. Just want to put that on record.

Wht is asking people to take personal responsibility for their actions pathetic? OK so they didn't know what might happen, but more fool them for not checking.

"I don't agree with wholesale deletions either"

me neither. No forum I go on gives a person a choice to elete everything they have ever posted. I suppose they could ask the forum moderators but I think it's a bit cheeky. A facility where individual posts can be edited or deleted by the user is a much more reasonable thing to expect. I would never go to mumsnet and ask for eveything I ever posted to be deleted. I think it's much better to give people control over their own individual posts so they can delete there and then rather than retrospectively when they decide to flounce.

(take the point about panicking by the way, but surely in this instance MNHQ does delete when requeted)

The problem with allowing people to change their posts is that, frankly, they can say something cruel or bitchy and then delete in ten minutes later

Far better to remove that possibility

I'm also against private rooms. Just keep as is, without the crappy DM or any other crappy paper's involvement.

Why is it insulting morningpaper? I have a particular beef about this because I opted OUT of MN books when I joined, whenever it was in history. Imagine my suprise when I am actually featured in the new toddler book I have raised this with Justine and apparently the rules were changed with respect to the books but I was not aware of this and I know other people were not aware of it either. There used to be options to appear in the books under a different name aswell, I am not sure if this is now available. So in my opinion, things are changed without the community being consulted. I am sorry if that insults you.