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.

Vitreous, if you really are an insider, and you are trying to 'help us help ourselves', then get the security issue sorted. That's a significant barrier for many.

I'm referring to the general tenor of the board. The delusion that MNHQ are the problem rather than a generous friend who've stood by you at real cost to themselves.

But I don't think I'm making any headway so I'll leave the discussion.

I'm referring to the general tenor of the board. The delusion that MNHQ are the problem rather than a generous friend who've stood by you at real cost to themselves.

I'm not sure you understand the real, actual cost to very many women as a result of not being able to speak their minds, here.

I understand Justine's position, it's not rocket science. What I've never quite understood is the communication. It's not gone well.

I'm not sure you understand the real, actual cost to very many women as a result of not being able to speak their minds, here.

But there's no logic to this. it's not 'here' that's the problem. You are blaming MN for the fact that women can't speak their mind anywhere.

In fact, that is far less the case on MN than elsewhere.

Women are speaking their mind elsewhere, vitreous. They are particularly speaking their mind elsewhere on this very site.

We're not allowed to make sweeping generalisations, when sweeping generalisations are on every other post, elsewhere on the site.

We're not allowed to talk about public figures, when it's the very crux to loads and loads of threads, elsewhere on the site.

We're not allowed to talk about people like Jazz Jennings Because they were a child. When children are talked about all the time, elsewhere on the site.

We're not allowed talk about, the clothes, make up, or hairstyles of men who say they are women, when the site would die without that, elsewhere on the site.

We have special rules, because we are relentlessly targeted by, largely men, who want to shut us down. It's not news. They crow about it on Twitter, all the live long day.

When you make a sacred caste, that cannot be spoken about, challenged, questioned or criticised, you're in trouble.

Datun, you are being wilfully blind. You're not allowed to talk about those things because doing so will ultimately prevent anything being discussed on this issue at all.

Datun, you are being wilfully blind. You're not allowed to talk about those things because doing so will ultimately prevent anything being discussed on this issue at all.

Why vitreous? Who is controlling the narrative?

Actually I've have a serious issue right now that MNHQ will not allow me to discuss. Instead they close down threads I've begun about it because of people reporting me, and, it's the same for others in my position as well.

I ran a support forum for years. Alone. Including moderating it myself. And for those reasons I don't know her position, because I had no staff and no income from it; in fact it ran at a loss as ads weren't appropriate due to the userbase I had and nor was charging people.

Honestly the moment you charge people, for making content you are making money from, it's the beginning of the end for a site. This forum is too glitchy to ask for subscriptions. Subscribing won't reduce the complaints, they'll get worse because people are paying for a service and will expect one, fully implemented and yes I know many won't pay but those who do will expect something in return for that.

Who's gleeful? I'd pay if I could do so anonymously

Yup

We're not allowed talk about, the clothes, make up, or hairstyles of men who say they are women, when the site would die without that, elsewhere on the site

This is it just it though - nothing wrong with talking about safeguarding issues, womens rights eg - but what has discussing a person's appearance and their looks got to do with anything?
This is where it gets blurred - some people seem to want to dissect a person's looks, how they dress, etc like you say and that isn't part of the issue.
It gets personal and that's when it all goes downhill.
And what do you mean the site wouldn't survive if you can't do that?
It most probably would

I won't be either but the model of premium whilst the key capabilities remain free is not new or radical

Of course. But one might reasonably expect some sort of extra features for a premium experience. Not “here’s a rather basic piece of forum functionality and we might add some other bits later”.

Additionally with all the staff bills it’s reasonable to assume a certain number are tech-related. If that’s the case, one would be reasonable to ask why a site with such aspirations of profitability is so unbelievably basic!

Again, set up a fundraiser where people can contribute without potentially exposing themselves to doxxing and people will. In this very thread we have at least one person who's had their info put out there via this site being hacked before (Dido), and that was pre Emma. If contributions are required then give people a way to contribute without putting themselves at risk.

Why vitreous? Who is controlling the narrative?

Can you see that being frank about that would be commercially damaging?

Of course. But one might reasonably expect some sort of extra features for a premium experience. Not “here’s a rather basic piece of forum functionality and we might add some other bits later”.

I must admit, I didn't quite get it.

You can use ad blocker to not get ads. Or you can pay 50 quid a year, and not get ads. It's a bit of a no brainer, financially, unless you are relying on loyalty.

In which case...hello!

I'm minded to contribute. This is a time to put aside differences of opinion and look at the bigger picture, which is that we still have one of the very few large open(-ish) gender critical discussion spaces on the Internet.

I agree. I'm barred from Twitter due to my, frankly quite mild (as far as my posts implied anyway), GC views. With the exception of one post on here, which I didn't agree should have been removed, I seem to be OK

"Advertisers will be far more concerned with losing the millions of others here and elsewhere as a result of being labelled transphobic by a very effective lobby which understands precisely which buttons to press with the general public."

"the general public" ≠ Guardian Readers

Twitter protects "Minor Attracted Persons" but it does not seem to bother Advertisers that they risk being labelled "paedophile supporters".

That is a much bigger button "to press with the general public" than "someone on Mumsnet said women don't have penises and their post was up for all of five minutes before Mumsnet deleted it!"

The General Public are more likely to think that Mumsnet must be sickeningly super-woke when they see Rules like this:

www.mumsnet.com/info/trans-rights-moderation-policy

Can you see that being frank about that would be commercially damaging?

Of course. And can you see why feminists who are fighting for the biggest roll back of their rights, in history, aren't having it? Mumsnet, or no mumsnet.

And would it, though? Seriously? People are very fond of saying that transactivists have all this power over advertisers. But the point is coming where advertisers are just going to say nah mate.

In fact, wasn't it Birdseye, who just kept tweeting the word potato, every time they got a pile on? What's the absolute worst that can happen? A zillion mums are going to go, oh hang on, I'm not gonna buy potato waffles, because of transwomen. 🙄

You have judges likening transactivists to the Stasi, the gestapo. We have cabinet ministers coming out and demanding that universities allow free speech. On pain of penalisation. We have government sources saying that the reforms to the GRA are absolutely not going to happen, and everyone just wanting it to disappear.

Never understood why people don't just locate a backbone.

I guarantee, they are starting to.

Becca I think you make very good points. Back in the day there was the Bad Mother's Club, and they went under when they starting charging something like £10 for registration.

Perhaps MN would have been better off doing a GoFundMe.

No,I won't be paying,I don't trust the security especially after hearing about the Emma Healey (sp?) situation which I didn't know about until today.

People have been asking for an edit function for years and it's always been "It's not in the spirit/we'll pass it on to tech etc" turns out it's perfectly possible if we just pay. Errr,no thanks.

Back in the day there was the Bad Mother's Club, and they went under when they starting charging something like £10 for registration

I came here from BMC after subs were introduced.

Just remembering the days of pretending we didn't all know which posters were the moderators

I'm seriously wondering if MN would get more money from anonymous donations than from a formalised subscription model.

They could trial both of course.

I hope so. I don't think that changes t the fact that FWR users have been spectacularly and unfairly blind to what it has cost MN to underwrite this board. And deeply unfair. The tone of the OP says it all.

Good luck. In my other life I am fighting the good fight. What I'm not doing, though, is not blaming those who are caught in the crossfire but fundamentally inside and doing their best to be supportive at some cost to themselves.

The tone of the OP says it all

The issue of FWR was secondary for me to the utter bloody tone deaf request by MNHQ.

In fact, wasn't it Birdseye, who just kept tweeting the word potato, every time they got a pile on? What's the absolute worst that can happen? A zillion mums are going to go, oh hang on, I'm not gonna buy potato waffles, because of transwomen.

That was Birdseye's best ever 'ad campaign'. I generally cook from scratch. When I don't, I buy own-brands. But as long as Birdseye were potatoing the MRAs, I was buying Birdseye products and saying so online. And I know that many other FWR posters were doing the same.

And I still buy Birdseye products from time to time, far more than I ever did before that.

Grr. Is blaming others who are fundamentally onside.