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 Their argument was that they had changed T&Cs and my complaint was therefore no longer valid.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'm getting a bit baffled now as to what people WANT.

There is no way you are going to suddenly be able to delete everything. It would make lots of past threads incoherent and the strength of Mumsnet is that the user-generated content is accessible by all parents, that it's a high-quality, thoughtful and intelligent (and funny) content generated by parents and for parents. That is the ESSENCE of Mumsnet. Asking Mumsnet to delete all posts on a regular basis is like asking Ford to stop making cars because they are, like, really un-green, dude.

You contribute on Mumsnet, you help build the database of parent-generated parenting information, a snap-shot in time of how we see parenting and how we are living it. That information belongs to Mumsnet.

I don't see how ANYTHING has changed - this is the way it ALWAYS has been.

In terms of the Daily Mail issue - I think the issue is that (a) it is probably Unfair Use and (b) editorial rights of current content to this degree MUST (morally and legally IMO) belong to MNHQ. The only problem with the column therefore is that it is (1) possibly infringing copyright and (2) unsensitive and bludgeoning because it is using real people's current, ongoing crises to illustrate a point. And we would like the editorial rights of current MN content to belong to MNHQ only. That is largely a legal issue and we aren't going to have an quick answers to that.

And when I say Ford, I mean the car-makers, not Gina Ford, who does not, as far as I am aware, make cars, green or otherwise

MP< but some of the postas aren't about parenting, are they

Some of the very veyr upset and distressing posts where people have been abused or want to take their own lives have been nothing to do with parenting per se..

but they stay on here and get raided like everything else???

It's hard to work out- i know... but thus is the world.

MN was different 6-7 yrs ago- and the reality of how it is now wasn't apparent to people posting their problems on it then... but MN have hold of them in perpituity...

It is probably legally correct for them tom hold onto them, and the back catalogue of I'm dpressed threads/ my dh hits me threads- maybe they can go...

and MN is safe with its parenting /feeding/sleeping threads....

because nobody in their right mind would ever ever want to make money out of the other threads... would they???

Agree with morningpaper - although I do think there is also an interesting point about changes to terms and conditions and how and when they apply.

Oops: I don't know of any threads about DV or extreme mental health issues that MNHQ have refused to pull if the OP requested it. But I may be wrong.

Crumpet: Yes I agree, whether T&Cs can really be changed without users signing up to new T&C is a good question - it would be easy enough to do, just log everyone out and get them to tick to agree to new T&Cs before they next log on.

I have a differing opinion to most of you. The problem with Mumsnet is that it has changed in the last year, from a touchy feely club for mums to a large community business based loosely around the idea of parenthood - what percentage of threads are actually about children though - not more than 70% I reckon, we're much too busy having a good old laugh discussing froot shoots and arse sex.

Now if people are mourning that loss of anonymity because Mumsnet is suddenly becoming popular and coming to the attention of the media, my advice would be suck it up. It wouldn't be the site it was, nor as entertaining, if it didn't have the mass of contributors.

A misquote by the DM is a matter for the press complaints commission (but they'll do bugger all except say 'yup, they fucked up....again' )

So I think we're kind of stuck where we are. MNHQ will never manage to manage private forums (sorry guys but it's technically quite difficult and requires a code change every six weeks to keep up to date with the search engines code releases and do you really want YetMoreTech to be sobbing permanently in the corner ). If you desperately want to discuss something really private - go to a nice loud pub and discuss it with a friend - or have the good sense to namechange.

Above all, don't take it too serious. This is not real life, tis the Internet.

didn't think a part2 would be started..but glad it has,

oopsagain, my post to you has been deleted, just wanted to apologise to you for that, i don't really think you're a pompous arse, just your post was pompous and arsy...does that make sense..? ...i post alot from my phone these days and it has pdt txt so takes over my brain....it's not really me talking.......ha ha ha

oh and SS...message rec'd loud and clear about easing up on the fat lesbian posts....(i was lured into posting that..)

Morningpaper, if MN felt that deleting posts was not consistent with its essence, why have some posters been able to have all their posts under certain names deleted? Which unwritten - or misunderstood - rule did they abide by to achieve that?

Haven't read everything about this (why do these things happen when my computer access is limited?) but I am not too worried in my own case having my posts in the daily mail. I found it more of an issue that the wrong person had the OP attributed to them in the recent article - if someone is going to copy and paste it would be preferable if they were accurate.

yes, fair enough MP.

I stand corrected.

ok, Dp, we're cool.

Tho one of my points has bene that if this thread was to be copied and pasted as an article, the sight of me and Daftpunk smiling sweetly aat one another and offerring each other biscuits may be gone...

and how sad would that be?

and badgersarse- FFS!!
Whaaaaat?

Your moment where you realsied that MN wass a little less comfy than you thougth was a while ago- mine is now.

Still the same mistake- just in a different time frame.

winehouse, there's a little facefittery i think

I think you may be right, stuffitlllama. One poster's request is accommodated almost immediately, whereas another's is a completely different kettle of fish.

Morningpaper - actually my thread is one they have not taken down when asked to amd ues it was a pretty horrific one, one I am certain you would agree is as worthy of removal as any DV thread. They agreed to remove it but didn't, I reminded them, they ignored it, I have now reminded them again and, guess what? Nothing, no reply, no removal, nothing.

I have spent some time going through my old posts and have idntified some for deletion,

Interestingly, one that I have been very upset about now has the OP and 1 reply.

And today they have also reposted the thread.

So, MP, i think you stand corrected at this point....

And i'm not trying to be inflammatory- just honest.

glad we're ok oopsagain...

SS..lol, can't stand her...i prefer the scissor sisters..full of gays lesbians and the undecided..

what do yopu mean oops? they deleted it and then reinstated it?

Oops, I am confused, which thread have they reposted? The one you wanted taken down? Had they taken it down and then put it back up? [head starts to melt]!

MP, I wasn't trying to be inflammatory either, just responding to your point - hope it doesn't read that way!

KingCnut I suspect they may be working through requests that have arrived in recent days - remember, everyone was VERY PLEASED when Justine said that it was only her and Carrie that were allowed to delete things, so you can't all start shrieking with upset when they bugger off on holiday.... give them a bit of slack, there is only so much you can do from a blackberry when you have sixteen children or whatever it is.

Regarding the policy of mass deletions of previous posters, to be honest I don't know the situation of the individuals concerned because I didn't pay much attention to that sort of thing . I suppose that MNHQ decided that they were in danger in some way - I know one poster who over-shared worked in the courts and was concerned that she'd been a bit daft sharing so much on here which made her identifiable. So I guess MNHQ had to make decisions based on that individual situation. I don't know about the situation regarding other mass deletions though - I think most of them were quite a long time ago?

Personally I would be a total bitch and say NO MASS DELETIONS but that's why I don't have a proper job an interesting business on the go.