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…..

So where else do we do it? Everything else seems to be on Facebook but half of us don’t have it.

Agreed, the question is where? There are plenty of small blogs where women can talk freely but that doesn't do much good if it's just the same people talking to each other all the time (other than venting, which is useful in itself). What's needed is a space where people not yet up to speed on the changes can stumble across the discussion.

"a space where people not yet up to speed on the changes can stumble across the discussion"

That used to be here. Now no-one will stumble across it

It would be better if they outright banned all discussion; that way we could vociferously object on the main board. This way they are paying lip-service to being a place for free discussion - but just hiding it from everyone who doesn't know it's here.

This is a good subreddit www.reddit.com/r/GenderCritical/

How long it will last is anyone's guess. It's been targeted for closure just like FWR.

We need to bring this into real life. How did the suffragettes get their message across before the internet? Perhaps use their tactics and modify them for now.

The internet is vast and the percentage of people who use forums is tiny. We need to speak to people face to face.

Who dares wants to start an "aibu to think mnhq shouldn't be censoring free speech by hiding the entire Feminist Board?" thread?

I guess we will have to keep posting things into AIBU/Chat/News. Not the debate/personal opinion/twitter stuff but anything that is political or newsworthy that the media is also reporting on. Keep it visible.

The more comfortable people have become with FWR having become a trans excluding space rather than one that is for feminists across the spectrum,

I'm sorry but that is tosh, unless you're saying that transwomen with the 'wrong views' aren't really trans. There are a number of trans MNetters posting regularly on the threads who feel very strongly that self ID and much of the ideology is wrong, damaging to them and does not represent the trans community. Not agreeing with Self ID and being gender critical is not 'exclusionary' or 'hateful', and that's the heart of what the discussion here is trying to argue.

I have the greatest support for MNHQ. They listened to the Spartacus threads and changed moderation policy. They have allowed discussion here allowed nowhere else, and it's obvious that behind the scenes they are being hammered over it. The point made last weekend was that when they're dealing with complaints they're put in a very difficult position if the complainant has a point. It's a fine line. Madigan, as a public figure taking actions and making statements on social media within a public facing capacity, should be held accountable for actions and those actions open to discussion as for any other public figure. It cannot be unacceptable to voice criticism of any trans person no matter what their role or actions purely because of their trans status, that's discriminatory against them in itself. However the tone and language of those discussions have at times crossed the line into angry, personal, rude and just plain using the space to have a dig. That is not acceptable, HQ can't stand behind that and make a case for their support of free speech and good use of MN, and it feeds the false view being spread that MN is a hive of nasty gossips. It will be used as a weapon to stop free speech because the root of this is a desperation to prevent women talking about it, questioning it and sharing information with the wider world.

of the discussion so far, 3 things.

1. Tone policing. Not engaging with people there to be rude and looking to just have a dig or stir the pot. I've seen several threads today where someone's said something provocative and other posters have just ignored it and carried on talking. The willpower to not 'have to have your say' in response to something provoking matters.

2. A standard TRA political strategy is to inundate and blitz a non compliant organisation with endless emails, tweets, complaints, with the idea of causing enough annoyance and dominating enough staff time that the organisation buckles. Basically scream long enough and you'll get the sweets. So HQ need the complaints to be obviously groundless every time . If they can quickly and easily check and reply 'no, that doesn't break guidelines' it makes their life easier. Its where some complaints have a point and deletions happen that make it harder for them.

3. The suggestion of 'vexatious complainers' sounds a really good one. If three reports in a row are found to be not breaking guidlines than suspend or ban that user. Equally if someone is deleted x number of times in a row for breaking talk guidelines I'd also fully support MN suspending or banning that user too.

The subreddit is great but fair warning, those who're already having trouble with the more direct commenters here and who need a layer of softening language around the more robust criticism of specific individuals/men as a group/fetish as a motivating factor for some transitions etc probably aren't going to like it much. The tone tends to be a lot less "nice".

It's not really a place randoms would stumble across if they weren't specifically looking for it though, which was one of the main advantages of having conversations about how trans stuff impacts women happen on Mumsnet.

It doesn't solve

4. The hiding of FWR from active achieves making that forum harder to find for casual droppers in, and less easy to casually drop in and stir on. However it also hides it from the rest of MN and many of the women on FWR are there because they initially picked up threads in active and had a look.

There's no quick answer to that one, but in the short term I sympathise with HQ needing a break.

GenderCritical subreddit has been given the green light by Reddit admin on a number of occasions - so it's safe for the time being AFAIK - and yes agree - the tone is much harsher and real there and they don't stand for any bs "niceness" - they call out the MRAs and TRAs and mod accordingly so it is relatively troll free and civil.

I think that subreddit has mainly USA users too.
The great thing about this place is that we're all mostly British and so don't have to navigate our way through another country's laws or customs to make our point.

If we used the subreddit too, it would also have a British voice and we might learn from one another. I agree though the tone is far less polite than on here and sometimes that isn't helpful. I can think of a few posts I've read where I thought it was a bit much,having said that I think it can be a product of frustration and if the majority of users are US or Canadian then they are in a different place to us and their frustrations may be a result of that.

Agree with all the comments about the subreddit. It is harsher in tone but it is moderated by the community it was created for so trolling is quickly shut down.

I don't actually post there because as Ophelia said it's quite US centric (and I haven't quite got to grips with how reddit works ) but I enjoy reading some of the discussions even though some of the regulars are way more radfem than me.

I have noticed we have a lot of support there for how we are pushing back against the narrative in the UK. We have an advantage in being a smaller country with a centralised government. I get the impression it's so much harder in the US because of policy differences at a state level.

Maryz
I think putting a thread on Aibu would be goading MNHQ - and I don't believe that they deserve that sort of treatment.
Post after post on here has acknowledged their courage in listening to this community after Spartacus and allowing debate to happen.
We know that they are under immense pressure and I think there's a consensus that on occasions some of the many threads on here have 'not been as constructive' as they could have been.
I really believe that the issues are too important to lose by getting into pointless arguments with MNHQ. There are hundreds of threads which are powerful, informative and don't break any guidelines but are responsible for highlighting issues, getting things into the media and informing so many people. Let's stay focused on the issues and continue to persistently, respectfully but assertively call out the erosion of women's rights that is happening without society's consent and keep highlighting #nodebate

So there's some more info on Site Stuff from MNHQ that indicates it's tone and "others are watching" - is that sponsors/advertisers? Is it MN HR tone policing? It's so obtuse a message. If it's advertisers/sponsors etc thinking MN is getting too political and "hot" a brand, maybe they need reminding that women make 80% of all consumer purchase decisions. So 51% of population, who make 80% of all consumer purchases up against a rowdy 1% at most - who do they think their customers are???? No contest - but that's another battle away from MN I suspect, but involves them as they may be being targeted - by the tone police of HR/Marketing as much as TRAs

I post on GC subreddit and prefer it here - it's UK centric here plus softer - the cultural differences are to the fore on GC and I find the assertions and judgment there too strident for my style and taste. It's not a place that's particularly friendly for those learning about GC unfortunately either - but maybe that's the cultural differences again...

Would it be goady to post things of broader interest in places like chat or AIBU though? So long as they are relevant to where you post them? The girl guides stuff for example is clearly of interest to a lot of people outside this board. So, if you are thinking of posting a thread that may be of broader interest, why not post it elsewhere? You could also flag it here if you think regulars would be interested. That way the topic isn't hidden. Am I being naive as usual?

I don't think so flowers as I said upthread if something is political, legislative or newsworthy and is also in the MSM I don't see why it can't be discussed on other boards.

I think surely if it has a strong WAWAG lean to it like the current GG thread in AIBU then it would be hard for MNHQ to take issue with it? As long as the thread policed and reinforced the WAWAG issue every few pages then it would be able to stay on topic.
I think things like sports need a wider discussion.

Its less about MN having an issue with it and more about those who would seek to close it down being given a reason to do so.
Sometimes comments can be an 'open goal'!

I'll cross post this from my recent comment on Site Stuff and then gotta go - will be back later

However I discovered in a different context that examples are essential - because not everyone has the same standard of reasonable and nice. So by saying this is OK and this isn't - it's more obvious.

Again I am hampered by I don't actually know what the problem is - is it mod overload or tone - there seems to be 2 different issues here. And @MNHQ refer to both in different comments so it's hard to extricate them - there are things like "others are watching" - what does that mean

Anyway examples of posts and threads that are OK and those that aren't would seem to be a sensible move - even if not in the Guidelines but maybe discussed between ourselves on FWR. And posted every so often as a reminder.

I think this is a scandal. Mumsnet, a parenting site, with a specific emphasis on 'mums' funnily enough, is threatening to shut down conversation on the biggest threat to women and girls' rights in 100 years.

And here we are, debating how to be nice.

It's very difficult to convey my opinion on this without getting deleted but suffice to say I think it's a bloodied betrayal of women and girls and I think Mumsnet should be bloody ashamed to be making us all tiptoe around and ask permission to speak.

If that gets me banned, so be it. I'll take up throwing cups at the wall.

Actually, I think it's about time we started organising marches etc and stop replying on commercial entities to host a discussion that can be deemed not in their commercial interests and therefore shut down.

Seriously fucking angry

"others are watching" - is that sponsors/advertisers?

MN are first and foremost a business, not a public service, and they are absolutely entitled to protect their brand and their income. It's all credit to HQ that they are willing to think and talk about this and to try and make things work even under pressure. I second, critical threads in AIBU are not helpful, and don't value what MNHQ have done this far.

It's also far, far better for whoever IS watching to see in action that allowing discussion and free speech is nothing to be afraid of and isn't at all the nastiness or ugliness it's painted as. That does a great deal in throwing oxygen on the debate and all the facts.

I'm desperately trying to read between the lines of the HQ posts, if there are, indeed, any cryptic lines. There may not be.

Thay have said that it's not the threads where there is an actual debate going on, with both sides having input.

It's more the threads where everyone is 'talking amongst themselves'.

To me then, it's those threads where everyone is doing things like slagging off Lily Madigan, posting a video and having a piss take, speculating on what would happen to your marriage if you identified as a man or came out as a giraffe, etc.

Obviously, if you are posting a news story like Laurel Hubbard, the comments are going to veer off into speculation. As people draw analogies, and project forward into hypothetical possibilities.

So that's where discretion, and self-regulation of tone and intent would come in.

Dragging it back to the issue in hand. With reminders of WAWAG and TGLWGH.