thank you sn board but

[2shoes]

I won't be posting about dd on here or the teen board(will still keep an eye out for any where I can advise though) this whole Daily Mail thing has made me feel very unsafe. some of the issues I would be talking about soon will make me very Identifiable, so I will stick to TTR and SKINUK where it is safer.

the level of protection she is getting WOULD be afforded to any of us though

she is being protected against her RL name and her MN posting name being linked where anyone can read them

whatever you feel about the DM piece, that's not what she's doing - nobody's RL name is being published.

2shoes - she is getting the same level of protection as everyone else. If someone posted saying '2 shoes' real name is XXXX' or if someone posted to a story giving your real name and said 'this is 2shoes' then MNHQ would delete those posts.

They did the same when Xenia's RL identity was exposed on here.

Jabberwocky- no-one actually knows how it was handled though. None of us were privvy to how it came about. None of us have been privvy to MNHQ discussions about it. None of us actually know pretty much anything factual about the workings of the column at all. Everything that is being quoted as 'fact' is speculation.

I still say that SN is far less likely to be featured than other parts of the board because the issues are not relevant to the vast majority of the population.

She flounced years before moldies didn't she? Several years ago surely?

Greensleeves can you change your name to 'Greensleeves -voice of reason' please.

if I sold a posters story with out their permision, I would expect to be banned.....wouldn't you?
(I accept I was wrong about the m connection)

No, because the MNHQ marketing model is to expose this place in as many publications as possible. Through as many different forms of media as possible. That's why they're on TV and welcome Caitlin Moran or whoever else to come and mine the place for stories. It has ever been thus, and in the last couple of years MN has been in the papers and on the TV regularly.

Set up a news alert for Mumsnet and you will get very very frequent stories coming though. Poster's stories are constantly used without permission, and at least in a column that is mainly quotes there's no interpretation going on. I get misinterpreted enough on here don't need a journo doing it to give weight to their article. I am aware when I post that's the risk and I don't really care because I don't call myself saintlydamemrsturnip in every day life.

I can't see why MNHQ would ban a journalist. They want journalists to write about their site. Other journos on here have written about mumsnet and this is a seen as a good thing. Their business model relies on as many punters as possible - they would be completely shooting themselves in the foot (and seriously misunderstanding their business model) if they started complaining about coverage.

The only possible way it could make sense for them to complain was if people boycotted the site because of the DM feature. In reality yes maybe a few will leave, but the vast majority won't - and anyway the website isn't just about this talkboard. There are other areas of the site and financially a hit is a hit.

I reported it maryz. Because I think any poster has the right to not have their real life and posting name publicized.

Riven's rl name and mn name are not being linked. If they were those posts would be being deleted.

MN has always been googlable. It isn't some new and exciting thing that people have just noticed. There have been stalkers. There have been people harassing specific SN posters. It isn't a shock to know that the posts are read by anyone. That is why MNHQ can't just suddenly start deleting every random post people want deleted in some big long list.

If you want to hide from now on, then get the old posts (all of them from that name) deleted and start afresh (you don't have to change name if the history of you is gone).

"I think it is the plain brass-necked way it was all done. She knew that if she informed mumsnet, and asked opinions she would be turned down."

Hang on, you/we know nothing about how the column came about. MNHQ have said that they didn't know about it, but we know nothing else about how it came about.

Many articles have quoted posters naming them (getting their names wrong) and using their words related to specific issues. The DM has run plenty of articles using quotes before without complaint from HQ.

I did sort of know that i could be identified but this has really bought it home. I don't want to be identified by work colleagues and old acquaintances. Or by health and educational specialists whose opinion I might occassionally question. Would be worried to see a column in the DM on the topic of challenging a statement for example as the circumstance would make that person identifiable.

In the last few months this board has meant a lot to me. I haven't posted much but I've read loads and learnt so much. Must be hundreds more that just read and get comfort.

Would hate to leave but I will really try hard to ensure I keep my identity a secret in future by changing details - my ds might suddenly become a dd

mummysaurus- an article on challenging a statement is never going to appear in a general column in the DM, it's just not interesting enough for the vast majority of readers.

I agree it is a shock when you discover how MN work (and always have done) - publicise as much as possible, using the talk board as fodder for that. Working that out did change the way I post on here quite dramatically but it doesn't really alter the experience tbh. You can still get a lot out of it.

Sorry MrsT but I am really finding your messages a little bit pattronising

It's fab that you are ahppy with all this, some of us just as entitled not be so much.

Which I feel eman about posting and running on but it's nott my fault this kicked off before the pc embargo

Though no doubt by the time I am back all will ahve blown over, as ever.

It's not about me being happy about it - I have no wish to be quoted in any newspaper or any mumsnet book for that matter. I post here knowing that i have no control over either of those scensrios thpugh. But given how much material is taken from mumsnet on a weekly basis I think the hysteria over one column is crazy. Even if the dm never runs an article on mn again ( which they will) posts will still be quoted in other publications every week.

There seems to be aparticular concern about sn being a vulnerable area. I an simply pointing out that this is incredibly unlikely because the issues are not of general interest. Go to your local paper and ask them run a story on lack of salt/ statementing issues/ dla cock ups. They won't unless you agree to be photographed with your child looking sad and they can add on the personal details of age etc. A local journalist told me there was no story without photo etc (which I refused to give so story didn't run)- it's not interesting enough. A small weekly column will never be able to get enough of a personal backstory in to make it past the editors.

Where sn might be mined for quotes is when someone runs a personal story about some difficulty to do with disability and some quotes from here are added to demonstrate the generalness of the problem. But no- one seems to objecting to that which I don't understand. I don't want particularly to be quoted in that context either but it's always been a risk on mn. The only way to avoid it is to stick to closed boards. Belong to plenty of those
too - and post differently on them.

'Riven's rl name and mn name are not being linked. If they were those posts would be being deleted.'

Actually, some people have put dd's RL name into posts. I've always asked them to be deleted but I may have missed a few. Its certainly never been done automativally. Once you know dd's name you can identify me.
Hence I asked all posts - and I went through them - using city or identifying features of dd to be deleted. Its not been done.
But then I'm not London based rich person am i.

Saintly, said journo might decide to write about hassle faced by parents of SN children and lift a fair few threads. Me describing wheelchair services for example. Where I add I'm disabled too. OT might read it.

So now my mai9n support is pretty much gone. I'm not on TTR cos google groups were too hard.

riven - I do agree that any journo could decide to write about sn and use quotes from here. It's an easy way for a busy journo to get some different angles on their story and it suits mnhq as it provides free publicity. That's where my surprise is really - that in general people don't seem to mind that. I'm struggling to see the difference in terms of privacy/ exposure.

Mbhq have ( IMO) always been slow to delete posts. They refused to delete mine ( in a very cheery way) when I asked years ago after over exposing myself/ds1. It was one reason on a recent thread that I got quite angry when someone ( without a disabled child) suggested we post personal stories about our children on a termination thread - way too much exposure. I wish they would make it easier to delete bit I guess they rely on a busy full board. They do at least allow us to complain about them- many boards don't.

they are not being slow to delete posts right now are they? Except the ones I requested back on saturday.

Sorry I meant unwilling rather than slow to delete posts. They will delete ones which identify you outright (so if you write 'I live in X' then they will usually delete as soon as you request it ime), but are often very unwilling to delete anything where it's less obvious but you feel uncomfortable about something you've said.

I'm just thinking its double standards.
Not sure why you are going all out to defend them and this journo MrsTurnip?

If I remember rightly, aloha flounced because mn deleted a post she made on an islam thread and she was angry because she felt her free speech was being denied. It all seemed a bit acrimonious at the time, but mn team seem to be friendly with her now.

I'm not defending MN at all. I think they should make it easier to delete threads but it has always been like this and I'm fairly resigned to the fact they won't. MNHQ encourage the press to treat MN as a place to get different views and encourage as much publicity as they can. That's how it became a viable business and I'm sure that's how they'll continue to grow the business. Being in the papers benefits them.

I don't think the journo deserves the personal attacks she has been getting - especially as none of us know how the column came about and in my mind it is no different to the many other journos who have lifted quotes without permission over the years. Something which MNHQ has always encouraged. Unless a journo has asked for a backstory or volunteers to expand on their posts it's very unlikely that permissions will have been sought. So I'm sticking up for her because I think that making all sorts of assumptions about her and her motivations are unfair (and would be for anyone) and I also think it's unfair that she has been transformed into public enemy number 1 for doing something that MNHQ (and presumably any website with their business model) have always encouraged.

MN and other open websites are read by all sorts and used in all sorts of ways that we're probably not aware of. Our words are not just the fodder of journos. The general opinion in most industries now seems to be that if something is freely available to be read by all on the web it is there to be reproduced - providing it's credited which it was.

at least jimjams and I know we are not welcome on the sn board anyway
thanks for that

eh why are you not welcome?

I love you both btw Fio you were one of the first people I ever 'chatted' to here

Fio of coures you are bothe welcome on sn, just people are disagreeing about this subject, doesn't mean people are not welcome.