MNHQ want money from us

[JellySlice]

Perhaps now is the time to tell MNHQ what we want from them.

eg
Relaxation of the anti-women censorship rules.
Reinstating banned respected posters like LangCleg.

The vast majority of the content generated or consumed by users has nothing to do with either of these topics

Women being the female sex with rights & Safeguarding?

They are at the heart of many discussions throughout the site unsurprisingly given its basis.

There are a low number (proportionate to overall users) who come to FWR, but a high number of those that come, post.

Do you have a source please?

There are a low number (proportionate to overall users) who come to FWR, but a high number of those that come, post.

How do you know this - do you have an analysis of the stats from MNHQ?

MNHQ confirmed themselves that FWR is the third most visited board on the site - behind AIBU and Relationships.

They also gave the figures for unique users entering the site via the FWR board - and that was large too, although I can't remember it off the top of my head.

Re entries - the bounce rate will be v high. MN needs new visitors to stay and consume more pages.

Re visitors - Those stats werent uniques iirc. Ie the same people coming back multiple times.

I mean, MN isn't in a financial crisis because they allow the FWR to exist - TRAs have been coming after this board for years now, and made very little headway.

The bottom has dropped out of the advertising market, because of the coronavirus.

So the question is: do the women here appreciate the FWR board enough to pay, and lend Justine a financial hand?

And, very importantly, do we trust Mumsnet with our personal data?

The second one does worry me - I have memories of Jeff - and of Emma Healey delightedly doxing Mumsnetters - and saying she "has more" - Emma Healey was what made me de-reg and re-reg with a Protonmail email address.

Source?

Source?

Apologies, flushedzebra, I was asking Vitreous

Sorry VitreousHumour - you still haven't told us the source of your very confident analysis here.

The bottom has dropped out of the advertising market, because of the coronavirus

They lost a few big advertisers before coronavirus was even a thing though.
Flora was one, and I think Birds Eye used to be but aren't anymore?
That's two I can think of

The bottom has dropped out of the advertising market, because of the coronavirus.

The subscription model was a planned roll-out anyway.

My bottom line is that yes, I would both like to, and am in a position to support Mumsnet financially - but I'm not giving them persona data, because of the Emma Healey thing. I felt at the time that this wasn't taken seriously enough - and how do we know there aren't more Emma Healeys at MNHQ?

The claim about Birdseye withdrawing advertising due to alleged 'transphobia' was generated by TRAs. I dont think any evidence was ever produced to substatiate it.

JustineMumsnet (MNHQ) Tue 30-Apr-19 16:34:22
Hello all
Thought I'd provide some detail and our take on all of this.

We started working with Birdseye in March 2017 testing a number of products - they were awarded their first Mumsnet Rated badge in June 2017 which they renewed for a further 12 months ending this June. They've decided not to renew the licence when it expires but that isn't unusual and their view was that the activity had come to a natural end.

We are talking to Birdseye about commercial activity with a number of their other brands and have no reason to believe they have any ongoing concerns about working with Mumsnet.

It is true that a number of TRAs have targeted Mumsnet advertisers over the past year. Obviously we are able to point to our commitment to freedom of speech as well as to minority rights and civilised discussion with regard to this issue and we don't believe it's had a significant impact on advertising activity.
P7 from thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3571408-birdseye-no-longer-in-a-business-relationship-with-mumsnet-re-transphobia-unverified

'DadTrans' who published a communication with unsubstatiated commentry had taken a position about/against 'Mumsnet' some time ago:

twitter.com/DadTrans/status/914165853742075905

from October 2017thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3048350-Some-sort-of-campaign-being-organised-against-MN?pg=5

He seems quite well connected & had recent piece in the i :
'This is what it is really like to seek healthcare for your trans child
The media paints a picture of 'fast-tracked' services and easy access to hormones. The reality couldn't be more different'
inews.co.uk/opinion/trans-children-treatment-gids-hormones-blockers/

Pink News
"Former Labour leader Ed Miliband warned about a “moral panic” on transgender issues in the British press."
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3233421-Home-Affairs-Committee-Hate-crime-enquiry-Newspaper-editors-interviewed

The background to the comment by Ed Milliband quoted at the Home Affairs hearing was discussed on a MN thread in November 2017

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3096513-to-let-you-know-how-men-use-the-Equality-Act-to-undermine-womens-spaces?pg=6

questions were asked by @ pisacake 25/11/17 21:50
with comment on what was believed to be a significant meeting with Ed Milliband prior to his statement:

"Those Miliband guests in full:
1. Helen Webberley - bonkers GP, not allowed to practise unsupervised, runs online trans clinic.
2. @ DadTrans - works for Mermaids
3. Paris Lees - trans rentaquote, invited to Mumsnet blogfest www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/2775504-Why-is-Paris-Lees-speaking-at-Mumsnet-and-are-MN-seeking-Spartacus-tees
4. Miranda Kane - former dominatrix sex worker"

'Growing Up Transgender' blog:
"In November 2017, (@ DadTrans) was interviewed by Ed Miliband and Geoff Lloyd for their Reasons to be Cheerful Podcast.

The episode went on to jointly win broadcast of the year at the 2018 Pink News Awards

Receiving the award, ex-Labour leader Miliband joked: “This makes up for the general election in 2015.”
growinguptransgender.com/2019/04/15/trans-rights-are-human-rights-interview-with-ed-miliband/

Sorry VitreousHumour - you still haven't told us the source of your very confident analysis here.

No, I haven't.

The claim about Birdseye withdrawing advertising due to alleged 'transphobia' was generated by TRAs. I dont think any evidence was ever produced to substatiate it

I never said anything about why they did or didn't withdraw though, did I?
I said they were losing big advertising names well before coronavirus was a thing.

Ok, not sure what happened to that quote, the bold went a bit bonkers!

Are you going to explain why we should take your conjectures seriously then VitreousHumour?

MNHQ have told us the stats on threads before - so I think I'll take it from them, not you.

'DadTrans' who published a communication with unsubstatiated commentry had taken a position about/against 'Mumsnet' some time ago

8/4/2020 'DadTrans' twitter comments:

"Mumsnet is in financial trouble. According to their CEO its "squeaky bum time".

With less money floating about, advertisers are carrying out more due diligence, I expect those businesses which support anti-LGBT sentiment are more at risk. Mumsnet transphobia was bad business.

Birdseye money ran out in October 2018 #mumsnettransphobia" (continues)
twitter.com/DadTrans/status/1247965936981807105

Current thread re 'Pink News in Trouble'
"From the article:

Fifteen-year-old, London-based LGBT media publisher PinkNews faces the likely prospect of scrapping its largest event, the PinkNews Awards, scheduled to take place in October, according to CEO Benjamin Cohen.

The company earns 15% of its revenue from events — last year PinkNews brought in $2.3 million in revenue and made $450,000 in profit — but the sponsorship sales made from selling the awards at the start of the year provides important cash flow for the second and third quarters, he said. This year, however, not a single sponsor has come on board and typically typically the company would have received all of its sponsors by now."

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3875830-Pink-News-in-trouble

Ok, that's up to you. I'm trying to give you a heads up. You must realise that whenever MN speak on these matters, FWR users are not their only audience. They will not be able to be entirely frank on commercially sensitive issues , nor will they always wish to be. But the fact is that MN has been wounded, possibly critically, by their decision not to shut down this debate. There are very good reasons for other platforms choosing to do so.

HQ told us that entry to the whole site via this board was massive and had increased to 12 fold in just one year.

HQ told us that entry to the whole site via this board was massive and had increased to 12 fold in just one year

And 99.9% will turn around and go straight back to Twitter. These entries are commercially meaningless.

I've just read through the whole forty pages of the Site Stuff thread. Is that a virtual form of self harm?!

No. I won't be subscribing.

Primarily because - regardless of FWR and material reality versus the coalition of female socialisation and pomo headfuckery - you'd have to be a fool to trust personal financial data to a website with a record this bad on security.

But also because it is utter effrontery to ask your product to pay for the privilege of being your product without even so much as the ubiquitous two-for-one cinema tickets in return.

Would I contribute to a funding drive? Only if FWR were to be returned to operating on the same rules as all the other boards. It's a myth that Mumsnet is the only place allowing the critique of queer theory and the implications for women and children. This discussion is taking place everywhere now - Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Spinster, the comments section of every national newspaper except for the Guardian and more. In fact, Mumsnet is more censorious than most of these. It's way behind the curve.

Lots of words there. Tl;dr?

No.

That was during the period of the Westminster government's public consultation wasn't it Datun ?

And 99.9% will turn around and go straight back to Twitter.

Source?

Indeed. "No debate" has failed, and a debate is now beginning to happen. In order for it to be useful clear communication is necessary, and that's exactly what the guidelines for this forum prevent. Whether or not they were intended to is a matter of, ironically, much debate.

But the fact is that MN has been wounded, possibly critically, by their decision not to shut down this debate

Saying something is a fact does not make it so.