Thread 3: A corpus-assisted discourse analysis of linguistic transphobia on Mumsnet

[VitoCorleoneOfMNMafia]

In which we continue to discuss the Aston scrapists.

• The Site Stuff thread: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/sitestuff/5057903-mumsnet-corpus
• FWR thread #1: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5057460-a-corpus-assisted-discourse-analysis-of-linguistic-transphobia-on-mumsnet
• FWR thread #2: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5060410-thread-2-a-corpus-assisted-discourse-analysis-of-linguistic-transphobia-on-mumsnet

I would surmise that the PhD smaller number of posts was from FWR. The format of the board has changed as we know so I am not sure how complete it would be from 2008. For example, I think the posts on what used to be feminist support have disappeared completely now - but I don’t know or remember exactly when that happened.

@ArabellaScott that was v interesting reading the information you copied from the Aston publication extracts; as part of my new job I'm about to get training to learn how to use Nvivo. I wonder if this will give me more context on what it was used for in this situation? At the moment my training will be to identify themes in quantitative data but I'm going to do a big load of training on the whole Nvivo system once budget is approved by my work, so maybe this will give me further insight on what Aston has been doing! I don't work in data scraping, although I know that a different team in my organisation does.

Thank you so much for the explanation. I read several pages of the second thread and couldn't work out wtf was going on. I assumed it was some kind of massive in-joke that was beyond me, but now I understand how potentially serious it is. Good on all of you who identified what was happening and understood the ramifications. Will follow and take action if required.

Update just now from Justine on the Site Stuff thread:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/site_stuff/5057903-mumsnet-corpus?reply=135094282

'Thanks for your patience. I’m pleased to say that Aston has agreed to delete the historic dataset and make no further use of it. (It’s worth saying again that they insist that they haven’t breached any copyright laws because of exemptions that exist for the purposes of research.)

We are still in dialogue with them about the second, much smaller, dataset and the PHD research project and will keep you posted.

When an organisation acquires an individual’s personal data from a publicly-available source they automatically become what’s known as the Data Controller of that data and are responsible for processing that data in compliance with GDPR. If anyone has any particular concerns about personal information Aston may hold then do contact their Data Protection Officer: https://www.aston.ac.uk/about/statutes-ordinances-regulations/publication-scheme/data-protection.

GDPR has strict rules ensuring that personal information provided for the purposes of submitting a Subject Access Request are treated as confidential by the Data Controller in question.Likewise if anyone has concerns about particular posts on Mumsnet that contain personal identifiable information please do [email protected] and we’d be happy to delete them.

We’ll keep you posted on further developments of course.'

I wonder what the logic is for agreeing to delete the older, larger scrape but still to be “in dialogue” on the smaller, more recent scrape of, presumably, this board.

That rationale is ripe for speculation but it may not be helpful while the issue is ongoing, so I shall hold my water until it’s resolved.

All very well Aston so kindly agreeing to delete some of our data - I repeat, our data - but what about all the third parties who downloaded it from Aston? And how much money has Aston made from our data?

And most of all, what is the ICO take on this?

I wonder if we could make some kind of mass FWR letter (signed using screen names) making it clear we do not consent to Aston’s use of data?

Anyone got a ticket for that half day event next week?

I was thinking about that this morning. Does anyone know if an FOI has been done asking about this? (Sorry I need to look after DC right now).

I'm more than happy to set up a email account to do this, or set up email but print it out and send, snail mail. Or just do it online? But then online might not be the best idea.

I dunno but my head hurts so I'll shelve the idea until someone else thinks of the pros cons

I should think that it's sufficient that we set up a thread and make a statement there. After all, we can only sign in under our own identity/username so that should be sufficient verification.

we can only sign in under our own identity/username

which gives some the opportunity to sign in as many times as their shifting identities!

The dataset goes back to 2008 apparently, so there will be lots of FWR posters in the scrape who have since been banned by Mumsnet (eg LangCleg).
They can’t log in to post on a thread.

They can’t log in to post on a thread.

If anyone is in touch IRL they could be authorised to sign on their behalf?

How about writing to the ethics committee and the data controller at Aston and outline these concerns?

surely the lack of consent from posters in combination with the limited possibility of giving consent from some posters will be an ethics/gdpr issue?

whilst we are considering our options, shouldn’t they be considering the ethical / gdpr protection as well from their end?

Can people really be 'banned', in this day and age? Surely they only need to re-register, even if it needs a different IP address? I know bugger all about IT.

A VPN and a new device will probably get you back on any site, but you won’t be able to get back into a banned user name to sign a letter.

In Lang’s case she decided she couldn’t be arsed to try and stay somewhere she wasn’t wanted.

I can't believe that Aston are claiming that the more recent scrape hasn't breached any copyright! They're arrogant and outrageous.

You really don't need a new device or a VPN in order to get back on the site after being banned. 😏

Thing is, it's not just the FWR posters/board, but MNetters who have posted on the fertility and dieting boards, if I understood that Aston video correctly.

Many sites are using "fingerprinting" as a way to identify PBPs so VPNs can't always get you round a ban. It depends on how tech savvy the site admin are as to what still works.

Glad to hear that MNHQ are continuing to chase this up. Thanks @JustineMumsnet.

Interesting post @MaggieCalvert - it's a good insight into the culture of the university.

I do hope at some point that MNHQ will communicate all this to the site at large.

@ArabellaScott thanks for the update. The reliance upon exemptions mentioned: 'because of exemptions that exist for the purposes of research.)' will not hold as I understand it. (And I used to work in the academic sector in copyright'). The problems of saying its for non-commercial research is that this department uses work arising for this to bid for contracts (as I understand). They would need to have it as part of their commercial work.

The problem is bigger - I would suggest - for the second lot of data. There was intent (from what I can see in the phrasing of the research question) to at least indirectly damage the reputation of mumsnetters and thus mumsnet. This could lead to commercial damage in limiting the advertising attracted to Mumsnet should that PhD have shown that transphobia was rife. Shame on Aston.

Thanks, Madder. Copyright seems quite a complicated area, but yes, certainly seems quite clear:

'Text and data mining for non-commercial research'

I don't know what research can actually be described as 'non-commercial', by a publically funded institution? Just because the funding comes from the government (or governments) doesn't mean it's without cost, value, or monetary impact. Seems a bit of a naive idea to suggest that higher ed is somehow outwith the normal pecuniary issues.

Universities are extremely commercial enterprises now that students are essentially customers.

https://www.aston.ac.uk/latest-news/aston-university-forensic-linguistics-experts-partner-113-million-funding-authorship