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 Their argument was that they had changed T&Cs and my complaint was therefore no longer valid.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 don't get this mysogynist stuff. The DM can't make women feel bad. If women feel bad as a result of reading the DM, that suggests they feel bad anyway, doesn't it?

oopsagain inferred that about the holidays by the way. And other posts saying that mumsnet was 'rudderless'. So I can only presume from these posts that people would have preferred it if Justine had not gone on holiday and stayed here to answer these rantings.

Good day to you all.

Do the media influence our perceptions of ourself, society, etc - discuss?

There is, I believe, research which shows certainly that teenage girls's sense of self worth is directly related to the number of images of skinny celebrities/models they see.

VeeEss, how did the cloud surrounding the copyright bear any relevance to whether people felt safe or not?

Before, the copyright notice said that MN owned the copyright, now it says that the copyright lies with the user but MN can use it in the ways set out in the notice. So at any point during the "cloud" period, the principle was loud and clear that MN would have the freedom to do what they liked with the posts. V little has changed.

An open forum yes, but people thought MNHQ owned their posts and therefore could not be reproduced without MNHQ's permission.

Also, previously threads that had been quoted in newspapers were recent, i.e written about whilst the threads were pretty much still up and running, so people didn't have to consider if they'd posted something they later regretted sharing on, what is now, such a large talk board.

An example, I was recently working at a nursery, and posted a few bits about it on my PN thread, but not much. Things went mightily tits up and to still be able to use MN I changed my name, to this for threads where I am just talking normally, and other namechanges for things I don't want to obviously be me, but only AFTER one of the parents of the children at nursery mentioned mumsnet. I googled my email addy and even with the whole spaces and writing out words properly it linked quite quickly to posts I don't give two hoots about people reading when they are anonymous but if they were read by people who 'knew' me (Especially those whose children I was caring for) I would have been pretty gutted. Thankfully, I checked all this before this hoo-haa and changed my name etc (but only because of the work situation) and MNHQ deleted the posts (thankyou) I found that I wanted removing. When I joined MN I really hadn't thought it was so big or would be so interesting in the eyes of the press, or I NEVER would have posted some of the things I have without namechanging, I'm sure others (especially those who joined MUCH earlier than I did, felt the same when posting. Yes, it always has been an OPEN forum, but it never attracted as much interest when the posts people want pulling were posted.

Ladyhooha, that is hooey and you should know it - akin to saying verbal abuse doesn't exist because the "victim" must already feel bad about themselves.... complete rubbish!

FC, no not that justine did not go, that she left someone fully in charge when she went - at least that is how I read them!

"any confusion about copyright is a red herring. They were posting in a public forum, accessible by the world, his wife and their journalist friends."

That's nonsense Soupdragon. Otherwise you could say that any form of published media is there for the taking by anyone. It is, but there are consequences due to copyright laws.

As previously said, some posters, including myself, may have been naive about the extent to which posts on MN have a life of their own, OK, lesson learned, what happens? I don't expect an instant answer and I don't expect Justine to come home from her holiday.

Because crumpet, people TRUST MNHQ, they don't however TRUST journalists using the posts to write articles. What people have been unsure on (copyright-wise) is whether or not people could reproduce the posts without MNHQ's say so.

mnhq ARE journalists though

king;...i think ladyhooha means when the daily mail print an article like;

"most women would rather be at home with their dc than out at work"...

all the feminists will run around screaming while secretly agreeing with it.

whilst those at home would rather be out at work

MNHQ have a vested interest in ensuring that their posters feel happy with what happens to their posts (on a weekly basis)

apart from when they are on holiday

The WOHM/SAHM stuff is getting really tired now DP. No need to drag it kicking and screaming into yet another thread.

idontmn2;

i avoid most of those threads tbh, so deffo not trying to bring it up here...just responding to a post..

is that the real Fio or a FioFioFio imposter?

"By stuffitlllama on Tue 18-Aug-09 08:14:53
VVV I started a thread about our IP as for outside purposes it could identify some people very clearly if it got into the wrong hands (or summat).

Anyhow some people were very helpful but I also got a few "well duh" type replies and also "doesn't matter anyway".

So I got the impression that everybody knows about the IP stuff anyway, but not about the revealing other details.

Nowadays I don't think anyone has to give anyone anything. People are clever enough just to take it. Is that true VVV or am I off the wall on that one. "

I don't know what thread you mean stuffit, and therefore don't really understand what you are asking me

I do wonder, actually, whether the onus should be on MN to decide which posts they value from a particular user that they'd like to keep, rather than the onus being on the distressed user to rake through painful old posts to decide what should go. Seems a bit cruel to me.

Yes, MN(HQ) are a business - the bumbling buffoon/heath robinson stuff wears a bit thin for a lot of folks now, I think.

"any confusion about copyright is a red herring. They were posting in a public forum, accessible by the world, his wife and their journalist friends."

"That's nonsense Soupdragon. "

No, it's not nonsense, it is what you should have considered right from the start.

"Otherwise you could say that any form of published media is there for the taking by anyone. It is, but there are consequences due to copyright laws."

This has no bearing on the fact that posters really should have realised that this is a public forum and, whilst they gave MN right to use what they wrote, some unscrupulous person, be it a journalist or a stalker, could easily come along and misuse the information.

The copyright issues and the "privacy" issues are two entirely different things. The point I am making is that "privacy" was effectively given up when the moment they posted on a public forum.

I don't think the regular column is right from a copyright POV given that MNHQ had nothing to do with it and were not consulted.

"I do wonder, actually, whether the onus should be on MN to decide which posts they value from a particular user that they'd like to keep, rather than the onus being on the distressed user to rake through painful old posts to decide what should go."

Why should they go to that much trouble? This isn't their fault.

"Yes, MN(HQ) are a business - the bumbling buffoon/heath robinson stuff wears a bit thin for a lot of folks now, I think.
"

I agree VVV, but got told off on another thread for saying so. Whilst there is an image which I believe they do deliberately perpetuate of all sitting in a garden shed with Justine tapping away whilst simultaneously rocking a pram with her foot and BigTech cranking up the server by pedal power like Professor Potts with an air of Malory Towers floating overhead, it isn't really like that. Or if it ever was, it has changed, I would imagine.

Yes, fine, Soupdragon, people should have realised, people should have been more guarded, thank you for pointing that out, but what now is the answer such people want. I haven't been particularly unguarded, I don't believe, but there have been plenty who have (and are continuing to be on other threads in relationships/AN/TTC/AIBU and every other topic at this very moment). I don't think it would unfair for those people to have their old posts deleted if they want. It has been done for others.

well my biggest issue is that they are now going to be seen as being in cahoots with the daily mail as im sure the column will stay and the public persaon of mumsnet will be seen as one being linked with the daily garbage.

you know the whole thing in sleb twaddle about people doing anything to be in the news well this feels like that. they dont care whether its a good thing or not theyre in the paper.

and didnt mnhq sa the other day that the number of hits when the last column was in the paper wasnt really that different from usual so whats the point?

WHY exactly do people want posts deleted now? In case it becomes the "Daily Mail column of the week"? In that case, you just need to hold fire until you know what is going to happen about the column, not delete old stuff, which isn't relevant anyway.

Well, no, MP.
Because they now realise that ANYONE can take heir posts and do what they wish with them, not just the DM with their column.