Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Daily Mail - The On Mumsnet This Week Column - part 374, appendix 5

601 replies

JustineMumsnet · 06/09/2009 12:20

Goodday Mumsnetters,
Now I know we said we'd abide by the results of the poll and the poll's not quite due to close yet, so first off we hope you'll forgive us for bringing this matter to an early conclusion.

We've thought about this a bit more (thanks to everyone for their considered input - it's been generally helpful to us though not always fun) and we've decided to ask the DM not to run this column under any circumstances.

We've said all along that we were torn by the column. When push came to shove we thought, on balance, we would prefer though it to exist rather than not, assuming we had editorial control (explanation why later on). But NOT if the majority of Mumsnetters were strongly against it running.

I don't think the poll shows that the majority of MN is actually against it, as it happens - I know there's some debate here - I think it shows 43% are. But I think the whole process has shown that those who are against are very very strongly against whilst those who don't mind the column in one form or another don't feel particularly strongly about it (save perhaps Daftpunk ). The 43% odd would never be happy with the column running and I think that therefore it would cause ongoing acrimony, which is of course not what we're about.

What we are about is making parents' lives easier and we don't exclude DM readers from that. MN is open to all.

However, a weekly column could and has been interpreted as a brand alignment - and it's not really as some have pointed out the right fit for us - which is why we wouldn't have sought it in the first instance.

For anyone who's been upset by/ caught in the crossfire of this debate - MP in particular and indeed, Leah Hardy - I apologise. A Mumsnetter has just written to me to say the following (she agreed that I could quote her here):

"I feel the flames of crises are fuelled by MNHQ's over willingness to collaborate. Offering Mumsnetters an opportunity to help steer, but knowing they all want to go in different directions is always going
to be carnage. They can never be of one voice. That's what makes Mumsnet interesting and wonderful, isn't it?"

I think on reflection this is spot on - we have always tried to be as inclusive as possible here at MNHQ. Our answer to most dilemmas is usually "Let's see what the Mnetters think". But on polarising issues like this one this is perhaps a mistake. It all becomes a bit too Lord of the Fliesish, and innocent folk get caught in the crossfire.

A final thought about the nature of MN and how we go about making it viable. Much bigger beasts than us are trying to work out how they can make their websites work in terms of paying the bills. Many are mooting charging in some way for access. Mumsnet is free and we probably turn down as much advertising as we take. We do our best to operate as ethically and communally as possible but we have costs that are rising as we grow - servers, people, offices etc - and it's a balancing act.

Mumsnet is big and successful in many ways but it does not generate huge amounts of revenue and profit. We don't have and can't afford a big PR machine - it's me!

But we want to do tonnes of things - run campaigns like our miscarriage one that could benefit lots of folk, improve the site with new features, spread the word so more can have access to the good advice available here. To do that we need to get out there a bit and we need to generate some revenue.

Being in the Daily Mail every week was obviously one way of getting out there - but not perhaps, as many of you have argued, the right way.

So we'll ask them to stop and keep you posted.

Have a lovely rest of weekend.

MNHQ

OP posts:
LadyHooHa · 06/09/2009 21:01

I feel cross about this decision on many counts. Ah well.

justabouteatingchocolate · 06/09/2009 21:06

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

VeniVidiVickiQV · 06/09/2009 21:08

Whatever tickles your fancy, bamboo.

snort @ slyandgobbo

MI, you are spot on.

VeniVidiVickiQV · 06/09/2009 21:11

eww @ "in switzerland" not sure aitch'd like that

MI, I'm with you on the Trevor Eve thing....

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 06/09/2009 21:14

i'd be fine with it, veev.

BoysAreLikeDogs · 06/09/2009 21:20

Gawd between you Aitch and Justa, I want a blardy toblerone gah

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 06/09/2009 21:23
BoysAreLikeDogs · 06/09/2009 21:28
Grin
foronethreadonly · 06/09/2009 21:45

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

foronethreadonly · 06/09/2009 21:51

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Pielight · 06/09/2009 22:00

Well one of the reasons I've found all this interesting and relevant is because like PW and MI said, it is all unchartered territory. MNHQ should be able to make this place financially viable - hopefully profitable - for them.

Like oops said, the DM business was a bit of wake-up call for lots of people. It does change how you view MN. It is one of the reasons I thought I'd name change. We have to accept this, and not get cross with people who name change etc because the interaction is going to be different.

My hunch is that people's or MNers natural sociability will win through against lack of privacy, perhaps in the end MN will be a subscription site, even if the archives are free to google?

BoysAreLikeDogs · 06/09/2009 22:03

Pielight will you CAT me with your prev name pleeease??

It's just that I love you and want to have your babies

wobbegong · 06/09/2009 22:03

Just another one who is happy about Justine's decision. Thanks for letting us know.

bibbitybobbityhat · 06/09/2009 22:05

Foronethreadonly - as you know I have been an active part of this debate and I know who you are/were and why you de-regged and have read all your grievances about the difficulty you had in getting posts you regretted deleted.

BUT

I think most people who post on Mumsnet are fully aware, even if you were not, that their posts are in no way private or hidden. In other words, totally exposed on the internet, for people who actually know them, or total strangers, or daily mail (or any other publication) journalist to see and make use of.

I believe, collectively, we are becoming more aware of our vulnerability on the www which is why most posters on a very sensitive subject do choose to change names.

The debate in the last few weeks has been about whether we think it is a good idea for Mumsnet to passively stand by while journalists copy and paste entire threads in the name of journalism, and whether or not we want Mumsnet to be formally associated with the Daily Mail.

If you have posted stuff on this forum which you regret due to privacy reasons then actually I think your issues boil down to posting tmi, and regretting your decision, rather than anything Mumsnet has or has not done with regard to an association with The Daily Mail.

I am an extremely inexperienced internet user, a complete dinosaur, and haven't a clue about 95% of what goes on in terms of privacy/copyright/ownership - but even I would hesitate to post about stuff I didn't want to be googled.

daftpunk · 06/09/2009 22:09

VVV, you know what i mean, i'm not saying only post on MN to prove your loyalty...i'm saying that alot of older mumsnetters left because they wern't happy.....(never really found out what they wern't happy about)....

posters can't keep holding MNHQ to ransom

all this "if this column stays i'm leaving"

"leave then" would be my answer....you probably already have six times..

BecauseImWorthIt · 06/09/2009 22:11

.......... all of which leads to the concept of 'private' areas on MN. (Or any other forum).

BoysAreLikeDogs · 06/09/2009 22:12

yy bibbity, you are indeed vair vair clever to have worked that out [sarcastic] but you are not being vair vair naice berating oops for not realising this at the time she was posting about her troubles years and years ago.

Posts from back in the dark ages, from when one didn't know how the internet and MN were going to evolve, when the idea that whole threads could be lifted entire was literally unthinkable.

Now of course, folk will be much more discreet thanks to this MN/DM erm dalliance.

Prunerz · 06/09/2009 22:16

I think it's clear that MN is public, but what's changed is the (quite sudden) realisation how interested journalists might be. It's one hting having the odd quote lifted, or having MNHQ ok a selection of bits from AIBU. Having your very identifiable work dilemma printed in the DM is totally different territory.

So while that column was followed up with some startlingly banal bits of fluff, I think people were made aware quite suddenly of what could happen. It's not about not knowing that MN is public, it's about suddenly realising that there's a new trend to quote directly (instead of just read and use the ideas as columns).

foronethreadonly · 06/09/2009 22:16

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 06/09/2009 22:16

no, bibbity, i think you're missing the point that oops is making about MNHQ and the way that they are dealing with our posts. it is more than faintly ridiculous that as grown women we have to go cap in hand to HQ and beg them line by line to delete posts. we should be able to do this for ourselves, most fora have that facility.

bibbitybobbityhat · 06/09/2009 22:17

Oh, I did not realise her posts were from years and years back. So sorry.

BALD when you asked recently on a MOLDIES + OUTRAGE thread if moldies were welcome on Mumsnet and most of Mumsnet ignored you, and you prodded us all with a little "did anyone hear what I said?" post - I was the poster who said "of course we want you here BALD, sorry your post was ignored in the general melee" after which lots of other posters followed suit.

RudolphHucker · 06/09/2009 22:19

It's a safe bet your lecherous boss and batshit crazy MIL won't be reading mn so you can make thinly-veiled posts about them, but there's a fair chance said loons will be salivating over the Daily Mail.

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 06/09/2009 22:20

do you know something, my mum visited today and told me that MN was WRITING A COLUMN FOR THE DAILY MAIL!! she couldn't believe it, a whole column with the MN name all over it! (she'd read it at a friend's house, natch, good indy reader that she is. )

anyhoo, it really made me think, tbh, that there was no way on earth that the column could have existed without people reading it as a tacit endorsement of everything the DM stands for.

VeniVidiVickiQV · 06/09/2009 22:20

Exactly BALD.
When Oops posted a lot of her stuff, the T & C's for posting were different then anyway.

I dont think it's particularly fair to suggest that those who posted sensitive stuff years before facebook, twitter, and online newspapers is naive, or that MNHQ don't have a duty to protect them in that respect.

Way back when oops started posting, the newspapers obtained their stories in other ways, and not through trawling websites for 'hot topics'.

It is therefore particularly pertinent to the discussion of the DM lifting threads from MN to create stories since the reason that MNHQ wouldnt delete oops' posts was due to the interruption to the archive - which is MNHQ suggest is actively used. This doesnt discount journos researching stories old or new.

If MNHQ weren't going to stop such goings on, they had a duty to their posters - particularly from years back who were unaware as to how things would change - and delete posts that the poster felt would compromise them.

AitchwonderswhoFruitCrumbleis · 06/09/2009 22:22

and crucially the terms and conditions were changed without anyone actually being alerted to this, vvv.