The MN Mail Column - what we think, and what we plan to do next... part 2

[whataboutthisone]

Firstly, I am a regular but have created a new name for this.

My thoughts about what I know so far:

1. In a much earlier post there was a discussion about a change in T&Cs and whether they are valid or not. Several years ago I took a company to court for a breach of their T&Cs. Their argument was that they had changed T&Cs and my complaint was therefore no longer valid. However, the judge said that because I had not specifically been asked to accept the new T&Cs, I was entitled to rely on the ones I had accepted and therefore I won my case.

1. I choose to post on MN in the knowledge that the details I give are probably just obscure enough to anyone I may know in RL who also posts, so that what I say still effectively remains private. However, that doesn't mean that the same could be said of, for instance, my mother, who reads the DM (!) There is probably just enough about my circumstances that would enable her to put 2+2 together. I would like the option to choose whether or not I let my Mum ( or anyone else in RL) in on certain areas of my life, and there is a real possibility that this hack, has taken that choice away from me.

1. I have never ( and now will never) post asking for advice, but I will also be very careful about offering advice in the future. I, along with many others, occasionally use examples from my life to explain where I am coming from. If I continue to do that, as I said earlier, it is possible that some people would be able to work out who I am. Now, I am not so big-headed as to believe that any advice I offer is worth taking, however, there are many fantastic posters on here who do give amazing and insightful advice based on their own experiences. It would be a real shame if that was to stop because they, like me, do not want to share some of those experiences with the folk they are close to in RL. It would also be a real tragedy if others were prevented from asking for help for the same reasons.

I am very disappointed that any MNer would feel it is acceptable to violate the trust we place in each other on this forum. I do not know who she is. I do not want to know who she is. But I hope she is hanging her head in shame for breaching the trust that has been placed in her by everyone whose words she has stolen to make a few bucks!

incidentally, how long has chat been running?

The thing is BA, you didn't just learn your lesson did you? You learned your lesson and had all your posts deleted to make sure it didn't happen again and there were no further consequences.

Fair enough, I did/do see the need and agree with that decision (not that my agreement means much but YKWIM).

However you are sitting here now saying oh what is the problem, you should all know better, stop worrying, get a life and so on to everyone else. How come you can, not only learn your lesson, but also have your mistake (and everything else you ever said) erased for good measure but the rest of us have to put up and shut up?

You should know full well what the problem is here I am not sure why you feel the need to be pushing this seeing as you are probably the only (or one of a tiny tiny group of)current poster(s) on this site who should definitly not be adversly affected by it all but it is a bit rich - to say the least.

hmmm. i think if people post non-chat in chat they do sometimes get slapped wrists, i'm sure i've seen that.

but my oh my, i'm getting increasingly irritated by the fact that Enid saw fit to snide MP on here but can't be arsed to sully her fine-boned fingers with any actual typing on MN. oh yes. i didn't mention at the time because of general etc but WHAT a way for a person to behave.

True, furious, and Good Advice.

Kitstwins post of 11:29:42, pretty much sums up how I feel (I would have copied and pasted the whole post, but wasn't sure it was appropriate!)

If a journalist started a thread asking for opinions or quotes on a particular subject, i would post quite happily, but if I opened the Daily Mail and read, "Hazeyjane had ....this....to say about her miscarriage (or whatever)" then I would be pretty gutted. And yes I am fully aware that it is a public forum etc, but just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should do something (IYSWIM)

agreed, kits post was excellent imo.

BA - the idea of DM changing all the posting names over is a good one, but realistically how much likely are the DM to do that? whereas deleting people's past posts would be something wholly within MNHQ control. I think in the light of this wake up call as to possibilities of real life identification, MN should allow a one-off mass deletion. Surely it would only be less than 1% of regulars who would want such a thing anyway?

I've come back from the dead with a few thoughts.

1. The search facility should be only available to people who pay a mumsnet subscription.

2. If a MNer is searched by name, the MNer being searched should be informed that eg Enid searched Morningpaper (and give the parameters of the search). That seems entirely reasonable to me. (Perhaps this would have the added blessing of curtailing the calling of trolls.)

3. The should be a rule of honour (to add to the terms and conditions), that no mumsnetter will attribute posts of her fellow Mumsnetters without their express permission and the permission of MNHQ, notwithstanding Fair Use/Fair Dealing.

Re the DM article (s). It would have been just as good unattributed, actually. Poster1, poster2, poster3 etc.

I'd also like to tell MNHQ that I am no longer comfortable with sharing my expertise online as the t&c make doing so heavily laden with responsibility. But I might continue to offer you all my opinion on the Boden collections.

So I intend to use Mumsnet rather differently. Feeling less of a responsibility for the Mumsnet community, as it really isn't a community unless other Mumsnetters and MNHQ think it is too.

The people who are downplaying the importance in the changes in the T & C are perhaps the same people who think the results of a referendum will be the same however the question is framed.

DM changing poster's names wouldn't achieve anything - a quick search quoting the user would reveal the MN name

"1) The search facility should be only available to people who pay a mumsnet subscription."

I reckon the DM could afford to stump up for a subscription for one of their journos - or any other paper for that matter.

"2) If a MNer is searched by name, the MNer being searched should be informed that eg Enid searched Morningpaper (and give the parameters of the search). That seems entirely reasonable to me. (Perhaps this would have the added blessing of curtailing the calling of trolls.)"

But if I search for your posts under the name "Not really a journo" and then change to "Just an innocentMNerguvnor" and search again, you won't be any the wiser.

maybe we should be allowed to delete if we pay CAT fee? and they should anonymise archive after a year?

1. and 2) would make no difference because the site is on Google, so you can use Google, or one of the many talkboard site searchers, to find any information that you want.

I don't think it is a few journalists that Swedes is trying to stop searching, OQMITDT. Rather, the hordes of prurient DM readers who will register on MN to find out more about the drama they've read unfolding on the page with their morning rage coffee.

OQMTT - If you searched for me under the terms you mentioned you wouldn't get any of my posts.

Aitch. MNHQ could offer deletion buffets on given days - all you can delete for a tenner.

I think what you say is a good idea.

Smartarse

MP has a point though, Google makes paid search redundant. if I type

"by swedes" mumsnet

into Google and tell it to "repeat the search with the omitted results included.", I get 1,950 results. "By morningpaper" yields 8210 results. A little easier than MN's 500 result restriction.

ok, a quick google reveals in the reigon of 10,000 posts on mumsnet by me.... and that was only the names I could think of off the top of my head - just 3 of them.

Shocked - me?

I think I may need to address my habit

i am Too Scared to search.

Gosh don't ever google yourself or you'll go INSANE

That means I must have posted at least 6 posts per day every single day of the year for the last 6 years... and I am pretty certain it may be quite a bit higher than that.

Blimmin Nora

Marking place, back laters