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.

It strikes me that in holding Justine responsible for the toxic landscape in which we find ourselves, we are doing precisely what we despise in others: holding women responsible for what men have done

I’m holding Justine responsible for nothing more than a massively inappropriate and poorly worded request. When you run a business you HAVE to consider good PR and what constitutes poor PR.

i'm finding the message coming from FWR to be surprisingly counter-productive

FWR like everyother board on here is made up of individuals

Who is holding Justine responsible? Seriously. Be logical.

This board, in general, believes that MN should take the hit when advertisers pull out because they've been bullied by transactivists and that they should not attempt to mitigate that loss by putting some limits- to a far less extreme degree than other sites - to how posters discuss the issue.

And when they did, you accused them of gaslighting and handmaidery.

I think the analogy is perfectly logical.

No. What they are saying is she's handled the situation badly. She is not responsible for it!

I think that there's a misconception that FWR is still the only place where women's rights can be discussed with any openness at all. It might have been credibly called that at one point, but it's not now, and not only is it not the only place, it's not even the best.

In fact, right now, FWR is hosting a prostitution thread full of the usual astroturfers who usually show up whenever women here discuss it, a couple of threads trying to pose questions to stimulate feminist debate which are over-run to the point of farce by open misogynists and simpering WATMers and a thread started by a trolls which is an hilarious off beat recipe thread.

I enjoy batting away trolls with recipes and bantz on occasion, but seriously, if I want to have a serious feminist conversation now, FWR is not a great arena for it.

So what I'm getting is a message that Justine has taken a financial hit specifically because of being principled about FWR remaining slightly committed to quasi-free speech.

With respect, I think that's pure bullshit. The site is technologically clunky, and is quite the shadow of it's former self as a brand. The security breaches are one thing, for sure, but forums have been slowly going the way of the dodo for a very long time. Only a few are hanging on, and most have a very much better tech set up than this one. Agile social media platforms have been chipping away at dinosaur forums for a while now.

I don't doubt that MN are struggling, and that a subscription model is a reasonable attempt at a rescue plan. People are free to weigh the cost/benefit ratio to themselves, of course.

But no, a brave commitment to FWR despite the pressure of advertisers demanding it be removed is not the death knell for this website. It's highly disingenuous to suggest it and attempt to leverage the women here further. Justine is not 'on our side', she is on her own side, and I don't blame her for that, she's running a business. But please, keep the soft soap nonsense about the women of FWR being under some sort of moral obligation of thanks to prop up a business model that is very clearly on the way out anyway. You might as well suggest investing in YahooGroups.

I absolutely did not say that anyone has a moral obligation to contribute. I said that the general attitude on this board to the real hit MN has taken on their behalf stinks.

And that it's insane to cling to your at best misguided grievance against MN when a fundamental platform/plank in the fight against TRAs is under threat.
And that, if you think you can build anything which has the heft and reach of MN yourselves you are seriously deluded. Your attitude adds to MNs difficulties - it always has - and if MN goes under because you and others fail to value it you will be doing women - all women, not just liberal ABC1s - a profound and unforgivable disservice.

I'm actually very appreciative of the stance MN has taken in allowing debate - albeit I think there's some seriously craven moderation - ultimately, MN has played a huge part in moving the Overton window for openly debating women's rights.

BUT - MN facilitated this. That's not quite the same as advocating a women-centred position. They just didn't shut us up. Except when they did.

Like I say, I'm grateful. I can afford £100 worth of gratitude as a donation. I can't feel confident to trust MN with my personal data, however, unless I hear some rather more robust explanation of how they will protect it.

Oh please. I don't have any plans to set up a forum. Only a fool would now and expect to make any headway, certainly not from a business perspective.

I have no grievance against MN. I'm just realistic that it's not the presence of active feminists that is damaging the site, and I think it's utterly naive to buy this narrative that FWR is still a vital plank. Guess what? The internet has been shifting and changing dramatically for the last twenty years, and plenty of websites have had to drastically change or die.

You can do that manipulative indignant schtick all you want to, but given the stated security issues, I really think it's hugely misplaced to keep working this moral angle. And yeah, you are totally pressing the moral angle.

Quite a few of us have said we are happy to contribute but we dont trust that our personal details would be safe with the subscription method being used. We have asked for an alternative method of payment but for some reason that's not being considered.

it's not the presence of active feminists that is damaging the site

No, it's not. If anything the public perception of MN is driven by the 'nest of vipers' that is AIBU.

There can only a moral angle - what else is there? I think that this board, as a group, has behaved shittily because they need someone to kick and they don't want to see the bigger picture.

And yeah, someone upthread did say that they could just go off and build another activist community - I wasn't talking specifically about you.

I've tried to demonstrate how this might play from the other side - as I said, it's up to you whether you power forward with your (a general 'your', not FloraBunting specifically) current approach, or stop and interrogate what you've actually been asking MN to do all these years, which is the impossible.

Quite a few of us have said we are happy to contribute but we dont trust that our personal details would be safe with the subscription method being used

Nobody’s listening to those of us have stated that

Doesn’t fit the agenda

I have found FWR a very useful resource (although, despite lurking here for 3 or 4 years, don't feel able to add much in terms of posting) and am in the fortunate position that I am still being paid.

I would happily anonymously donate £50 but I don't feel safe giving my details when doing so.

Despite its faults, I can't be alone in feeling that FWR has value and I want it to continue but many of us have too much to lose to take the risk of giving our details. The risk is too high for me personally, despite the value I believe FWR gives.

Please consider some ability for anonymous donation MNHQ.

Vitreous, you're not getting it. The women who value the site enough to invest are unwilling because they are worried about security, a point which MNHQ seem entirely unwilling to address. If you think that berating them on this thread for having an ungrateful attitude will effect a positive response, your moral argument is undercutting itself, because those who want to invest are not doing so are no more likely to with your superior finger wagging which is beside the point.

But please, carry on if you wish, it's clearly something you feel strongly about.

Quirecaoart from the danger of data being compromised and the banning issues, given the business model, it should be MN paying its members.

Quite apart*

Quite a few of us have said we are happy to contribute but we dont trust that our personal details would be safe with the subscription method being used

I've said that several times. Spiked, which won't have anything like the readership or resources of MN, takes funding on a one of donation basis. I've given to Spiked several times.

I brought that up on Justine's thread too. If some of your users would like to give you money but don't feel comfortable doing so via the options currently on offer, it makes sense to find them a different options.

(Or address security concerns, which is the long term issue and needs to happen anyway.)

Gnnn. I'm not talking about investing or donating or anything related to it. I'm talking about a much broader issue, which is that it is axiomatic on this board that posters have a justified grievance against MNHQ. And a perverse refusal to acknowledge that the continued existence of this board has come at a price, and that this price has been paid by MNHQ and not by you.

Vitreous, you're using such broad generalisations it's hard to unpick and get to anything concrete. MNHQ isn't one person. FWR isn't one voice. You keep mentioning the 'price' - what data do you have? You're talking about a monetary sum lost in advertising, right? What is it? Who specifically is refusing to acknowledge it, and what would 'acknowledging it' look like to you - mentioning it in every post? I genuinely don't understand what you think the right way is to post on this board.

People are aggrieved when their posts are deleted without warning and having to ask for explanation each time. Sometimes when that is given it's because there was a poor(?) choice of a single word such as 'seem'. Would you be happy to pay if it was your posts deleted each time for a word you had no idea could be offensive? Would you perhaps want to mention it when the request to pay arose?

given the business model, it should be MN paying its members

What?
You think MN should be paying their members?
Apologies if I've missed something, but why? We're owed nothing

The reduced advertising revenue is due to Coronavirus, not FWR, and as R0 points out the subscription model has been in the pipeline for sometime.

I also happen to believe that allowing the debate about women’s rights is a business decision, despite how it’s dressed up. Back in the day, Mumsnet’s USP was the quality of the discussions when compared with Netmums and others. Mumsnetters were better educated, and if they used swear words at least they were spelled correctly. The 2010 election was the Mumsnet election, politicians couldn’t wait to tell us what their favourite biscuit was because Mumsnetters votes mattered.

But the site has changed, accelerated partly by penis beaker. It’s bigger and attracts a different demographic, discussions have changed and most of the original posters are long gone. FWR though retains some of the early spirit. Feisty, intelligent discussion, advice to other women and updates on campaigns and legal proceedings. It’s no surprise that posters - and I’m one - who joined during mat leave have gravitated over here. So yes, I think FWR does matter to brand Mumsnet, because they need the quality of discussion here, and just as importantly, the income, of posters to sell to advertisers.

We are most definitely a product.

Oh hang on, I think I missed a page of posts when I posted just now. Sorry if any of that's already been addressed.

And just to reiterate, I'm not paying primarily due to the security risk.