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 Their argument was that they had changed T&Cs and my complaint was therefore no longer valid.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 see that that's a shame, Peachy, but it's not something that's a direct consequence of this Mail issue (is it?). MN was a big place with hundreds of thousands of lurkers, including hundreds of journalists trawling for stories, before Leah Hardy went about her business. What this episode has done is highlight just how public our interactions on here are, but it hasn't created a new area of vulnerability.

Since I did the G20 stuff and threw my online anonymity to the wind, I've had to think a bit about how much I want to give away on here (and in other online spaces like Twitter, FB, my blog etc). In the main I've decided to proceed on a fuck 'em basis, at least as far as my own information is concerned. Where things that I post about concern other people's privacy (like your SN concerns), I namechange, or offer to contact people off-board. I know this isn't ideal, and as you say it's unfortunate for people who are new to MN and might be looking for specific advice.

It can;'t, which is why I added my alst line, I am in mourning for a more open MN
and I suppose in some ways being a traitor by openly recruiting for secure sites for SN now

My loyalties have sbeen spread, I know of several SN posters that will no longer post, and whilst that is inevitable it is a loss to people who p[ost with questions, esp. as one has a very rare condition.

PW I think so tbh- something we asked for early on was a conformation from said Journo that she wouldnt use SN as she has in fact a child with SN herself so is part of the 'inner circle' so to speak. It does make us feel especially vulnerable as we do not know who she is.

By 'us'clearly I only mean those I have chatted to in depth about this with before I get shouted down.

There was always a easured risk involved in posting, which we accepted, but given the newsworthiness of certain SN aspects atm (I;m thinking particularly of the extradition case) a regular column seemed to be the straw that broke the camel's back and all that.

Outside of Sn it is easier to not post personal stuff, but that area relies on an element of sharing to be at its most effective.

But as people say , it is inevitable. It'scertainly motivating me to look elsewhere for supprt

Yep, absolutely.

I ahd to tell soemone with a terminally ill abby one day alst wek that she was recognisable by her postings (in a very carefuland gentle way obviously, with alternative options if she chose). MAde me feel really sad, becuase in that apst that's where MN has been so very wonderful

SS (unforunate abbrevuiation!) I underatnd she read the first few threads where I repeatedly asked so I do think that she would have responded to that query should she have wanted to.

I am forcing myself to beleive she has hit desperate financial straits and that is why she has chosen this route. I find it helps me understand a bit, but just pulling back is safest now i think.

Peachy, I do feel for you and for the other SN posters. As I said below, the only area that concerns me so far as my own posting goes is my family/friends' privacy, which of course is the whole point with the SN posters. I guess advice could still be offered using a combination of name-changing and some alterations of details, but of course this would be laboured. I hope you won't bugger off completely.

As far as on-board conversations about other personal stuff goes, though, I really don't think it will make a huge difference in the long run. Anybody who has the slightest inclination to do so can find out who I am in RL within about 0.3 seconds, but it hasn't stopped me posting about leaky Mooncups. I think most of us are willing to take the risk of RL identification (operating on the assumption that it's very unlikely that anyone will give enough of a toss to do the detective work). This who aren't willing to take that risk are already (or should be) very careful about what they post.

I'm just saddened that MNHQ seem to be quite happy to be seen as to be associated with the Daily Mail (which I'm certain a regular column will be seen as by many).

You know, I have actually been recognised online (by Ormirian) and I was quite chuffed LOL, but then she's not MIl etc,people I know would never stray on here (well cant use a PC to start) but do read the DM- it is a balanced risk that ahs changed.

But heck there's sod all I can do about it

MNHQ have said a few times that they're not very happy about it, though. Nobody at MNHQ is labouring under the delusion that the Mail is well liked on here, I think. But taking people to court is a rich woman's game, and I get the impression that MNHQ - like the vast majority of businesses - doesn't have the cash resources to take on Associated Newspapers.

Youn now,i'm really only whinging on here to avoid the decision I need to make over whether to throw a large amount of acsh at an MA, far easier to complain about the unchangeabl;e than commit to severe cash restriction.

well not that unhappy about it - if they contacted LH to ask if it was going to be a regular thing and didn't actually say - you know what we don't actually like this association then to me that says that they're not too unhappy about the free publicity. Neither does their contact with the DM since then indicate to me that they're displeased about the association.

In fact I suspect if there hadn't been such a huge uproar on here about it then they would have let it run without saying/doing anything at all. It was only after the 2nd column was run (and the uproar began) that they stepped in to "do" something.

Yes MN has changed, it will continue to change and grow, but from where I'm sitting the aims of the website as it used to be have changed and I for one would be happier if MNHQ would admit this.

I'm surprised MailGate isn't more widely known about outside here. There is a large and vocal community on livejournal which gets very uppity if so much as a phrase of their posting gets lifted and quoted elsewhere. They laid into the author of the Torchwood book last year for quoting their reviews.

So, it's Tuesday afternoon - have MNHQ been told yet what the content will be for tomorrow's/Thursday's column?

My money's on swine flu vaccinations.

I do wish they would bog off and pick on netmums instead. It really makes me feel soiled.

Hi all

And welcome back from hols the newcomers to this thread!

Just noticing that this thread is getting near 1000 posts so wanted to post and clear up a few comments/ queries before part 3 starts.

1. "PW - MNHQ said that she had re-registered under a different name after the flouncing and has been posting regularly since"

Leah emailed MNHQ a while back to say she had deregistered before the first column appeared and only posted sporadically before that, so not sure where the idea that she's re registered and is posting regularly under a different name came from - certainly not from us and certainly not based on any information we have.

1. Special Needs

The DM when we were in touch with them last week assured us that they would definitely NOT be using any threads from the special needs section or any threads that involved domestic violence. We hope this offers some reassurance IusedtobePeachy. Justine - once she's back - will no doubt elaborate more on the development of private groups (and we're not talking about excluding folks from useful information/support, just giving people a space where they might feel more secure) so please bear with us on this.

1. We've been in touch with the DM and discovered that the subject this week is Hellidays - surviving hols with children.

A posse from Mumsnet Towers are off to see Angelina Ballerina Ballet with some very excited dds tonight, but do feel free to keep the comments coming and we'll get back as soon as we can.

Best

MNHQ

Just because I am confused (which is easily done) can you clarify...?

when you say "Leah emailed MNHQ a while back to say she had deregistered before the first column appeared"

do you mean

She emailed to let you know she had deregistered because the first column was appearing

or

She emailed to let you know she had de-registered but this wasn't because the column was coming out?

or

she emailed you after the column came out to let you know that she had de-registered before it did?

you know what I mean? How long ago is 'a while back'?

She emailed us after last week's column appeared to say could we let folks know that she had de regged before the first column appeared. Sounds like a tongue twister, but hope that helps

carriemumsnet thanks for the sn bit, makes me feel a bit better.

Ah - so she de-reged 3 weeks ago but was still an active poster up until then and didn't tell you that she had de-regging until last weeks column came out and all the associated hoo hah? I think I get it now.

Ta

I don't think many people think she is still posting but a few believe that she was posting up until the first column came out(and was well respected poster) or have I got that wrong too?