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 Their argument was that they had changed T&Cs and my complaint was therefore no longer valid.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!

I agree threadworm. It just shows how things that look good can come back to bite you on the arse! a bit of free publicity? ok, sweep the whole copyright thing under the carpet, then of course the DM do it, and the outrage it has provoked just points out the flaws in that approach.

To be honest, its not that hard to send a formal notice to all papers legal depts saying usage must be agreed in advance.

Its all a lovely learning curve, innit?

Let's hope the learning curve steepens a bit before the membership flatlines and MNHQ ends up flogging a dead cash cow.

I'm on a metaphor-mixing binge atm, to try to drown my sorrows.

is there a vagueness about copyright?

MN hold the copyright don't they?

is the vague thing not what action against the daily mail is going to be taken?

if i were the poster mentioned, i may consider legal action against the daily mail

Yes. They need to bite the bull before it gets the horn.

I think also we need to think about the different 'hats' that MNHQ wear. Journalists by trade tend to be a lot less definitive about who they work for, and tend to view the whole newspaper community as theirs, so they will place pieces right left and centre, unless they have specific agenda/role/profile in which case they might not publish in the DM, but will probably be mates with lots of folk who work there.

Then they have the MN brand to take care of, and having nurtured the site, the contributers and the image, it has to be protected.

Perhaps when these things clash, the hat swapping gets their heads in a spin, which way to jump? They might personally have no prob with the DM, so have to catch up to the outrage, but they also have to be guardians of the brand, which means being a bit tough about the 'partners' they associate the brand with.

Being lovely people with good intentions, and a desire for a lovely website for mums and wanting to make a business at the same time can pull you in different ways. And issues appear which can challenge current procedure. that's the same for any business.

what they do have to do clamp their business hats on firmly and make sure that their legal rights are protected, because if they are seen not to be protecting themselves, then, perhaps unfairly, they will be seen to not have the backbone to protect MNetters rights (in regard to their interaction with the site, that is).

So, its a question of faith and trust, and showing that the business really does honour those values and will protect them.

Not necessarily with a big old legal fight, but a bit of drawing the line in the sand, and making it very clear to all publications in the future that it is not on, and will not be tolerated.

ANd then to come back and have the debate about the site's tcs and cs. To find a way where we can all protect MN and ourselves within reason, and continue to have faith in the MN product.

And to be fair to MN, we know that they generally are picky about the partners they associate with, and have turned down potential advertising revenue from sources which do not reflect or support or are neutral in regards to the MN brand values.

Lol at biting the bull before it gets the horn, boco. If it MN a cash bull rather than a cash cow that would explain all the bullshit that gets posted.

Surely they didn't run formula ads! That would make the cash cow dry up for sure.

Aitch, I think you know the answer, dont you?

MN is a social enterprise, it says so on the tin homepage. Make of that what you will.

This article is a regular article on mumsnet threads in particular, not various lifted quotes like in the MMC articles, or the whole GF episode. It is specifically looking for threads of interest to regurgitate weekly. There is a pointed difference and I dont understand why people can't seem to grasp that.

How will the DM define what is of interest? Will it be good parenting based? Or rathermore salacious stuff? How far back will they look - they've gone back 6 months on one occasion. MNHQ have plenty of employees and a tech. There is no reason not to delete the posts of those who are worried.

LOLOLOL at asking permission for setting up "the new site".

Here are some examples of fair usage, these quotes illustrate what social enterprises.

Social enterprises are social mission driven organizations which trade in goods or services for a social purpose. Their aim to accomplish targets that are social and environmental as well as financial is often referred to as having a triple bottom line. Social enterprises are profit-making businesses set up to tackle a social or environmental need. They often use blended value business models that combine a revenue-generating business with a social-value-generating structure or component. Many commercial businesses would consider themselves to have social objectives, but social enterprises are distinctive because their social or environmental purpose is central to what they do.
(wikipedia)

Social Entrepreneurs: People who act as the change agents for society, seizing opportunities others miss and improving systems, inventing new approaches, and creating solutions to change society for the better. While a business entrepreneur might create entirely new industries, a social entrepreneur comes up with new solutions to social problems and then implements them on a large scale. (Ashoka)

Social Enterprise: An organization or venture (within an organization) that advances a social mission through entrepreneurial, earned income strategies. (Social Enterprise Alliance)

LOL at the metaphor mixing. You can lead a dead horse to water but you can't make her post.

I was quoted somewhere (Independent?) saying "hubba hubba" about David Cameron

The problem with deleting threads is not so simple as Mumsnet taking a few minutes to delete the thread, as the thread could still show up on Google cached.

A couple of years ago I had to ask another forum to delete several threads where I had posted too much personal information about myself. The website were great and they deleted all the threads,which only took a few minutes.

But some of the threads were still showing up in Google cached, and the website had to make an individual request for each of those threads to be deleted. It took hours of the websites time and I did have to reimburse them a fair bit of money for the time it cost them.

I really do not think that mass deletion on a regular basis would be an option for Mumnsnet, as I doubt Google would agree to spend loads of times making regular deletions.

Thank you Furious. Golly.

It would be hard not to accept that the regular lifting of threads for inclusion in the Daily Mail was in violation of MNHQ's social-enterprise objective of providing support on sensitive parenting issues. Because, despite anonymity, posters are bound to feel less confident posting with sesitive parenting questions or answers if there is a chance of appearing in the press.

I don't know whether MNHQ ever succeeded in getting public funding (presumably such funding is the point of claiming social enterprise status). Did they? If not, do you think they will continue to emphasise this status as their commercial funding escalates?

What would they need to do in order to ensure that they continued to qualify for social enterprise status? It would involve more than being selective about which advertising to accept -- it would have to involve having explicit policies in place which involved sometimes putting the posting community's interests clearly before commercial imperatives like maximum hits and publicity.

A couple of days after the threads were deleted on the forums I put the title of the thread in and they came up in Google

Here a couple of links about removing threads from Google - all a bit technical for me to understand. But as I have already said I do not think that removing threads from Google is so simple.

www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=61062&ctx=sibling

http:/ /www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=156412

Hello all (warning ludicrously long post to follow... get out the popcorn/ gin/sausage rolls and don't start reading unless you have time to spare).

Just back from holidays and have been catching up with everything that's been going on and wanted to give some feedback both on the Daily Mail column and on the topic of deletions.

First off the DM: What I can't do is wade in and start conversations about legal-type stuff with them while key people are still away, but we have finally spoken with them and started negotiations. They were very apologetic for any offence and anxiety they have caused and apologised for not letting us know in advance that the piece was being run in the first place.

They are really keen to continue with the column and we've managed to clarify some key issues for this week's column (and any subsequent ones) :
a) As the title suggests (This week on Mumsnet), it's current/topical discussions from recent weeks they are looking for. They have assured us that they are NOT going to be raking through the archives looking for personal stories. They have also assured us that there will be no threads taken from the Special Needs section or threads about Domestic violence. A quote from an email from their commissioning editor received today:
"It is never our intention to dredge up old stories or to ostracise any of your members. Our aim is to empathise with them and support them by highlighting the debate and issues facing mums today."

b) They have also agreed to change all the names of the folks quoted which will obviously make it significantly more difficult for anyone to then use search to find other posts on Mumsnet.

c) They've also agreed to give us a heads up on what topic they will be covering in advance. Obviously as it's a topical column we're not going to get a heap of advance warning but we should at least be able to check what they're writing about. We're still in discussion about what we could do if we don't approve/ if the topic they are covering is likely to be contentious. But given what they have said about not wanting to ostracise anyone, we're pretty confident we could sort this out. This week's topic, apparently is lunch boxes in the light of the news story about ham sandwiches.

We hope this info will calm some of your anxieties. There does still remain the discussion about whether or not Mumsnet should be associated with the Daily Mail at all/ what we can do if we are still unhappy, but that's a discussion that will have to wait until everyone's back from hols.

In the meantime, given the latest information on what the column will be about and how it will be presented in the future, is it something we could live with? Do let us know (we know you will )

Which leads us not neatly at all into mass deletions.

Hopefully the news that the backroom boys at the DM are not, as we speak, trawling the archives for your most embarrassing posts will allay folks' fears, but for those who have been asking for some policy on deletions, here's a stab at explaining our thoughts:

We are always happy to delete one-off posts when you've realised you've put in an email address or phone number or something else that might identify you in real life. If you report a whole thread to us for the same reason, we're usually happy to delete too - although we may ask you to post on it one more time to let everyone else on the thread know what's happening.

Sometimes, there is a delay between you reporting a post to us and us deleting it (especially if it is late at night/a weekend) but we do try very hard to answer every request we get. If you don't get a reply, do please contact us again at [email protected] - with the best will in the world, things do occasionally slip through the net - and we'll do our best to sort you out.

As far as mass deletions go, we have done mass deletions off our own bat when a persistent poster is revealed to be a troll (eg JudgeFlounce).

But we are reluctant to do mass deletions on request because it does make a nonsense of the boards - even old threads can be a really useful repository of wise Mumnsetters' advice and it's very frustrating to search for something and find a string of posts saying, 'Message withdrawn by poster'.

We have also found, in the past, that when we ask the poster who has requested the mass deletion to report the threads and posts they are truly troubled by, there are often only a handful of posts that really need deleting. It's amazing how many of us have a posting history that contains far more about weaning spoons and zombie plans than we could ever have imagined!

That said, there has been the odd occasion when a poster has felt their own safety was seriously compromised by their past posts - and we have, for that reason, agreed to delete their posting history. There have been others who genuinely feel their mental health is being compromised by posts remaining on the site and in those instances we have also done mass deletions. Again, we don't do this lightly and usually need to consult carefully with each other before starting the deletion process.

We have no wish at all to make anyone's life more difficult, that's absolutely not what we are here for, but equally I think we all want a site full of coherent, useful advice, not threads full of deleted posts. So please be careful and try not to post stuff that's going to compromise you or your identity or that you're going to regret posting later.

If you've read this far, congratulations

Thanks again for your patience,

MNHQ

Thanks carrie. Stuff to think about there for me but...what about the anonymising the archive point? The good advice still remains. After all, it doesn't matter who gave it. Obviously, I'll claim the good bits.