Maya Forstater Case - Thread 2 for the Mumsnet Massive

[Bardonnay]

Thread 2!

Making a mistake, checking, owning up, and then doing things right is the way to go @MNHQ.

But there's one extra thing you could do and that's to learn from this for the future. Have you considered that excessive reporting of threads in FWR is being done to manipulate you to act against women?

But @HopeMumsnet , you are normalising the silencing of women. That's not being cautious, that's capitulation.

I think there's also an eating up of time and resources out of both malice and a hope that it will make the business financially untenable at work too.

The people making endless reports are throwing sand in the gears, basically, in the hopes that it will eventually bring the whole thing down.

I think there's also an eating up of time and resources out of both malice and a hope that it will make the business financially untenable at work too.

Completely agree.

I'm also absolutely positive that FWR gets the most reports and takes up most of the mods' time.

Thanks for clarifying, Hope.

But there's one extra thing you could do and that's to learn from this for the future. Have you considered that excessive reporting of threads in FWR is being done to manipulate you to act against women?

Definitely this.

I can see why a certain person may be feeling that they made a less than excellent impression and did their side of the "debate" no favors at all. What I do not see is why MNHQ, or the users here, should be expected to cover that up for them.

We is wimmins; we is here to mend male-feelz.

you are normalising the silencing of women. That's not being cautious, that's capitulation

'Fraid that's how I see it too, Hope.

I wish it wasn't but the ball's in your court to actively change that view. And endlessly minimising the fuck-ups and Justine in denial about the way her mod team is being used as a proxy for coercive controllers isn't going to do it any time soon.

Sorry. Not going to massage any egos when I'm being abused and nobody in authority will admit it.

(Still no dolls with pins though. So there's that!)

Well, look at Mumsnet's point of view. This board probably causes them more aggro than any other board, because there are more complaints about it from people who want to close down free speech. Mumsnet are no doubt less than thrilled at the prospect of a legal action. So they end up being ultra-cautious. It's frustrating for us but I can see why they're doing this.

Still, it was a fantastic case.

I am still laughing about how pathetic the TRA talking points sound in an employment tribunal and how ludicrous Quentin was as a justification for terminating someone's employment.

RoyalCorgi, yes, we all get that MNHQ are in a very uncomfortable position. What a lot of us are saying is that they don't seem to realize that each further capitulation to the people of unspecified sex and gender is going to make their lives harder, and they really can't lay the blame for that uncomfortable position on the feminists.

Yeah, I'm firmly in the "don't negotiate with terrorists" camp not just for ethical reasons but because it doesn't work, they just take it as an indication that they can get you to do what they want if they just push hard enough.

Great video about tax, which is Maya's subject area. Interesting speaker.

@MNHQ

For me (relatively MN/FWR novice - 18 months and counting) there appear to be four issues with the mod process:

1 issues of legality
2 nervousness of (particularly) the mod night shift
3 linked to 1 and 2 above, a lack of a senior member of staff for the night shift to consult
4 lack of clear explanations when a thread is pulled/locked/edited

If these could be addressed, particularly no. 4 that could help.

I honestly think the main problem is the same one as the Fair Cop case: the mods have adopted an "in the eye of the beholder" standard for deletions but are in denial that that's what they've done.

Again, no dolls. No pins. Not trying to be rude.

Yep. Basically, if someone complains, the comment gets deleted, and possibly a strike issued (why and when has never been explained). Whether or not the complaint is reasonable seems not to matter.

I don't know what goes on in the minds of MNHQ, but it's possible that they are being cautious out of a sense of pragmatism rather than principle, ie they realise that a lot of the reports are malicious and designed to close down criticism, but they are deleting posts because they want to avoid a legal action, not because they are trying to be accommodating to the complainants.

Which would bother me less if the strike system wasn't also a factor. As is, picking off prominent posters one by one is really just a matter of making enough reports.

I don't mind a bit of caution when it comes to live court cases - but taken as a whole, along with the strike system/special trans guidelines/the knowledge that mass reporting is weaponised by people who have no other interest than shutting this board down - then it starts to look like a restriction on women's speech, a deliberate attempt to shut us up, being endorsed or condoned by Mumsnet moderators themselves.

but they are deleting posts because they want to avoid a legal action, not because they are trying to be accommodating to the complainants

It may be a factor but how do you then explain the emails they send out, which, if you're right, are explicit and deliberate gaslighting?

As is, picking off prominent posters one by one is really just a matter of making enough reports.

Yes, this is the crux of it really.

There is a huge difference between a vague comment that may, or may not piss someone off, and sitting on here being genuinely transphobic. And HQ should be able to make a distinction.

Quite. Closing the thread overnight was eminently sensible and proportionate. More decisions like that would be welcome, rather than hasty deletions and strikes based on reports which may well be malicious and targeted.
But again, this is not an environment the feminists have created. MNHQ has been the instruments of it, under pressure from the people of indeterminate sex and gender. So I'm not hugely inclined to be embracing humility about any of this.

I don't see why they can't just ban reports from accounts that don't post. That would reduce about 90% of the aggro wouldn't it?

Do MN think the malicious "monitors" are actually contributing to the site in some way so they can't just set things up to ignore them? Are they afraid something genuinely legally problematic might slip through if they simply ignore the controlling bullies?

I guess in the current climate, and with the law being used as an enforcement weapon for controlling bullies I can't blame MNHQ for being cautious, but the monitors need more ignoring, they should all have been ignored much more as children tbh.

Yes theflushedzebra having picked up a couple of strikes in a matter of days, since then I've spent over 5 weeks hovering the cursor over POST MESSAGE and then thinking "nah, I'll not post that, it's innocuous but if there are enough reports it'll get me a suspension".