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…..

If we are confined to FWR, and never in active, not allowed to post on the other boards, then we are in one womanly echo chamber and noone will be listening except us

I've posted this elsewhere but, if you want to understand the nature of the challenges/attacks on this forum, then just put 'Mumsnet' into the search option of an open Twitter account. Its not about challenging it there so much as understanding how it might be affecting it here. The more people who are aware of this the better...

Wow @R0wantrees just did that. Thread i'm on about the wiki for 'woman' has been screenshotted for suggesting addition of a gender critical narrative regarding the inclusion of 'transwomen' with tesco an birdseye hash tagged

"And for today's dose of important gender critical activity we have Mumsnet in association and promoted by #tesco and #birdseyeuk getting transphobic about the wiki entry for woman including gender identity, and elsewhere belittling trans women's experience as women to fancy dress"

They really don't want us discussing this do they

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.

Is there a link please?

and by way of balance... this is a very uplifting tweet by La Scapigliata

" Misogynist abuse of women, lead by trans activists, is escalating. This means they are losing, big time. Society has woken up to their lies, women have already won against this tide of misogyny, we just have to hold firm. Solidarity sisters xx"

and a link to her recent article which I think definitely worth reading... lascapigliata8.wordpress.com/2018/04/10/it-is-not-woman-but-transgender-that-is-a-truly-elusive-term-and-how-this-relates-to-the-statistics-of-trans-youth-suicide/

so joining up what datun just said with R0wantrees thing about screenshots on twitter....

can't we use this to our advantage? if we keep in mind TGLWGH and importantly WAWAG in every post that we make, then every time a screenshot is posted on twitter is good publicity for our concerns

i once read an interesting guide to making comments online ... something along the lines of summarising the other person's POV to show you understood, stating where you are in agreement and only then putting forth your opposition.

could we have a similar guide here for a bit, but including WAWAG?

or is that just too much self policing and too much typing

Just had a look at the Twitter screenshots - it would be difficult for anyone not well versed in TRA ideology to have the faintest idea what the fuss is about; it's the usual thing of 'extreme transphobia' actually translating as 'talking critically and not paying full ideological and linguistic obeisance'. I can't imagine Tesco et al would easily see what the problem is, it comes down to 'they shouldn't be allowed to talk about it'. That's it.

Compared to what goes on Twitter and Facebook and everywhere else it's extremely polite. Largely it's complaining about molehills and looking hard to find any detail to take offense about.

James Kirkup:
'Bluntly, why the hell is no one in politics shouting from the rooftops about this stuff? We’re talking about people trying to put the frighteners on Mumsnetters, for goodness sake. In any other area of public life, politicians usually fall over themselves in their rush to speak up for middle-class working mothers. Yet the politicians who were desperate to talk biscuits at Mumsnet Towers are curiously silent about the intimidation that some women now report there.'

How best to prevent political engagement than by either closing down debate on MN or by discrediting it and those who post there by either slurs or using the laws that currently exist (which may as yet not be tested) prohibiting 'hate speech' and discrimination on the grounds of gender identity?

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

Yes, its rather scary really.

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.

I agree with this. however I do understand MNHQ are in a difficult position. But I do wish they would stand on the side of women and girls..as nothing they do will ever be enough for the transactivists who are clearly now stalking the site.

It does not help when users get too wound up and do sometimes venture into offensiveness, BUT at the same time, a degree of exasperation is to be expected surely.

I also think this may be the beginning of the end, and I do hope its not as MN has been a huge help to so many people. And giving in and telling us all to shut up is basically capitulating to aggressive controlling men. If they did not give in to F4J, why transactivists?

Also about the GC reddit...I used to post there, but I will warn people that if you think posts here occasionally cross a line, its a hell of a lot worse there. I did find a few things actually transphobic, and they were not ignored/shut down as they are here..they were usually upvoted.

I would like to know where the pressure is coming from on MNHQ. I acknowledge they are a business and have a heavy ad reliance, but I think knowing where the pressure is coming from would be enlightening because not all pressures are equal, and something of this magnitude smacks of organisation and power.

Advertisers? - as someone said upthread women make most purchasing decisions. there have been flaps about MNHQ and ads before (swearing for example) but anything that drives traffic drives revenue.
TRA direct abuse?
Personal threats?
Political pressure? If so from whom?
Pressure group pressure? If so what exactly is preventing MNHQ from telling them where to go as they did with f4j etc?
Threat of legal action? If so from whom? Or legal advice from in house?

This is the only issue I can think of where MNHQ have been pressured like this and have conceded. That to me is a huge deal and I would like to know where it’s coming from. The TRA movement is astonishingly well organised and funded - it’s quite unique in that sense.

I also suspect that any sticky would need very careful legal review if it contained examples - to give examples is effectively nailing your colours to the wall. Right now MNHQ can be vague about respect and whatnot, but by putting down actual examples they would declare a position and have that open to challenge.

I had wondered where the feminist threads had gone - I’m quite disturbed they’ve been hidden tbh. It is basically ‘be nice’ isn’t it? I do hope all my posts have been measured on here but frankly, I’ve no interest in being nice. This is the biggest threat to women’s rights in a century - nice isn’t going to work.

Just thought I'd add my two pennies. I am new to mumsnet and started reading threads post peaktrans.

I was jarred (and still am sometimes) by some of the language in some posts. Pro-nouns is something which I make concessions to (pick your battles) but it was quite abrasive when I first came on. What I don't like is comments about peoples looks. WTGLWGH

What' I love about Mumsnet are the intelligent, well worded comments and linked to sources and references. Outside of mumsnet there is no engagement with the questions that I had, which were not addressed by the 'transwomen are women' mantras. It is brilliant for facts - which I often use to support my arguments elsewhere. This is what is going to win the debate, not bitchy comments about Lily Madigan's achne...

I thought MNHQ "loved reports" and encouraged us to report anything that was in breach of talk guidelines or seemed a bit off?

olennas

Im definitely a serial reporter

They dont always delete but they always seem quite grateful

But maybe they are not, maybe its increasing the work load

So now i dont know whether to keep reporting or not

You're not the only one frustrated with the assumption that we should be grateful for every scrap of consideration we get and that we're allowed to speak at all, Assigned. There's a lot of female socialization stuff going on in the way this is being discussed, in terms of what HQ expect of us as well as internally in the conversation here. Ultimately I think that if we're not starting from the assumption that we should be allowed to speak freely about this issue then we've already lost. Which doesn't mean that we can't collectively agree that maybe it's better to avoid the kind of direct "A is a B" comments about public figures that are easy for those public figures to make an official complaints about if that's what it takes to keep this space open, but the way the meta discussion about if we're allowed to speak and to what extent we ought to be obligated to speak in a certain way and what the relationship of a business to its female customers is is troubling from a feminist perspective. The "root and branch" comment in particular was troubling in terms of what it implies about HQs view of the extent to which women's ability to express anger and frustration should be stifled, particularly in combination with the deletion of thread where people were taking the piss out of a very silly graphic purporting to "explain" agender, genderfluid, etc. The idea that it's fundamentally wrong for women to be snarky and mock things they find absurd is not one I'd expected to see endorsed in any way on a woman centered site.

I was stunned at the difference between the policing of the Feminist chat compared to AIBU.

I am always disconcerted when women are offended and report Feminists for talking like Feminists on the Feminist chat. Hello?
Hiding Feminists from women seems not just wrong but cruel.

It seemed to me that the increase in people coming to show us their shocked face has dropped off in the past couple days.

I do think that MNHQ have been awesome so far and I appreciate the tightrope they are walking

But i will be disappointed if FWR is 'closed down' in effect

Thats wrong but I can't think of another way of saying it

There was a phase when people felt quite freed by the building consensus, which was actually supported and championed by the very prominent transwomen here and at meetings, that we could and should speak about male and female biology.

I think this released a lot of tension and was a bit of an outpouring based on relief TBH, especially as many felt strongly that compelled speech is very frightening. If there is a fear it is of that. Not of people.

It's a bit bonkers really that talking about biology is controversial and I guess it looked shocking if you had socialised yourself out of it. Frankly I had missed the memo where reality had become unacceptable, must have slept through the last ten years.

As is the way, things settle down.

I joke a lot, but I try to not insult. If crisp is snarky then I try to be a bit subtle rather than snark but I respect crisp has come here to talk.

Just sayin.

I was sign posted here by an acquaintance who was ‘peaked’ by following a thread on active and discovering these boards, and reading them.

He wouldn’t have known about half these issues, and he wouldn’t have been able to point me here when I started expressing frustration at how things were going.

I would be very upset if this board was essentially ‘hidden’ from the rest of mn. It would take away a fantastic resource, turn us into an echo chamber, and ensure no one else can find out the facts of what is happening.

Why? AIBU could be argued to be upsetting to a great variety of people at times, the reports must be high but you don’t hide it?

I agree that I’d want to know who is behind applying this pressure, and why MN seems like they may be capitulating.

Women talking together is never an echo chamber. We don't all always agree because we are feminists.

Echo echo echo

The idea that I would only listen to one aspect of an issue is frankly risible when I get paid to research.

Sorry boss, no idea what anyone else thinks, I just made sure I was checking with people that thought the exact same thing as I thought before I had even thought about it.

No one is going to pay me for that research!

But does AIBU routinely upset whole categories of people, unless you count mothers-in-law?

Have you never seen how nasty the threads about Gypsies can get?

Being dysphoric has a level of "upsetness" built in surely. Empathy is needed. That is not meant to be goady.

Ah, but the people who other commenters aren't being kind and conciliatory to in AIBU are female. Apparently that's OK, it's failing to defer to male people that's the problem.