Reducing Moderation Load for MN (continuation of Dealing with Inflammatory Posts)

[womanformallyknownaswoman]

I'm starting another thread - which is really a continuation of the previous post re dealing with inflammatory posts and comments. On Site Stuff, MNHQ have revealed more about their issues with FWR - i.e. the moderation workload. They need that reducing.

Please do also take on board the fact that the combative tone isn’t just in relation to goady posts or trolls - the majority of deletions take place in discussions where there isn’t a debate or conflict. It’s a root and branch problem.

What's the nature of the root and branch problem - is there a pattern to the deletions? Are they from certain OPs? Without fully understanding the problem, I am unsure what solutions to focus on - ie. will self policing the tone work as that assumes it's our comments that are the problem? Or is it, as I suspect, trolling that is increasing the mod workload?

I personally don't report much as I am conscious of their workload. Am I alone in this? Thus, I have asked them if they have analysed which accounts are doing the reporting (to see if Sealion and troll accounts are swamping them). Or is it the mods trawling through comments policing the tone??? Or is it us?

BTW @Datun has suggested pinning a post emphasising self policing. Great idea if it is us - but if so, what phrasing is OK and not? Would I be right in thinking saying "self id doesn't take sufficient account of concerns about women and children is fine"? But what is off limits? I still come back to what is that the root cause of the mod workload increase?

Secondly, I keep pointing out that Sealions/concern trolls use covert bullying so the pattern of someone's comments is important, not just a one off remark. As with coercive control in DV, each individual incident can seem inconsequential, but over time the drip, drip cumulative effect leaves women alternating between enraged and cowering. And with Sealions it's not just the comment reported but a pattern of covert bullying remarks consisting of dismissing others concerns, falsely accusing others(Transphobia), criticism that is based on distortion, misrepresentation or fabrication.

Where I think we may need to be smarter is in dealing with Sealions. I have heard it argued that the debate is needed. But if one is wasting one's time on Sealions, it just gives them more ammunition to report and complain about. It feeds them. Hence more mod workload. The only way I have found effective is not to engage with known Sealions. I just ignore them. I don't engage personally with them. So we potentially have a conflict between those who want to have the debate and yet at the same time needing to call time and IGNORE Sealions, after they have demonstrated an unwillingness to engage healthily. For example on the Inflammatory post - I would have preferred to call time on certain Sealions much earlier - there's no point in being nice if it defeats the object ie having debate with someone who wants to engage plus not increasing the mod workload.
Would love some of your thoughts…..

Yes, it's a bit odd.

Please report everything plus there are too many reports so we are hiding you is odd.

I think this is simply a new moderation policy. We are no longer allowed to repeat true scientific facts if they are "hurtful". Added to which instead of deleting individual posts, mnhq have started deleting entire threads.

Well Lang we are women and we are always responsible for our own oppression

I haven't ventured out of FWR onto the other boards for months (partly because I was formerly one of the 'terf' usernames, and was conscious that the irony of the label might be lost elsewhere - one of the reasons I changed back to my previous name) Yesterday I dipped in and out of other convos, and was astonished by the combative tone. It made me realise how very adept posters have become here at diplomacy and how skilled FWR users are rigorous, relevant, respectful argument.

One of the threads I looked at was about a reality TV programme I'd caught the end of the other night. There were lots of very harsh personal comments about the participants, of the sort that would be absolutely unconscionable here - all completely unchallenged by other posters or HQ. And that made me realise that the goalposts for feminist discussion of a political issue with massive public impact are not just in a different place, they're on a different playing field. We are held to higher account, and time and again the regular posters here rise to that standard, and exceed it. Which is why it's such a blow when more obstacles are put in the way.

On a more positive note, the recent movement to re-centre the feminist angle of all this, and to bring discussions that are being derailed by transideology back to women and girls, is proving to be hugely effective.
The GG thread in AIBU is a great example of this, and I've seen posters (sorry - can't remember specific names) using it brilliantly to keep threads on track.

Do we know who is reporting? I have a suspension that many lurk, never post but report posts. I may be paranoid though.

Exactly Absinthe.

On the site stuff thread MNHQ said they were hiding FWR until the "tone" of posts/threads improved. I said there that if they are going to hide a board because of its "tone" they might start with aibu. But they won't

So we're naughty children who need a time out now?

The Girl Guide political action has the TRAs positively foaming at the mouth.

This is what they are angry about - that women object to girls being in overnight accomodation and facilities with males, without the girls' parents being informed.

And we are the ones who are been seen as unreasonable?

This is why they are reporting us, not for for some badly phrased sentence

Apparently we're reporting each other, based on a comment upthread. This strikes me as a bit of an own goal.

FFJ didn't have access to government. FFJ haven't managed to get the laws changed. FFJ weren't handed schools on a plate by the DfE to influence children with their beliefs.

People have to play the long game here and make a distinction between our feelings about individuals and some of the things they say / do versus the big picture about the erasure of women's identity, safeguarding children, sport, misuse of the Equalities Act etc etc.,

It is evident that the general public understand the dilemmas posed by self ID, sport, children etc when it is put to them. Don't let's throw that away because people demand the same 'standards' that apply on AIBU. This is far bigger than that.

And, while I'm on a roll, let's make sure that we give as much attention the other issues relating to women that has informed so much of our feminism.

And that made me realise that the goalposts for feminist discussion of a political issue with massive public impact are not just in a different place, they're on a different playing field. We are held to higher account, and time and again the regular posters here rise to that standard, and exceed it. Which is why it's such a blow when more obstacles are put in the way.

YY

On a more positive note, the recent movement to re-centre the feminist angle of all this, and to bring discussions that are being derailed by transideology back to women and girls, is proving to be hugely effective.

I really think it could help if we politely reoriented any OP or thread derailment about a trans issue that does not impact on feminist concerns about women and girls. This is a feminist board and discussions should be on topic to feminist issues.

And, while I'm on a roll, let's make sure that we give as much attention the other issues relating to women that has informed so much of our feminism.

^^this.

And it has a double result. It raises awareness about all the issues that affect women, but in doing so it relentlessly makes the distinction between men and women. And why that's necessary.

It also creates more feminists.

Someone mentioned DARVO. The particular male/female dynamic where this becomes evident permeates across all issues relevant to feminism.

As a phenomenon, it's instantly recognisable. Once you know about it.

The sort of information, that gets shared on here, isn't just fascinating, it's a vital, collective, modern day version of storytelling.

Not everyone is going to start reading feminist books. But following a thread, with a hundred different opinions, watching a previously unknown narrative unfold before your very eyes. Sometimes it's nothing short mind altering.

agree about the success of recentring arguments to put women and girls at the heart. i have found this really helpful personally for my mental health; it feels much better to frame thoughts and arguments positively rather than be on the defensive. this way we take back control of ourselves (to avoid burnout) as well as the debate.

i wonder if this is in part why these demands that everybody must "be inclusive!" (without further thought as to what that actually means) are so succesful. I mean, who doesn't like to feel like they are being inclusive?

We are being asked to solve a problem but not given any information about the problem. Is it the moderation load? Is it the reporting by ordinary MN users or by new posters trying to police either side of the conversation? Is it off board complaints? Advertising revenue? Or other stuff?
We can undertake to go high but we can't stop a deluge of reporting. We can't ignore disingenuous posting surely? And MNHQ presumably don't want to make the call on who is acting in good faith because they will get a backlash.
So largely what Datun said.
The logical thing to do would be to get an honest discussion going between MNHQ and a small steering group, off board, in confidence, to understand what's happening and agree a policy that can be put in a sticky. Let them look at the detail. Where are the reports coming from etc? How close are we to the edge?

I consider myself 'gender critical', but I agree with widowwadman ^The more comfortable people have become with FWR having become a trans excluding space rather than one that is for feminists across the spectrum, the more posts have appeared which are pretty aggressive and mocking. Or link to sites that are.
And any dissent is shut down in the most patronising tone.^

The tone of FWR in relation trans issues can at times appear unpleasant and occasionally nasty. Its different to AIBU because what is being discussed here is peoples deeply felt sense of themselves, often experienced as distressing internal conflict. Where people post insensitive comments on sensitive issues in AIBU those comments are also deleted, threads about parking or dogs are not comparable.

This isn't me having double standards with regards to women being polite. I want my side to take the moral high ground, in my view it's a far better way of getting your point across. I think everyone should be polite through, the aggressive TRAs are appalling. It's not the 'Die Cis Scum' types who are informing government policy though.

I think there is a touch of what is going on with anti semitism in the Labour party going on here with transphobia. Labour members by and large aren't anti semitic, but there is a lot of focus the actions of Israel. Anger directed towards Israel is totally understandable and justifiable, but sometimes the intense focus on Israel by certain groups within the Labour party can be perceived as anti semitism, or does occasionally tip over into anti semitism.

When MN say the problem is a 'root and branch problem' they are clearly referring to posters who support the consensus, not the occasional dissenting 'sealion', 'troll' or 'plopper'.

I'm not really contributing to this as I have nothing further to add right now but I am watching it and making note of what is said. I think the fact we are held to a higher standard than the rest of the site is indicative of women discussing political issues in a wider sense. I see this kind of 'policing' elsewhere. That said I can appreciate the pressure MNHQ are under and if we want a space - a space I value not just for this issue but other feminist topics - then we need to be mindful of the political zeitgeist. It helps me to know there are like-minded women in Britain and elsewhere who do give a damn about women and girls, to lose touch with that would be a great sadness.

There is no need for aggressiveness or personal attacks; points can be made well enough without it. So I'm happy to proceed with informative and robust but respectful debate.

It is interesting because in my opinion this board is like that for the most part (until someone comes along with their stirring spoon or pokey stick) but I've been on these boards for a while with name changes and it was ever thus. I can't recall a thread about the sex industry and its effect on women without an MRA with a big pointy stick to annoy us all. If you look back at feminist history, this policing of women's tone, whataboutery and accusations of exclusion has always been around. Divide and conquer tactics all, we need to politely engage or ignore.

Whilst I don't disagree with the rest of your post, I just wanted to take this bit

I think everyone should be polite through, the aggressive TRAs are appalling. It's not the 'Die Cis Scum' types who are informing government policy though.

Because it absolutely is those types. Action for Trans Health, who were the group who liked the 'let's fuck up some terfs' comment before the violence at speakers corner, were invited to give evidence to the original transgender equality report.

They are unhinged and are calling for the release of all trans prisoners.

Ana Lee who tells children that puberty is optional and to take hormone blockers, was also asked for their expertise, as well as a prominent transactivist who openly advocates for extreme porn.

Alongside the well known trans-pressure groups, there were a number of very questionable people who were asked for evidence.

When MN say the problem is a 'root and branch problem' they are clearly referring to posters who support the consensus, not the occasional dissenting 'sealion', 'troll' or 'plopper'.

Although they may well be referring to regular posters, they're not giving those posters enough information to self regulate. They are also holding them different standards than everyone else.

In terms of the actual guidelines I mean. And what, in their opinion constitutes the wrong tone, or 'not in the spirit of'.

Because the spirit of these talks is to expose the damaging aspects of transactivism and highlight misogynistic attitudes behind prominent transactivists.

All in terms of how it effects women.

That's the actual spirit and the purpose.

If transactivism affected badgers, there would be zero problem. Because it's not intrinsically about trans people, it's about women.

Because it absolutely is those types. Action for Trans Health, who were the group who liked the 'let's fuck up some terfs' comment before the violence at speakers corner, were invited to give evidence to the original transgender equality report.

Agreed, these are the people insinuating themselves into every part of this movement.

they're not giving those posters enough information to self regulate.

This is also true, without guidance we are blindly assuming the problem when we 'may' be missing something crucial so even our best intentions might go awry.

This kind of issue makes it all the more confounding for me to hear women denounce feminism.

Wasn't Steph-on-knee given some sort of special advisory status in Canada?
And there was rapist/killer Karen Jones who was asked to speak at the House of Lords to shape opinion.

Indeed the "die cis scum" People are shaping policy.

Yes, that's right, although that may have been before some of Stephonknee's more questionable identity decisions.

It seems like this is one of those unstoppable force meets immovable object type problems for MN.

Whoever is putting pressure on them is unlikely to be happy with anything but total capitulation into TWAW.

Of course MN like many other orgs could decide to comply with this but it doesn't exactly sit well with a company that runs prominent campaigns about things that affect biological women.

It's a uniquely difficult situation because if they go fully down the trans inclusive root then in about ten seconds flat campaigns like the birth injuries one will be 'transphobic'. If they outright ban FWR then they get Spartacus again probably x10.

It's a similar situation to the one the WEP finds themselves in. All because women and girls must never be allowed to talk amongst themselves and form opinions without the input of men.

Can I point something out re reporting each other for tone violations, etc? Spartacus worked because there were so many women who all stood up and refused to be silenced all at once. If we now have some people policing the language others use and reporting back to HQ if they don't like the tone of other regulars then that's basically opening the door to divide and conquer approaches. So if the idea is to be tactical here, maybe keep that in mind.

Redirect to relevance to women and girls, WGLTGH etc is a different thing, in that it's a public reminder to keep one's eye on the prize.

If whoever is trying to shut down these conversation sees a potential for schism they'll exploit it for all they're worth.

If you look back at feminist history, this policing of women's tone, whataboutery and accusations of exclusion has always been around.

I do totally agree with this, I should also say that I have learnt so much from the intelligent well informed posters on this board about all sorts issues, so thank you.

Datun How horrifying about Action for Trans Health, I had no idea! Also thank you for all your well informed and calmly rational posts.

re Because it's not intrinsically about trans people, it's about women. Perhaps discussion should just centre around trans people in relation to women and girls? There have been many, many posts here discussing trans issues though, from things Lily Madigan has tweeted, to studies about outcomes for post operative transwomen to whether or not gender dysphoria exists. I do think these things should be open to discussion.

'Trans-Twitter' has proved a very effective tool to some TRAs who wish to stoke fears and/or silence debate... It really is worth people being more aware about the various mechanisms used.
Changes in legislation/ policies has also been used very successfully although perhaps more as a threat (I think?) rather than being actually tested.
There is a much bigger picture!!

It’s almost like we need a sexism board.
But we shouldn’t have to.

This will probably sound overly cynical to some but, for what it’s worth.

It strikes me that Mumsnet are regretting letting the discussion run as freely as it has until now. It probably benefitted them at first, drew more traffic to the FWR boards but then it got too much negative attention and it’s more trouble than it’s worth.

They clearly want an “out” but now they risk user revolt by dropping discussion abruptly..

They want an excuse, any excuse, to shut the conversation down and they’ll do so slowly and quietly to minimise user complaints.

For me, Mumsnets current stance signals the beginning of the end of open discussion on here and individuals who want to continue the debate probably need to be looking for somewhere else to do that.