text:
The MN Mail Column - what we think, and what we plan to do next...
(1002 Posts)Evening all - sorry for general absence today - niece's birthday do, packing for hol etc, etc.
So, thank you to everyone for your input on this particular issue. It's been a thought-provoking debate and clearly strong views prevail about exactly how much of a enhanced security risk publication of this column means to Mumsnetters.
We tend in broad terms to come down on the side of the risk being pretty much as it ever was fence but we also buy the argument that there is certainly an increased risk of identification/embarrassment or worse for the OP of a chosen thread - particularly if it of a very personal nature.
We would say as we always have that you should always bear in mind this is a public forum, searchable by Google, legally quotable by all and linkable to by all and sundry.
Clearly having an open forum brings with it risks but it also brings with it great benefits we've always felt. Openness means volume of users and volume of users means Mumsnet in its many guises is available to anyone who needs advice 24-7. It also means fresh faces, differing points of view and debate, and the wisdom that comes from a very big crowd - wrong or dangerous advice doesn't tend to last very long on MN.
Whether the risks outweigh the rewards for each individual only they can decide. Clearly there are basic things you can and should do to protect yourself (ie not reveal basic contact info, namechange to reveal personal stuff etc etc). And bear in mind we are always happy to delete injudicious posts - just report them if you're worried about having revealed too much.
Putting the general risk stuff to one side however, we recognise that many folk (understandably) have qualms not just about being quoted in general but being quoted by the Daily Mail in particular.
If I could just reiterate that this column was not our idea and neither did we know anything about it until it appeared. Neither the journalist involved nor anyone from the DM contacted us about running it beforehand. (And if those of you who are convinced we're lying to you about that keep on impugning our good name, there's nowt for it, we're going to have to sue you for libel ).
In fact the first contact we had was this week (only after the column was brought to our attention by a Mumsnet thread about it) when I wrote to the author of the item in question - whose name we recognised as a Mumsnetter - to ask whether the Mail were planning on this being a regular thing.
At that point we, wrongly we now think having had a chat with a lawyer, didn't believe that we had any redress anyway (see endless posts about the journalistic defense of fair use) but we were, privately, a little surprised that they'd not consulted us.
Whilst we shared/share some of your misgivings about the idea of a MN-DM collaboration, I was, for sure heartened by the fact that the item was being written by a Mumsnetter who, though I don't know her personally, always seemed to be well respected by lots of Mumsnetters. I am quite sure after a couple of email exchanges with Leah Hardy, that she has/had no wish to sensationalise events on Mumsnet and that she would endeavour to protect people's identities. I'm also sure that she didn't feel she was compromising anyone's identity more than they'd already been compromised by posting on a public forum. We do think some of the comments about her have been overly harsh. After all many on here do that she's done nowt wrong in lifting quotes save perhaps for not consulting with us at HQ. That may be because she wouldn't think we could possibly object to her giving Mumsnet weekly publicity - as I've said before most websites/PRs would be in a frenzy of excitement about the Daily Mail doing a weekly column about them. But I don't know that's why, I'm just speculating. She could equally have meant to and forgotten or the dog could have eaten her email. It would be better if she'd come on to talk for herself than me blathering on - maybe she will at some point.
Whatever, we don't think that her actions deserve the general vilification/ outings/ witchunt she's received - bet there are a fair few MN journalists who would love a crack the same gig - maybe for a different publication, but still.
Anyhoo that's all history - sorry for banging on but wanted to be clear - the real question now is what next?
Well... we tend to agree with the view that it's this is not an ideal collaboration for Mumsnet - particularly as we have no editorial control over what gets chosen/ printed etc. So we plan to contact the daily mail on Monday and let them know have we feel about it. We promise to keep you posted about their response.
That's it really. Tanks again to all for your input - please don't interpret any future periods of silence as us hiding under the bed, swigging from the bottle and hoping things go away. It's much more likely to be because I'm going off on hols tomorrow and we're thin on the ground and the DM may not respond straight way but I'll aim to make some calls as soon as I'm on board ship!
ps a few more answers to some direct questions...
Someone asked about stats in response to the DM column. Our stats for thursday don't seem to show any marked influx of new people either in page impressions or new registrations
MaggieBeauLeo asked about a facility to allow members to delete their own posts - we don't think it works for a board like ours tbh - if you're catching up with a thread and the post that someone's agreeing with/taken issue with has been deleted it essentially makes a nonsense of the boards...
Someone else asked about making search for nicknames available only to those who'd paid a CAT. It's certainly a thought but we'd hate to make MN function less well for the majority unless it was for something really wanted by folk - we would welcome further thoughts.
As said we are working on private boards for particular subject groups - which would not be easily mineable for quotes or indexable by Google - they should be here in a couple of months at the latest. We'll keep you posted about their ETA and how they'll work.
Thank you Justine
have a fab holiday
Justine - thanks for that massive post(!) - can you post on the thread about private rooms?
What stinky said
link here for the questions about private rooms
Just as a PS - do you think things would be different if it were a column in the Guardian? I am convinced the controversy is because it's the Daily Mail, rather than the privacy issue of being printed. (And I'm sure LH will be sensitive to identities!)
enjoy your break, justine. i'm sure the dm will cave immediately.
i think it's okay if it is, lily. the dm gets linked to all the time on here for it's pieces on female issues and females themselves.
Yes, have a good holiday. Are you going scuba diving? <whistles innocently>
Did you see my fantastic idea about tick boxes to choose which paper can quote you - or not?
"I was, for sure heartened by the fact that the item was being written by a Mumsnetter who, though I don't know her personally, always seemed to be well respected by lots of Mumsnetters."
out of all you have written, ^ this ^ bit kind of annoys/concerns me.
While you may find it heartening that she is a mumsnetter I think there are many who do not.
Surely if the person lifting writing the piece was/is really a well respected mumsnetter then she would have realised what effect her actions would/could have on some posters here. There is something rather unsavoury about a regular and 'respected' mumsnetter using the conversations here as a way to make money (presumably she is paid for her contributions to the Daily mail?) and even more unsavoury that someone so regular and respected would make such an awful mistake and credit the wrong people in the threads she lifted.
If it were some other anonymous hack who doesn't post, doesn't take part, isn't aware of the tone and stule of mumsnet... then maybe it would be a little easier to understand. It being a regular and 'well respected' poster just makes it seem worse to me.
You say "bet there are a fair few MN journalists who would love a crack the same gig".... actually - I bet there are a few Mumsnetters who are also journalists but who wouldn't dream of lifting stuff from here to make a few quid.
How would you police these new private boards by the way? How would you stop journalists from joining them and taking parts of what may be discussed? Are you planning on having a more consistent and enforced set of terms and conditions for these new private boards?
Also - what is her username? I would like to know if I like and respect her as a mumsnet boarder as much as I like and respect her as a journalist.
Ha - scuba diving - is that what Robert Maxwell was doing?
Umm. I think that was the mafioso's cover story for how he ended up in the drink.....
and... apart from the private boards, what do you plan to do next?
scuba dive, I think, beanie.
I will answer on private boards thread in a mo Beanieb that's just my opinion - thought it was important to say it because there have been some very harsh words said and I think there is another way of interpreting it - you obviously have every right to disagree!
oh, right.
weird. I thought she meant what they plan to do next about the inconsistent terms and conditons and the upset some people feel.
ah well.
Wow - you have been following closely Justine!
[impressed with dedication but still reserving judgement]
Enjoy your holiday, and thanks for the update, but I agree with beanieb that as a mumsnetter she should have known (or asked) what the general opinion would be!
Sorry, also meant to say, have a good holiday. Do you have an underwater camera?
I agree with beanieb. This is hurtful from a respected MN
On the bright side, no-one I know reads the DM
Agree with beanie It is precisely because journo was a mner that has caused so much, um, surprise Bad form, very bad form. And I don't think she's been given a hard time at all
beanieb: "and... apart from the private boards, what do you plan to do next?"
Blimey - my longest post EVER and I still can't through...
We plan to ask the Daily Mail to stop running this column as they are running it
(Sorry if I didn't make that clear)
What do you mean "as they are running it now"?
Because that is very different to just asking them to stop. Do you mean you would want control and then it could go ahead, or you would want paying then it could go ahead...or some other condition but, essentially, if they agree to your demands it can go ahead?
I've got an idea, Justine - can you ask them to stop running it as it is now and put it in the Guardian?
Justine, how many threads have been marked OTW today?
KingCanute I'm sorry to be a bit obtuse - the reason is that last thing I (or any sane person) would want to do would be to threaten the Daily Mail. So we would like to enter a dialogue with them during which we explain that the column they're running isn't working for us and we'd like them to stop.
Hope that's clear.
perfectly, thanks Justine!
failing that lets ask them for a six figure sum and give everyne a couple of pence each
I was wondering what the mumsnetter in question had said about the matter
be interesting to know whether the DM sales figures went up/go up next week
loads of journos do mine mumsnet for stuff though don't they?
I'm just assuming they are a bit less brazen or a bit less well known or a bit more brazen about it IYSWIM
oh and have a nice holiday
Thanks Justine. This is probably not what you wanted right before a holiday
Thanks Justine - I'm sure we can find a way to make all of this work, just have a nice break and trust it will come out in the wash, which I'm sure it will! There is a lot of good will here, which you have set the tone for, so regardless of the heightened emotions just now, I feel confident it will all come good.
Have a great holiday.
I agree that requiring CAT for nickname searches would not put off anyone who was determined to stalk someone online (it's only a ifver) but would make MN functionality less useful for people on very restricted incomes, or those who for some reason have difficulties accessing debit/credit cards.
Who is this Mumsnetter?...spill
Agree with Trillian on the CAt thing.
Can I just say as well, for the cynics who think MN has consciously made a pact with the Devil and decided to sell its soul- bollocks. I have run or been aware of the running of sites with a lot of national exposure, and it actually doesn't translate into many clicks at all when you look at the daily analytics. I for one have never clicked on an ad on the right-hand side of a google page, but companies pay massive amounts for those ads. I suppose what I'm saying is don't imagine MNHQ is daft enough to sell the good will of the site for imagined riches, because they will be well aware that when it comes to exposure, just being a talking point doesn't translate easily into a viable business model.
Hi BoF, what are you doing up?
Everyone who is worried: why not write to the DM PR office, explaining that this will be very bad for their circulation numbers, as everyone on MN will be telling their friends, family, and acquantances that the DM is a pile of crap and encouraging them to read some other rag, lest they be quoted and outed on its pages.
I'm good! On fb just now- come and say hi!
beanieb is quite right
Like others I think the fact it is a long standing mumsnetter makes it WORSE. Surely she would realise EXACTLY what type of furore this would cause, or she would have told you beforehand what she was going to do.
"before most websites/PRs would be in a frenzy of excitement about the Daily Mail doing a weekly column about them"
the website OWNERs and PRs mighy be in a frenzy but I have posted on many many forums in my time and not one of them would have been pleased with this, forums do tend to see themselves as a closed little world....
I personally don't give 2 shits if I appear in a newspaper but I am thinking it's a little ironic that Leah Hardy is quite happy to use our usernames in a paper but she is not willing to out herself, if she had any balls she would be explaining herself instead of hiding. Is she posting on other threads whilst this is going on?
Leah, if you honestly don't see why some posters might have a problem with this then at least have the courage of your convictions and answer their posts as you.
My take on it is this:
1) I'm not actually, despite my comedy new name in honour of the occasion, that bothered about being quoted or even misquoted in the press. I'm not a "well known" Mner, I don't have an involved back story which is known here, I am fortunate enough not to be in a position where I rely on MN for a lot of support. However, that could easily change in a heartbeat, and I completely get that for some those are big big gripes about all this.
Whilst anyone could theoretically wander onto MN and look around (and people no doubt do - I lurk on lots of fora and none of the regulars have any clue how much I know about them), cutting it up and serving selected quotes to Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells with breakfast is somewhat different. I think it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise, Justine.
2) It definitely makes it worse that this was done by a MNer and not some random Polly Filler type told by her Editor to go and trawl MN for crap to fill a few inches. Bad judgment by you, Ms Hardy.
3) I also object on the grounds that it is just fucking lazy journalism - any fool can cut and paste (you fail exams for doing that) with no context, no interpretation, in fact why even put a journo's name to it?
4) It is also definitely worse that it is the DM. Almost any other paper and all of the above would apply, particularly the lazy journalism. But the DM basically hates women. It encourages its core readership - women of 55+ - to hate young women. It is a vile rag.
5) I am stunned that MN seem to be so clueless about their copywright issues - you'd think after the SWMNBN debacle you'd be shit hot on this stuff (and yes, I am aware there is a difference between copywright and libel, but essentially both issues concern intellectual property) but that is of course your look out. However, be prepared to get thoroughly pillaged repeatedly in this manner if you don't do something about it now. Traditional print media is struggling, and on line is what its all about now.
Justine a quick note but it is bloody easy to figure out who she is - I saw mentioned some possible deleting of her 'obvious' posts but it doesn't look to have been done...took me 2 minutes this morning.
I was curious and though I'm most annoyed about the stuff she has been doing IRT this, I'm not going to villify her or refuse to speak to her. I think that would be mean spirited.
I do think though that you are wise to avoid the collaboration as it's such a yucky 'newspaper' and doesn't do your image any good.
And don't worry...not about to 'out' anyone publicly. I only wanted to know for my own curiosity.
I mean any suggested collaboration, not that there is already one, iyswim. I don't think you knew about this, at all.
Though there may be value in converting DM readers to our way of thinking, I suppose...'Jesus Loves You' signs up in a house of ill repute...etc etc
Actually Justine it is perfectly possible to prevent the indexing of usernames on Google. <wizened old geek emoticon> and perhaps you could limit searches on usernames to posts made in say the last week (that prevents any but the most enthusiastic searcher give up stalking anyone).
Totally mad would be how I would describe asking the DM you aren't happy about this btw, how much encouragement do you want to give 'em to have a good forage?
However I think there is a happy medium here, I'll go namechange and start threads about how I'm concerned about all the foreigners in our local school who are compromising my child's development (possibly by selling them drugs) and would I be out of order as governor to encourage the good English mummies to breed more to sort the problem out long term. AIBU stylee The DM get their story, Mumsnetters get to vent their spleen and they'll leave the decent real stuff alone.
Message withdrawn
I'd just like to say in relation to the following:
"bet there are a fair few MN journalists who would love a crack the same gig - maybe for a different publication, but still. "
...that in my view, most wouldn't.
I'm not having a go at LH (hell, that's been done already) but as a journo there are always situations where, say, you're looking for a case study and you realise one of your close friends fits the bill. Frankly, you'd be insane to risk things you value in your personal life to mix the two up. There are always other case studies. And it's better professionally to have that distance anyway.
I thought that was worth saying because journalists are mums too and should be able to mention what they do for a living without everyone assuming they're only on Mumsnet to trawl for stories. That would be sad.
Sometimes you hear things on Mumsnet you do check out (for example, when people were complaining their Health In Pregnancy Grant was taking ages to arrive, I rang HM Revenue and Customs to see whether they were having problems) but I think (hope) you'd consider that a bit different, and no different to doing the same if a couple of people had mentioned the same thing down the pub.
Thanks Justine. For what it's worth, I still hold the view that "the MNer who started it all" acted with very poor judgement, and any ire should not be directed at you and the team at MN Towers as you clearly had no knowledge of it.
You have taken on board everyone's disappointment and irritation and I join the masses in hoping that this "column" will be extremely short lived.
If anything good at all has come out of it, at least people will take care to ensure that they protect themselves as much as they can.
Enjoy your holiday.
yes, tbh i'd agree with that, ltj. much as i'd love to arse about on MN and get paid for it, it wouldn't occur to me to do it without having been asked to do so by MNHQ and having checked it through with the posters.
and that would be a pest to do and bring me into exactly the sort of personal/work conflict that josie describes, which would be a pita and potentially mess things up for posting here etc.
as it stands, without permission, it does feel like stealing other people's 'work' as well, which is such a monumental no no.
telling not asking (must have coffee before Mumsnetting in the morning)
If LH genuinely thought it would be ok then she'd have had no reason not to mention it.
And if the DM want to print MN opinions, then surely the polite thing would be to pay £30 & post on the media board?
Enjoy your holiday Justine, thanks for all your hard work.
Aitch you have the right idea there.
I always have trusted you on this issue anyway
Do youknow if the copyright thing HQ have in place extends to making money out of it? That's the bit I object to most - not the being quoted as such but being quoted to make money for some shite red top.
Surely people aren't allowed to profit from our stuff?
well that's the weird thing. she's freelance, she most likely took the idea to the mail in the first place. it just wouldn't have occured to me at ALL to think that i even could do that without permission.
Thanks for the post Justine,
i have a few questions to ask:
Do you have any blacklisted publications, or in the light of your comment that you are interested in more papaers being involved, are you willing for ANY other publication to come and do the same thing if the DM stand firm?
Which are the terms and conditions that exist now?
Do they apply to our posts retrospectively?
When/if they change how are you going to publicise this over the boards?
Will there be a "gentleman's" agreement over certain boards as you suggest there already is?
or is this effectively , in law, unenforceable?
Ie will the Sn board be off limits for LH, but effectively not for anyone else?
What are you going to do about posters who feel that the potential massive shift in journistic use are not how they intended thioer posts to end up?
Will you allow these people the leave and take their posts with them?
And would you ever consider sel;ling our owrds for advertsing other than mumsnet stuff- that isn't clear to me in the terms and conditions that are posted.
the bonkers thing is, if something comes up in the news, say Angelina runs off with a lifeguard, and there isn't anything that relevant in terms of 'omg my wife just ran off with someone' then as it stands LH could just post her own OP and use that and the replies it gets. lololol.
I am personally wondering at the term 'fair use' along with the very clear disclaimer on the front page saying that all posts are copyright MN, for use in books and such. By coming here and 'mining' our words, aren't they, actually, breaking copyright?
There seems to be a contradiction there to me.
Although, I must say I am in no way shape or form worried about privacy. I never name change, no matter what I post, because I truly believe there is no privacy left in the world, so why bother? And because if certain people I know do read this? I hope I can shock the sh*t out of them.
Have a great holiday Justine!!
Sorry, Justine, I missed the additional post where you said that you are going to ask them to stop.
It really wasn't clear in your initial post that this was the case- which was actually the whole crux of the issue for some!!
I'll wait and see waht happens, but if the DM do stop, do you have any plans to use this idea of LH's and court other publications?
it's disrespectful to assume that most people would "like the same gig" as it implies that it's disliked because of jealousy
rather than thinking "more publicity is good publicity" the lawyers should have been brought in the first day .. or were they? did I miss that?
Has Thunderduck had an apology from the MNer in question?
i wish all the people moaning about this would shut up. MNHQ have given a perfectly reasonable explanation which should be comprehendable to the most people, it doesn't seem to have been written in code.
any business would love a weekly colume in the daily mail, it's national exposure and has very few negatives.
MN needs fresh faces and opinions, the problem some mumsnetters have is they think they own the place...well sorry, you don't, and tbh..if i was in charge i'd tell all the moaning whinging bores to naff off.
this is a website open to anyone, if all you want to talk about is lemon drizzle cake and 10 ways to clean a kettle...join the womens institute.
I like the idea posted above that searching by username is limited to the past week.
Maybe this could exclude "myself" so you can find old posts/threads you remembered.
Does anyone see any reason why you would want to search by someone's username for the past months/years (unless you were stalking/checking them out?!)
if you did have a valid reason to search for somebody then you'd have to remember the topic/key words (which you should be able to do) and then find their username within the thread.
I wish people who don't agree with me would just go away and shut up......
I can assure you dp that plenty of businesses/institutions would not love a "free weekly column in the Daily Mail".
Cor blimey, if all the people who disagreed with DP shut up and went away, MN would be a very quiet place indeed
Thanks for the update Justine & have a great holiday
i have no problem with people disagreeing with me, and i'm sure i'm a pita to MNHQ, but they run this place and they should be allowed to make business decisions with out all this hassle....fgs, it's a colume in the daily mail...i wouldn't want mn having anything to do with promoting pornography or stuff like that, but if they did, i wouldn't spend three days posting about it..i'd just leave,...quietly,..no fuss.
Ohhh, Dp, my dear,
the issue isn't the DM, it is the fact that if MN sanction this relationship without understanding their legal position in it (and now maybe they do, but they didn't on friday) then that leaves the door open for any journalist to take stuff and print it.
It could end up in porno monthly- ie the DV threads, ie real life women being beaten recounting how it happened- their sotries could end up in some very dodgy, barely legal publications for funa nd amusement.
<hits head on brick wall once more for fun>
But they haven't made a business decision to tie in with a column in the DM, dp. I'm really surprised that this vital aspect of the issue has passed you by. The copy has been lifted, without permission, and reproduced verbatim, infringing MN's copywright.
And some of us want to leave.
And we want to take our posts too as we feel that there has been a massive chamge in use of our posts since we signed up....
and there is to be/has been a change in the terms and conditions under which we agree to post
and Mn have not confirmed if this means that our old posts are involved in the New Terms and Conditions...
and what it all menas now MN have stated that they will court more and more media involveement/reporting/lobbying around and presumibly IN the site itself...
but hey ho- lets just have a fight about the DM - it's easier...
"last thing I (or any sane person) would want to do would be to threaten the Daily Mail"
No shit!
As Rafi said, you already have arrangements in place for payment from those who wish to make media requests. Pointing that out extremely politely might be the best approach. And expecting them to ignore that anyway.
And if we didn't gain any eyeballs from the article then that pretty much blows the 'all publicity is good publicity' argument out of the water. DP.
oopsagain....i understand what you're saying, .....but let me tell you something, sickos who get off on talking to women about DV are called trolls....we get them here.
no no DP
what oops is saying is not that trolls will come here to troll, but that posts about DV will be lifted and published elsewhere, for the delectation of said sickos
no, DP, clearly you don't understand.
But i have a lunch to attend...
SF;...do you honestly think that will happen ?....because i don't. sickos want their fun "live".. they want to talk to women, that's why you have to be careful about what you say and how much info you give
i could go and name-change, start a thread in relationships about DV and have 10 women talking to me within minutes...that's what sickos want.
I think MN itself has become a bit of a (minor) sleb! Like with all slebs MN needs to carefully think about how to handle 'the press'.
Given the Daily Mail and everything it stands for I can't see how this particular feature can be a good thing. Surely the threads featured, comments made and quotes used are unlikely to benefit mn or posters and are highly likely to be twisted and cause real embarrassment and offense.
Having said this - If I (wishful thinking) or any other mner were to be quoted saying something particularly witty or enlightening on a news or more likely comment worthy, well researched and insighful Observer feature written by a reporter I respect and enjoy reading say off the top of my head - Mariella Frosrupp, Barbara Ellen, Miranda Sawyer... or Katheryn Flett (who on the side I would like to mention led me to mn with a hilerious one liner suggesting she was mumsnetting while her child was busy downing bleech - I googled immediately!!!) I, like (I think) many mners (bites lip - am I right?), would be very proud and I can really see that mn would benefit highly from being used as a serious and respected reference point.
I have a feeling this is going to be very complicated for MNHQ legally... like Billy Bragg, I think, once sung - "Could it be an infridgement of the freedom of the press to print pictures of women in states of undress" - good luck and go for it!!!
DP it may well not happen, but the wholesale lifting of threads by the DM, without permission being sought, has possibly set a precedent.
V worrying for some, though not all.
A different viewpoint to yours, that's all.
Clear as mud I am rubbish at explaining stuff.
"Blimey - my longest post EVER and I still can't through...[sic]
We plan to ask the Daily Mail to stop running this column as they are running it
(Sorry if I didn't make that clear)"
it wasn't clear to me, but perhaps I did skim read a bit. Thanks for Clarifying it.
"So we would like to enter a dialogue with them during which we explain that the column they're running isn't working for us and we'd like them to stop"
will this ocnversation take place before everyone goes on holiay or are they going to pull it straight away until that conversation takes place?
"I am thinking it's a little ironic that Leah Hardy is quite happy to use our usernames in a paper but she is not willing to out herself, if she had any balls she would be explaining herself instead of hiding. Is she posting on other threads whilst this is going on?"
couldn't agree more
I still think the fact that this respected mumsnetter has used these threads is a bit Icky, specially as we don't know who the respected mumsnetter is.
don't have time to read the essay in the OP yet - just getting on this so I can find it again
Probably doesn't have a profile.... I guess if she was posting in SN about her son it would make her too easy to identify.
OK, thanks MN- interesting.
For me (I know you all know I am formerly Peachy through my fabbo typing LOL- an example of how identifiable some people can be obv) I don't feel I can post in SN any more, my situation with my boys doesn't work without a back story, neither being typial and I can't use my back story any more.
I will continue with MN but in a bland fashion. There's just not much I an post in any other way. Uness of course DP is on a thread in which ase I feel morally obliged to pile in. Could we perhaps have a function that brings that up so I don't have to trawl? ( at DP)
I've been here in one membership or another since 2001, to say that the sit ahsnt changed since then as some people have done is ludicrous. The DM wasn't interested in us way back then. However I just don't feel MN can meet my needs any more which of course is my decision, and I will pull back massively now. I've been trying to get hwlp for a problem on another thread and whilst netters have been fa, the truth is I can't gice enough info to really explain.
I wish you all luck though, I will stay in the postnatal area and no doubt pop by when I have a lonely evening.
Oh LH.... if you're reading this I really do hope you're pleased with yourself.
A couple or three thoughts: this was a timely reminder to me to be careful about what I put on here and to have different usernames if I want to post something more personal which is what I'll do from now on.
I have no problem with a regular column in whatever paper - I'm amazed they want us, loony, lefty liberals that many of us are. Agree posters should be asked first though.
Slight concern about an influx of hunners but it's up to all of us to make this site how we want it to be. That includes tolerating some difference and new and different styles.
Think it'd be good to have a sticky thread on an irregular schedule to remind all how open this is and publicise the best use 'rules'; no personal attacks etc.
Amazed at the rush to out LH, including her old usernames, absolutely amazed. Two wrongs and all that.
I predict asking the DM, they'll laugh in MNHQ's face, immediately click that you don't know the law and just keep on doing it.
I also feel that all the stuff suggested which has been dismissed as "we don't think it works for a board like ours" is actually quite patronising: that's all very well if you don't use it yourself.
It does work for a vast and diverse range of different boards without hindering that of the users themselves - in fact, in many cases, it actually encourages them as they feel more protected.
Stop me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any paper running "This Week On <another site>" - what does that tell you?
Oh, and I largely favour cock up over conspiracy but often cock ups are compounded by the follow up not being as people would like (ie swift apologies/retractions/consultation etc).
Ultimately, though, the very nature of this board means that MNHQ and others are often in the position of reacting to things rather than pro actively addressing them. Whilst I'm sure constructive criticism is welcome, someone has to make a final decision and not everyone is going to agree with all of the decisions made about how to operate the site.
I've only just come into this debate but I want to know who she was (username) as I have had quite personal conversations sometimes with a different username, and I would feel dreadful if I felt my genuine problems were being discussed with me by someone planning on printing them. I love mumsnet for the helpful stuff as well as the chat. Now I feel really insecure about some of the SEn etc stuff I've joined.
might come back to this
That's the thing, StripeySuit - it's not vindictiveness. I've talked about personal problems on Mumsnet too & if the person I'm talking to might be pumping me for her column I'd rather be forewarned.
Stroppyknickers email MNHQ to ask for any identifying posts of yours to be deleted
ok, that's a really good idea, thank you. I loathe the DM, but I would acyually feel the same for any publication. It's one thing talking to a person, another having your life passively read by a load of people with their cornflakes. I think I might have to leave though if it carries on
I agree with wmmc - the best way to ensure privacy is to stop the facility allowing anyone to search us through the site, or through Google.
I have posted lots of stuff here about very personal things. I have received lots of help that has really got me through the bad times. I wonder if those posters will now regret their kind words. I have tried to pass on all the good advice that I had myself. I won't be doing that any more.
I always knew that MN towers could publish things that I have written. In fact, I'm quite chuffed that I'm quoted on the Infertility pages of the site. But those are small quotes taken away from the context of the original threads. And they are words of advice, not details about my own personal circumstances. I would not be happy to be quoted as part of a thread in the Daily Mail, Guardian, Independent, or any other national paper.
for Thunderduck, by the way.
What? Who? What??? How have I missed all this? A regular MN column in The Daily Mail????
Surely not. I must have got the wrong end of the stick.
<goes to try and make sense of it all>
I've been thinking about this topic a lot and I've been trying to think rationally about it and not allow myself to be consumed by a dislike of the paper in question and all that it stands for. I have concluded the following:
I don't like the idea of posts and/or threads being printed wholesale in any paper. We post on here for support, help and friendship in a safe community. The only purpose of printing columns or posts wholesale in a paper seems to me to be either to laugh at the poster or to judge the content or situation in the post. That makes me very uncomfortable and clearly the lack of privacy that comes from printing whole posts/threads in a paper is making others uncomfortable to the point at which they feel they can no longer come her for the support they need.
To me this is a very different situation to those when columns are written that lift a sentence or two from a few posters to illustrate a wider point.
I dislike the fact that mumsnet was not consulted and I dislike the fact that this was intended to be a regular piece but mumsnetters were not notified. I think that that shows an appalling lack of judgement from the mumsnetter in question, and I agree with others that it is worse because she is apparently a longstanding mumsnetter of good reputation.
I am pleased that mumsnet will negotiate with the mail over this but I am not confident of an outcome that is good for mumsnetters who wish to post on here with confidence and in safety and to discuss things that maybe they cannot discuss with friends and family (as opposed to an outcome that is good for mumsnet as a business).
Perhaps this is an un-resolvable issue but to me it almost challenges the core of mumsnet as a community (or maybe I'm being a bit sensationalist). We are supposed to be by parents for parents. Not by parents for the titillation of the general public.
Well the only thing that would make me sign off MN for a bit over this is the total OTT vilification of an ex MNetter doing nothing more than quoting something that has been written in an entirely public space.
Typical MN hysterical overreaction where someone is found to wave pitchforks at (oh the irony). Some of the comments about LH make extremely unpleasant reading. Yes, maybe she might have asked MNHQ (no-one else bothers before quoting in their papers though - and given that you must post here knowing that anything you write might end up in a book it's perhaps easy to misjudge people's expectations of the site), with hindsight perhaps she would have. I don't think the mistake quite deserves the vitriol being dished out in some quarters.
I agree with daftpunk. And I don't write THAT very often.
stroppy, if you put it up here, I am reading about your life passively over my cornflakes, loads of people are.
MrsTM, the best way to ensure privacy is to disguise yourself a bit, nothing else is failproof.
Rafi, we are well and truly forewarned.
I've been burnt once or twice on here, people can suddenly turn round and react in a way that completely takes you by surprise. This was the final warning shot across the boughs for me to take more care.
I will still ask advice and offer opinions and can't wait to discuss the elections and stuff, will just namechange more.
That's three of us then MrsT.
yy MrsT
MNHQ doesn't think that LH deserves the vilification she has received here
can you link to any of the vitriol, i'm not seeing it. is that because it's been deleted already? i think i saw someone write journo scum but that's the sort of thing that gets written on here all the time, particularly any time an article gets written about MN.
Daftpunk (sorry I hate bold names, just wated you to see this), I just wanted to raise your point about just leaving quietly without a fuss if HQ sanctioned something you did not like....
I do understand what you are saying and I am not a big fan of histrionics (strange as that may seem at the moment!) however, if something is being done you object to the only way to change it is to speak up and act. I understand MN is a business but so is Nestle and I am happy to try to change the way they run their thiungs - the same with all baby formula manufactures, companies who use animal testing for perfumes.... and on and on.
We all take a stand about things that are important to us, different things touch different people, I know, but this is important to me (however sad that may seem) and so I feel the need to take a stand about it.
Our taking a stand may change nothing, the same as it has not changed anything Nestle has done but that does not mean we should not do it, it just means we may not see the result we want at the end of it all.
Wolfclub, possibly the motivation was to raise awareness of the employment rights of pg women, in The Mail unbelievably, surprised their systems let it through. She used an ill-judged, recent RL example and misappropriated it but the message was good.
the mail will print it if you can peg it to a couple of celebs. so, holly w and kate g? it's in.
Just wanted to say that I don't want to 'out' the journalist for sinister reasons I am just a bit at the idea that she is well respected and liked. How am I supposed to know if I respect and like her if I don't have a clue who she is?
Is she well respected and liked in the Conception forums where I have posted for help and support while spending months to conceive?
I will continue to post but I might change my user name while getting into a heated debate, which I think is a shame because it makes me feel a bit duplicitous and I like the idea of being honest about my opinion and using my regular name to voice it.
stroppyknickers I agree when you say "I would feel dreadful if I felt my genuine problems were being discussed with me by someone planning on printing them." ... for all we know this journalist may have some integrity but what if she (or any other journalist for that matter) leads the conversation to get more out of a poster than she might have originally said, with the intention of publishing. Not that I am saying she has done this but at least if we knew who she was perhaps those posters who are wary would then know when not to say stuff.
Though I guess we will never know and anyway, anyone can sign in as a different person and do the same.
I think over all it's a real shame for the journalist herself as presumably mumsnet is a place she came to for advice, support and friendship and right now she must be feeling like that haven is now completely shattered.
Aitch, she has been vilified, I'm certainly not linking to any specific examples, it's time to look to what next.
King, I agree, it's right to state your case/discuss.
What's the latest thinking on the copyright issue?
Why doesn't MN towers contact the DM and say they will provide a column each week for a fee? At least the C&P will hopefully be correct. I don't understand how someone can make money for just lifting stuff without having to at least ask permission. What's to stop LH selling a different column to all newspapers? What would medical and legal forums think if their threads were printed in the press?
"the total OTT vilification of an ex MNetter doing nothing more than misquoting something that has been written in an entirely public space."
Saintlydamemrsturnip I've corrected that for you
'We are supposed to be by parents for parents. Not by parents for the titillation of the general public. '
WLT nominate Wolfcub for QOTW with that.
While I do not think DM should have allowed this column without MNHQ permission, in no way shape or form is that column any more out there in the public domain than the whole site is.
Search google for almost any parenting topic, and a MN thread will be on your hit list.
This is not a private site. Nor should it be. Anyone who thinks they are speaking to only one person on here, is kidding themselves.
And I do think Private Rooms will lead to nothing but cliques.
The only way to make yourself 100% safe on the 'net is to not post on it. Kinda like the only 100% way to prevent pregnancy is to not have sex...
well i think i've read every post on this subject and i haven't seen any vilification. criticism, yes. but she hasn't behaved honorably so she deserves a bit of criticism., surely? had she run this by MNHQ it would have been a whole different kettle of fish.
what words have been used that count as vilification in your book, as in 'vicious or defamatory statements'? i'm really curious.
unless, as i say, things are being deleted that i haven't seen.
beanie - that's exactly what I want to know. I don't understand why we can't be told her username/s. Surely it's more risky knowing her RL name? What damage can it do to hide her pseudonym. Is it because we might panic if we recognise her?
Aitch, the tone has been vicious at times, as much as words/specific name-calling. Criticism is fine. We all interpret things differently and I thought some of the language was OTT, but anyway, I'd like to talk about copyright/the future.
stroppy - WE DO NOT OUT PEOPLE. Sorry, but I'm getting really quite annoyed about this now. It's an unwritten rule and would do more to damage trust in my opinion than a 1000 DM articles. What is the point of me name-changing to post on something sensitive if someone comes along and outs my other name(s)?
i would quite like to know who it is now
very weird that she has protection
yes, what about the copyright 'law' or statement?
Obviously whatever they have there now doesn't work; is either totally inaffective legaly or just doesn't matter to either the Daily Mail (any other paper) or to Mumsnet.
So what will be done? Will it just stay the same or will it be scrapped or will some action be taken other than politely asking the Daily Mail not to do it again?
Sk: she is allowed her privacy, it would be totally wrong for mnhq to "out her"
But Tee, we give willingly to google and anyone who needs the advice or help available here...what we shouldn't feel pressure to condone is the usage of that material for profit.
There was enough hoo ha when HQ tried publishing stuff
I've no objection to that, if it helps them keep the site running. The DM is just using us as a milk cow.
Ok...there is a lot of high jinx on MN, which would make little more than amusing reading, but anything else would be comparable to someone from the samaritans selling out.
I have used MN in the past for deeeply troubling issues and am currently suffering some emotional anguish that I would really like to 'offload' because it is breaking my heart, but I will not.
Not because I assume that my life is so gobsmackingly interesting to anyone else but because someone else feels so little empathy for peoples troubles that they will sell out on others failings and fragilities.
Have some people no shame? no humanity? no honour or self respect?
Would they be so eager to have their most private fears and troubles threatened with being publically aired?
Among the cat fights and banter, MN has been a safe haven to so many, and I imagine that like myself will feel unable to open up with the freedom of knowing that mostly, good souls will gather, protect and advise.
From special needs, weight issues, social problems and broken hearts this has been in many ways the best that people can be. Loving, supporting and nurturing each other when for whatever reason, RL has not been the place to turn.
I hope the people involved are proud of themselves and sleep well with their choices.
they aren't though, other people are
Maybe she will do the decent thing and 'out' herself... maybe?
mnhq are hovering over the keyboard like cats watching a gecko... waiting
That's not the point though...if she has written stuff about her own personal life on here and someone outs her, it's unfair and wrong. That's why I haven't said who I think it is, and shan't do publicly.
Cats watching a gecko?! that's a marvellous phrase. Can I use it? <seeks copyright>
DP - I think that's incredible you think that. Obv, I disagree strongly. Revealing her username would actually put us all on a level playing field. I would be happy to know their was a journalist with a username of 'x' and not know their RL name, so I could avoid communicating with them. I find the whole thing disgusting.
Jumente, how do YOU think you know her username? Did you do a search?
Beanie it just fits the poster...I'm by no means certain but I have suspicions.
You can probably find out by searching if you can be bothered but t'would take a while to be sure
perhaps we could have the usernames of all journalists?
<no one left>
Tee, i think the chances of the majority of the DM readership googling a parenting subject them coming to MN to read about it are minimal, however they are quite likely to read it if it is laid out in print ready and waiting with their morning coffee. Add to that the fact that there are no assurances that this column will stick to just parenting subjects and not go onto the stuff that is a bit more delecate or difficult than the capcity of tots bots and we have the potential for some very hurtful columns being read by a very large group of people.
Everyone gets the point that this is not private, is the internet, blah blah... the point they are making is that this usage is not something that they agreed to when they signed up and posted and is not something that they would have agreed to if it had been on the cards when they signed up or posted.
stuffit, throw some random personal insults in and see what happens!
lol not my style
have never been deleted
or quoted
i have nothing to worry about
Jumente that's actually what I meant when I said I didn't think DM should print it without MN's permission.
But the argument that someone posted about not wanting to be read over their cornflakes was just silly. I read MN over my Special K every morning. So what's the difference if it is on here or on DM?
SK: what would happen if people knew her posting name? She would get such a hard time, so not on.
Leave her alone fgs.
King, that's why the copyright issues is important/interesting but whatever the answer is to that, pursuing any wrong-doing will always be after the damage has been done.
i don't think that the objection is to cereal, tee. it's just an expression that gets used wrt newspapers, that people read them over their cornflakes.
That was me. I am posting on an interactive site, hoping that when I post about my SN child/ potentially disabled unborn baby (both threads I was on at one stage otr another) I am connecting with other people. It is incidental that you may just skim it with your Special K. I am NOT posting to entertain a load of readers.
DP maybe she'd get such a hard time she'd give up and go and WRITE something fresh and original
i'm astonished that she hasn't come on to square things up, i must say. i take it the posting name leahhardy isn't taken? at least the moldies (who were vilified imo) had the guts to say who they were for the most part and take it on the chin. now, that was because they didn't think they were doing anything wrong and many people disagreed with that (not me, tbh) but if LH thinks that she's done nothing wrong (and dameturnip seems to think so too) then where is she?
Tee, if you cannot work out how thse two are different there is something seriously wrong, or you are being seriously obtuse. I am not saying you have to agree that it is a problem but it just makes you sound silly to try to deny things that are so obvious.
Stripey, very true. After the fact and all that...perhaps that gives me the answer I need by itself.
I understand that Aitch!
But Stroppy, that's just it...whether you intend to entertain people by posting on MN, you are. What you post in SN is in no way private, any more than it would be if published in the DM.
Yes, you are probably connecting to people here on MN, but there is nothing preventing anyone from reading what you are writing here on MN. Reading it and commenting on it. Or just reading it and, perhaps, being entertained by it. You'd never know since they never have to comment.
This whole DM thing has upset me. My ex-inlaws read the DM and I'm suddenly paranoid about saying anything about myself and my unusual past and situation in case they read it and realise.
It's like our anonymity - the very thing that made MN special - is at risk.
I won't be as open and honest in the future on threads.
Sooooo sad.
Thank you. And goodbye. Now I feel far too concerned about who is genuine and not, so I'm just off to CAT someone I liked (and hope its not Leah hardy in disguise) and then I'm going to delete myself later today.
unless she's on her hols of course. but then didn't she contact mnhq to ask them to remove her name? pretty sure that's what Justine said.
come on, leah, i'm sure you're a lovely person and like everyone says a respectable mner etc etc, i think you could sort a lot of this out quite quickly, which would then leave us to discuss the real nub, which is that anyone can lift bits and maybe we shouldn't assume that they'll do so for some perceived public good.
Oh, and in case anyone thinks I am ignoring anything said in response to the above post, I am actually off to have a nap, so I'll respond when I wake up, in an hour or two.
Sk: you can't walk out on me, I'm talking to you!
Indeed King, and I doubt MNHQ would have the time and resources to pursue every infringement anyway.
ok, luv, ds wants to go on Cartoon Network now, so have to exit. Will delete 2mrw
'SK: what would happen if people knew her posting name? She would get such a hard time, so not on.
Leave' her child has the same dx as mine apparently; perhpas I'd feel safer having some iea of whom I was responding to?
Peopel are right: its always been available. Everyt ime you post something to help someone in crises you balance that with their need, and make a decision.
But when people then say that people who reveal of themselves are<<insert dismisive tone of choice>> you think feck it- there's aklways Samaritans. At least I do. I'm kind, not a bloody martyr.
There are severasl people on here who are saying 'well don't post' whose telephone numbers I could find by tea time (well if I wasn't phone phobic LOL- taht's another thing).They rightly as it happens have trusted me, butthat's been proven to be a bad gamble now.
Since yesterday our business has acquired a pita stalker determined at clsing us dowm and not banking on my harshness when my income is threatened. I've reaised that we are all exposed at different levels, and that mione is increasing.
I'm not sure i've seen especial villification of the journo tbh. I am disapopointed she ahs stayed away, people say but her psoting name.... well hello! isn't it exactly that point that people have given- they're amendable.
Would I out her if I were MN? nope, but her IEP and membership would disappear. Foolproof? no. Sending a message? yep. Do I think mnhq's contact with the dm will work? not given that they have broadcast on an open board that they have no real understanding of the law, no.
"Revealing her username would actually put us all on a level playing field."
Really? What's your real name then? Clearly you'd have no problem having that linked to your posting name.
The only reason she lifted bits from mumsnet was to earn some cash. Of course it wasn't for anyones good or to help people. it all comes down to £££ as does any extra publicity that mumsnet gets.
Nice post Peachy.
"Do I think mnhq's contact with the dm will work? not given that they have broadcast on an open board that they have no real understanding of the law, no" exactly!
My main objection to this whole issue is that my parents read the Daily Mail. I would hate to find a post of mine was put in front of them while they were having their breakfast.
When I signed up to MN I knew that they wrote the books and so took extracts of posts. I also knew that occasionally a newspaper might pick up on a 'hot topic' so I am aware that if I post on one that it may be lifted.
I did not however buy into random threads and thoughts being published to a different target audience (many of whom may see similarity in circumstances) without prior notification or right of reply.
I change my name every 4-6 months or so but reverted to this one a while back as I love it. I will probably change my name again but the 'nickname' isnt really the issue. If you start a thread and divulge how many children you have, rough ages, and then detail a specific issue you are encountering then you could be quite identifiable without meaning to be.
As I said, I know this is the internet and anyone can read these posts but I know for a fact that my parents wouldnt come on here and look in the relationships or parenting sections. Therefore I feel like the audience (and it's composition) of MN (not posters, just readers) significantly increased and diversified meaning I am less likely to be anonymous.
I dont like it.
I can understand a call for her to come here and talk to us (although I don't see what good it would do except allow people to vent their spleen) but her posting name? Well, that just does not stack up really.
She freely gave out her old name so I feel a bit differently about that but her new name is private, the same as anyone elses on here.
The fact is that she could be anyone - the same as any of us could be and I don't think you can reasonably ask for her to reveal that unless everyone else is prepared to reveal who they are and what they do so we can be sure we only say things in front of the "right" people and never expose ourselves to the "wrong" people - and that is not going to happen is it?
"given that they have broadcast on an open board that they have no real understanding of the law"
They may not know but they certainly have contacts that do. Think back to the whole SWMNBN fiasco.
Tee - you are an MNer!
A load of MNers are going to read MN columns effectively now. DOn't care if they eat corn flakes or bran flakes, it was me that used the expression, just a figure of speech, sorry.
Oh I don't know.
I do think she's being badly treated in that people are getting round the outing posts (I outed her yesterday or the day before not realising that it was going to be treated as a secret - sorry LeahHardy) by choosing names which incorporate her old posting name and I do think that deliberately outing someone who has made it plain that she wants to preserve anonymity, is not on. Bearing in mind that this is the WWW, she is not infringing on anyone's privacy by publishing details of what they have posted on the WWW - I take the points of the posters on the SN boards, and I do think it was crass that the name of the poster in the case she printed was wrong (FGS - basic stuff really, get the right quote attributed to the right person), but really, this is the www, anyone can see it and as long as she's not printing real names then with the exception of easily identifiable posters and situations then I don't think this is such an outrage. I would hate it if suddenly everyone knew my RL name and all the people I knew could come on and do a search and see what I think about things I might not choose to share with them and I really do think every other poster on these boards should have the same right to anonymity.
Secondly, the bit about cutting and pasting a whole thread, that people are so objecting to as it's not "real" journalism and she's making money out of MN - I actually think that is better than the DM cutting and pasting just the bits they want to, to fit in with their arguments. Given that they have the reputation of being ruthlessly conniving and dishonest, I'd rather they had to print a whole thread than pick and choose bits and misrepresent the thread. And so what if she makes money out of it? Nice work if you can get it, I don't care, people make money out of arms trading and selling Nestle as well, c'est la vie.
She should have asked permission, I agree.
But what has happened here? she used an interesting thread that could have helped lots of women...wasn't the thread about discrimination at work,? that needs hi-lighting,.
I think it is wrong of the DM to do this without asking.
It is irrelevant in my opinion that Leah is an ex MNter and tbh it makes it worse.
Lots of errors are just annoying and I will not be posting anything personal from now on.
Maybe, as a common courtesy and to acknowledge the distress of some posters, she could come on and change her name to something like 'Iamleahhardy' and just have a conversation with people about it? She doesn't have to reveal her usual user name, but by changing her name just to do this she could at least hen engage in some kind of adult conversation about it.
Given that the biggest percentage that come on here are parents, there is a disservice being done to children here.
I have received support and advice and a chance to let off steam re certain issues and it has had a huge impact on my ability to cope as a parent at times during some very difficult circumstances.
Being able to open up on here, and yes, it is a public forum, has on some days given me the strength to make some tough choices.
So what does the person feel about the impact of her decision to get involved with the DM feel about how it will affect not just the posters, but the offspring of them, who are surely, through all the lighthearted stuff, the real beneficiaries of sites like this.
MN is always here, where for me I have limited RL support with difficult home circumstances, and makes the difference between a good day and a bad one and that is monumentally sad.parenting. Some days, it l
All publicity is good publicity and I think MN HQ have done the right thing. Not an ideal collaboration for MN, so much Daily Mail hating on here, it is the blame for any hidden racist, class hating crap on here!!! [quite rightly so, if you ask me] Perhaps an MN something would be good as a round up somewhere, but here on MN is enough for me, I love morningpaper's little spin in the ether every week. I trust MNHQ to make the right decisions down the line.
DP, I agree that the issue is a major one that needs addressing but it is (IMO) wrong to use someone story without their permission, if she had contacted sweetness and said "it is a terrible thing that has happened to you and needs highlighting do you mind if I use your thread for a column about poor practice in the workplace" it would have been different or said "inspired by a tread on MN I have decided to look into the treatment of PG women in the workplace" and then done her own work. The column does not help lots of women in the form it is in - although it could have, it is just an entertainment column, nothing more.
SoupDragon - RL name very different to someone who has been using this place for her own personal gain. If I knew her posting name I'd be able to know if there was a chance my mum might read about me. That's all. And I could avoid her. As I said, it's just really p*ssed me off, and I am going to give up on the site. Just don't want you lot to think I am some sort of mad reactionary hence my answering you.
Beanieb, maybe she can't atm?.....legal reasons?
PosieParker... why is publicity good? What does Mumsnet gain from publicity good and bad? Am genuinely interested in why you thik that.
Stroppy, that wouldn't work, if you were posting she could lift it, even if she had not posted on the thread. Knowing her posting name won't change anything (except the reaction she would get).
oh. okay. I see whay you mean. No way round it then is there? Esp as I just read the link to the first thread and was quite shocked that mumsnet seemed to think the publicity was good,might encourage more users and that they considered LH to be 'a good egg'. IMO, good eggs don't gossip - I don't repeat stuff I get told, let alone publish it. (And yes, I do know the whole public forum thing)
no legal reason, dp, nothing's been done on that front yet.
i truly don't get the problem with her old posting name being revealed, it just gives context and she revealed her name plenty of times while posting under it.
new name, no way.
HB, i don't think it's the whole thread she's posting. that would be impossible in so many cases, and more to the point if an ad comes in last minute on the page etc then a sub will cut it, not her. (in fact subs cut things routinely for space anyway, so she's kinda making a promise she can't keep).
so she is picking and choosing. and while i do actually trust that person to 'do the right thing' wrt the picking, she may not write the piece forever. plus, the OP just may not want an identifiable problem picked. how many women in the country do you think fainted at their booking in appointment and were sacked in the same week?
aithc i mailed you
beanieb - because it increases traffic for the website, which in turn means advertisers to the website will be willing to pay more
You might believe her aitch, and MNHQ I suppose but there are lots of us who don't know her and so don't trust her any more than any other person we don't know.
Plus trusting someone based on their MN posts only is a bit naive (not saying you are, you may well know her in RL). There are plenty of Mners I would trust to do this sort of thing (you'd be one of them except I'd also trust you to have imagined all this) but OTOH I can just imagine my DH's reaction. "OK so you've never met the woman ...assuming she is a woman ... are you MAD?"
Aitch; daily mail bosses may have told her to say nothing until they know where they stand on this.
i don't really know her either, but it's much more likely that she's a decent sort than some evil witch.
hmmm, possibly. although she's freelance, she can do what she likes.
Ooh, I come in this afternoon and see I have been threatened with libel, albeit in a jocular manner.
I am sure LH has enough on her plate what with all that facial surgery and wagon-sitting she is concentrating on. That must be why she hasn't come on to talk about this - it would drive her straight for the bottle.
I think MNHQ have once again underestimated their membership. Good Luck with your private boards.
Agree that outing her current nickname would be wrong & highly inappropriate at the moment - would succeed in nothing but a public witch hunt, which would not be very pretty.
However, I am a bit about LH being a respected MNer. Surely her actions of the last fortnight have demonstrated that she has scant respect for either MNHQ or for fellow MNers, so why should she be held in high regard now?
The problem as I see it is a question of independence. By being allied with the DM, the MN 'brand' is allied with a set of values that is not espoused by the majority of MNetters, or MNHQ itself. This is a real consequence of having a weekly column.
No one who reads the column will think anything other than there has been a deal done between DM and MNHQ, and i believe that is the core issue. No deal has been done, none is wanted.
As far as copyright is concerned, despite it being the www, and of course, open to all sorts of pilfering, regardless of the law (witness film, music and book copyright or piracy issues) it is generally held to be good journalistic practice to solicit the permission of contributors to a piece lifted wholesale from another source.
So, back to my main point, the MN brand is being unwillingly associated with the DM. Justine is going to talk to them.
I would imagine they will drop the idea of the weekly column...it seemed like a good idea, but the opposition will put them off.
Aitch; the daily mail bosses will know this is going on, their paper has been quoted all over mumsnet for 3 days, she's prob been told to keep quiet.
i know leah hardy
she is divine.
hello DP btw
'kay, that's not really how it works dp. she's freelance. they're not even really her bosses, iykwim? but yes, maybe. (although while this is a big issue here i doubt any of the mail eds give much of a fuck about it. for them, it'll just be that a freelancer said 'why don't we do a This Week In MN?' and they said 'yeah, sure, let's try it'. now that it might not be working out they'll probably just drop it. which i don't know if MNHQ want.)
I also think that it is the idea of a regular weekly MN column that has got folk so riled. MN has often been quoted in the press, often verbatim, sometimes inaccurately, and those instances just provoke a bit of crossness. A weekly column, however, is a very different kettle of fish.
aitch, if there is no monetary reward for MNHQ, and a huge possibility of the independent MN brand being tainted, I would think MNHQ would be thrilled for it just to go away.
I knew there had to be at least one advantage to living overseas
not sure about that. if i was mn i'd be wanting to suggest that they provide the copy. it is great publicity for them. it could say 'the fee has been donated to charity' for extra brownie pts.
Hm, aitch, yes a possibility, but a course of action that might well alienate the MN contributors and substantially alter the MN offering.
And in public relation terms, you never want to alienate your customers by associating yourself with brands that are contentious and divisive.
Eg, if I started an ethical baby clothing company, I would not want to be assocated with Nestle. It would kill the integrity of my brand values immediately.
Hi everyone,could someone PLEASE tell me in brief what is the whole story?i have missed the whole thing and have no idea whats happening!please,i am very intrigued!
true. it's a tricky one, innit?
I'm not saying MNHQ should have an anti-DM policy - their policy surely is to be neutral on these issues?
Ooh I want to get MNHQ in a room and give them a good old lecture on PR and marketing. Grrh!
<< waves to ba >>
Aitch, agree this is nothing to the daily mail.
But to be fair, they are acting reactively, as pointed out. They were not given a chance to discuss it at all with the DM or the DM marketing bods. And that is usually where this kind of tie-in originates.
It just needs to be handled properly now. And I am sure it will be. Sorry MNHQ! I am sure you know as much about PR and marketing as I do...got a bit carried away.
(though if you do want a bit of help, I am more than willing to contribute!)
B1984, I am equally puzzled... is this on the GF scale of trouble??
In fact, I think there should be a sort of MN-knowledge bank, which can be called upon in times of crisis. MNetters who have specialist knowledge of various issues, such as legal, copyright, PR etc, who could help out when MNHQ under attack, so they don't have to bankrupt themselves...)
B1984 and caribou...its not trouble for Mumsnet as such, its just that a journalist who is also a MNEtter has sold the idea of a weekly column to the Daily Mail lifted straight from Mumnset, with a top and tail of Daily Mail comment.
The first column came out, and people are concerned and upset at a)being associated with the DM and b)being recognised and c) feel violated by the process.
aha i get it!thanks!
ah, so not actually plagiarism but violation of privacy? Intellectual property laws, perhaps? difficult one - MN public forum, as Justine says.
and d) posts wrongly attributed
exactly caribou.
I mean, if I have conversation at the bus stop, about something personal to me, I know that in theory the bloke next to me could pootle off and put it in a newspaper column, and fair dos...but I would not expect him to sign post me by saying that six foot blond with piercing blue eyes that waits at the 83 bus every morning by so and so road.
<<sighs at fantasy version of self>>
I am about to email MNHQ to ask them to delete my more sensitive posts and tbh most of the time I post in Chat so they will go but from now on in I just won't post personal stuff.
It just all seems really lazy to me. At least all the "woe is me, I am very rich and still have school run" type columns involve thinking up the stuff. Picking a thread from MN and writing it up just sounds like homework you can't be arsed to do tbh.
yes hocus. indeed.
and getting paid for it...I mean, what is she getting paid for? the 200 hundred words at the top and bottom of the piece? Not worth getting out of bed for, surely?
That's what annoys me.That she is getting paid for this.Talk about 'easy money'
I will write a column based on MN but not for DM...would prefer the News of the world!
aitch; quick question;
i'm a freelance journo and iv'e done some work for the daily mail.
i find out that my work has caused a few problems.
i go to the DM and say,
"look, that mumsnet piece i did last week, i didn't get permission from MNHQ and now they're all going nuts over there"
what would the editor say..?
"so what"..?
if there are legal consequences over this (doubt there will be)...will the DM just tell the journo she's on her own?,
they must have a responsibility for what gets printed in their paper.?.
at dp being a journalist.
Do tell who you write for
Daft, the paper is legally liable for all content it prints.
No DP, they will say "yeah we printed it, so wot? Wotcha gonna do bout it then huh?"
And MN will say, "Well, nothing actually because, if the daily mail are standing by LH, we cannot afford to do anything - our only hope was that you would cut her loose"
I would imagine that the editor annoyed with the journo, but they messed up, in not checking in with MNHQ. So editor will be in trouble too. Not necessarily legal trouble, but just for creating a situation.
lots of slapped wrists all round.
No Fab she's hypothesisisisng. I went 'what!!' as well!
thanks MD..
King, its not a question of standing by LH, its a question of standing by what they have printed. But yeah, I should imagine she will not be little miss popular this week at the DM.
that's what i thought king, it was just something aitch said earlier, confused me.
But really, at the end of the day (and all other associated cliches), its no biggie for the DM. Just an editorial idea that seemed to have legs, but probably isn't worth pursuing now.
I have an idea, what if every MNetter put a swear word in their nicknames? would they publish then?
lol MD...tell you what, you should have your restaurant as user name...£££££ of free advertising.
What would be the point of LH coming on?Well it would be great to know her plans tbh.
If she says 'I am really offended that anyone would think i'dlift a topic from SN' I might well continue to post in there. I/m fairly sure I have helped in tehre over the years. If she said 'sorry, are you kidding, tjhis is my mortgage I'm earning' I'd carry on with my decision not to do so.
Other people may want something else of course, but for me that would have been enough- an outline of the plans, what rules she is plaving upon it etc. Would it stop someone else doing it? nah. Nonetheless, somehow it would be enough for me.
That's the point of the all the unflattering Daily Mail-themed names, Madame.
'It just all seems really lazy to me. At least all the "woe is me, I am very rich and still have school run" type columns involve thinking up the stuff. Picking a thread from MN and writing it up just sounds like homework you can't be arsed to do tbh. '
Flame exactly.
At Uni they wouold run our essays through a progam to check for anything on the web or previously submitted. More than a set% of essay found to be copied (even if quotes) and you'd be hauled up, potentially thrown out.
the DM does not hate women, the majority of it's readers are women.
I had sort of guessed that! but was thinking something that would really churn those DM stomachs...
It loves a certain kind of woman, one who colludes with her own oppression...and hates other women
Message deleted by Mumsnet.
I imagine said hourno who copies would ahve enough left on her allocated timeshetet to remove a few swearwords in all honesty.
The DM seems to ahte women who do not fit a very small ideal, DP. Overweight, not stunning, WOHM, benefit claimant, non-white.......usually by implication rather than explicit yes, but still! Those Tess threads the other day for example- every time they big up a celeb for losing her weight in 12 hours or whatever they effectively dismiss those who don't manage it.
And the idea that women aren't mysogynistic is a bit idealistic too: some of the WOHM / SAHM threads over the years have shown that, often as not we're our own worst enemies
it's not big on career women freezing their eggs and then having a baby at 65....that's all.
but if she took out the swear words, she might as well make up the nicknames.
Paul Dacre probably doesn't actually eat babies, but I doubt any of georgimama's posts under that name will wind up in next week's column (if there is one).
I will cheerfully admit that the DM doesn't hate women. As long as you aren't a working mother who abandons your children to childcare, in receipt of any benefits or tax credits, earning more than your husband, overweight, underweight, suspiciously foreign, a mother of more than 3 children, childfree by choice, gay or promiscuous it likes you just fine. Provided you accept that your appearance is the single overriding most important factor about you, of course. And don't wear trousers.
Sadly there's a 30-character limit on usernames, so I've had to settle for "HatesWomen" as a handy abbreviation for all of that.
People who are saying it doesn't matter because it's all in the public domain anyway are missing the point. I have a couple of personal issues ATM that I wanted to post but then this blew up.
My mum knows I MN but doesn't know my user name. If she came on here and looked through Active Convos or even tried a search, the likelihood of her coming across my posts is quite slim. If however she picks up the DM and reads a story about a situation she recognises, with my username, then pops over here and does a search, the fallout could be tremendous.
I do namechange quite frequently and I have taken most of the identifying details off my profile. I could just stick to boring threads about the weather and toys but I do use MN for situations I can't speak to people in RL about.
The scarey thing IMO is we don't know which thread is going to be the one picked. Plus it is more likely to be the one where your mother is driving you demented than which bike to buy for your 3 yo.
Though obviously, freezing eggs and having children when one is as old age pensioner is about on a par with having children when you are very young. Or when you have a job. Or when you are not married. Or when you live on benefits.
DM Mantra - the only good single mother is a widow (preferably of a war hero).
Jeez, those women, just so darn feckless.
Darn, yes, I missed out single mothers from my list.
Elvis you're right they are missing it.
The point is about trust and where I choose to place it.
I chose to place it with MN, fully aware of what that meant etc etc etc.
I didn't choose to palce it with the DM, and would not do so.
bah,i'm going to be without a PC for five days from tomorrow anyhow, damned good thing.
Allegedly the editorial meetings are terrifying. I have met several escapees from the DM editorial side who start twitching if you mention it.
Exactly, elvis
Dh used to talk to them regularly for work, along with NI etc etc
He was actually taken aside by his boss and praised for not swearing at them LOL
NI were worst mind, in his specific area, but I think if I suggested a return he'd start running immediately.
mn and the mail were made for each other
no other paper would do this
the daily mail is into old fashioned family values,.. it doesn't promote fat benefit claiming lesbians...they leave that to the guardian.
And I think what Justine and the ladies will need to consider is how is breaks our contract with MNHQ. Not a written one, of course, but the moral one about our relationship with Mumsnet, and what MNetters feel comfortable with.
If that contract gets broken by association with any organisation that goes against the ethos of MN, and jeapordises the things that make MN special, then the magic of MN is lost.
I think it is a trust issue. We trust MNHQ not to do deals with the devil, if they can avoid it, and to not draw attention to particulars of posters in the media.
Which they have done. It remains to be seen whether MNHQ can maintain the trust relationship while sorting this out.
Its a tough one. Do you go head to head with DM and its vast and terrifying legal team? or do you try to minimise the damage by doing some kind of limited deal?
Not a choice I would like to be making.
But the positive side of me says that this will just get slung in the DM bin of 'not workable ideas'
Ah Daft, you are so, ah, um, even handed!
Yes DP? Well it also doesn't seem to promote choice and tolerance either. Shame really- much as I generally fit the profile of perfect DM woman I rather prefer the Guardian stance overall. Don't reasd that either mind LOL, but from hearsay
hey stuffit, I think the Express is improvished enough for ideas for this to be perfect for them too!
just got back from holiday
I think many of us longstanding mner know who LH is/used to be
I cant comment fully as i dont know the full back story but I am a little
Oi MmeDeFarge, come over to the healthy eating thread, someone is asking for you!
yes but there are a lot of intelligent women here, it might be a bit much for the Express
Madame I wouldn't mind sorting that one out tbh- i'd say stick to chat threads only please, then set up a time sensitive area where threads are deleted after 30 days (so that chat bexcomes for chat rather than sensitive temporary threads)
Not idea but is any of it?
I would just like to know that people contimnue to have somewhere to go without fearing their 3am fears will be in the DM. For the extremely vulnerable people. I don't like any of this but that would be enough.
Just to clarify my longer post, I believe that MMHQ have not done any deals with the devil!
Just realised it read a bit strangely!
Popsy I think the issue for many is that there isn't a backstory
MN didn't OK it or anything, it just appeared. With wrong OP name (and worse using that of someone vulnerable) and nowt else.
It's into very specifically mid-20th century family values. Traditionally women have always worked, for example, unless their husbands were rich enough for them not to need to (small section of the population). Traditionally single mothers weren't at all uncommon (have a glance through a 19th century census, or a browse through an old parish register). The Daily Mail has chosen to crystallise a particular set of values rooted in a very specific time and place and market them as traditional. Which they have every right to do, but I have every right to believe and maintain that it's a bunch of self-serving meretricious twaddle.
they serve their audience and they do it well
Actually , just realised that all you need to do is a bit of negative PR re DM lifting copy wholesale, which is true, and the whole thing would go away. It would not then be an addition to the paper,just a liability.
Ooh, I love the word meretricious...this is why I love MN
Has the journalist concerned confirmed that mumsnet did NOT give her permission to quote from the boards?
Because they've always been extremely friendly about Caitlin Moran/other journalists freely quoting from MN so sorry, I think it EXTREMELY unlikely the journalist in question used stuff without contacting MNHQ.
Although Justine might have said she didn't in which case ignore me, haven't read all the threads at all
quoting bits and bobs is quite a different thing to a weekly column.
WWW in fairness, unless there ahs been a sudden collapse of braodband in LH land, she has and is haing the chance to defend herself against the accusation MNHQ has made.
Unless contradicted I see no reason to believe MNHQ would lie.
Justine has repeatedly said that she didn't.
The journalist concerned has been keeping a low profile although from context (requests to MNHQ to avoid being outed) has been keeping at least a vague eye on these threads.
Oh, ok.
No, I see no reason for MNHQ to lie either.
oi plopper
Things would just spiral even more out of control if she came on and posted.
<<waves to LH>>
Ta then love
Why on earth would LH come on? Eveyone's made their mind up and decided they know the 'truth'. Been there done this with mn before: no-one is actually remotely interested in what went on once an issue becomes this hysterical. Anything she said would just get twisted anyway. I certainly wouldn't bother if I was her.
the truth?? surely the truth was printed in a national news paper.
she could do as I asked- let it be known (and a message to MN asking her them to pass on the messages would suffice) that she has no intention of filching threads from certain sensitive areas of MN
I cannot see why that would ne a problem for her
I don't think anything would be helped by her coming on now, certainly. I think back when this first started to blow up it might have defused things a bit, though.
I do still wonder what the heck she was thinking (a) about the idea in the first place and (b) not to ask MNHQ first. My best theory at the moment is that she's been taken over by an alien pod person, but I'm aware that that lacks a certain plausability.
Once she answers one question though, more will follow...
Who is she?
Seems very one sided to me.
She can know who we are but we can't know her user name.
I very much doubt that anyone would quote from the special needs board for this sort of article. To be frank the issues discussed are not relevant enough for the general DM audience to be of enough interest to be published.
If they picked up on a thread about the threat of removing dla then maybe it would be a good thing. Would reach a wide audience quickly - but I doubt it's of enough general interest.
Lily I aggree, I would just like to know that places like sn/bereavement and the more sensitive topics like antinatal testing are out of bounds.
*The DailyMailhates* I agree : what on earth was she thinking. To me it's as simple as this : it's unprincipled behaviour. But I would expect it of the DM
I am liking the alien pod person idea....
To be honest, I think she knew that there wasn't ever much of a problem with odds and sods, and the occasional thread being quoted..it gave us all something to gossipchat about.
A weekly column is very different. I think she just misjudged it. Maybe she was under pressure to come up with something, maybe she didn't even know they were going to do a weekly column, and she thought it was just going to be a one-off...
There are lots of potential, exculpating scenarios. but it would be nice to know what the real one is.
True MrsT and I hope very much you are right, 48 hours ago i'd have agreed in fact. But I an think of a few of my threads that would ahve made decent DM fodder. Esp. with this whole extradition thing uin the news.
The ones about MIL etc I can live with- my fault, but those were posted in desperate moments. I'd quite like the security I think.
The DLA thing BTW I have a letter about from Assembly member; loads upon loads of quoted bits saying nothing will be removed from people, DLA esential etc- and not a comment about not being swapped to SSd.
Flame I think you are right, which is why a statementy type thing would work.
Why do you think they wouldn't quote from the special needs board? There are lots of subjects they could pick from all over the different parts of mumsnet from home births to using a dummy to cut off ages for IVF to attitudes towards kids with a disability. Any of those subjects would be interesting to someone and could also be upsetting to members if their own personaly stories/opinions were printed.
Anyway - I don't thin MNHQ plan to make certain forums out of bounds, the answer seems to be to set up 'private' rooms where people can only post when invited to.
does it matter what newspapers we read or who we vote for, the main thing is we're all here to support each other and make each others lives easier....
peachy...don't leave...ok...
"private rooms"...lol, that will never work....no one would let me in their room..
DP it's Sn i'm avoiding,, nd posting about the boys. In The News etc is about me and what I think. my freedom to reveal there IYSWIM
aw daft, I am so proud of you! And second what you said.
private rooms not good. I'd spend my whole time kncoking on doors, never knowing the secret password.
I do agree that just a basic statement rather than responding to individual questions would do a lot to calm the storm.
We don't know what she is allowed to say - DM may have silenced her or summat for all we know. She may be (like Justine) waiting til Monday when she can speak to thems in charge.
I don't like the column. I don't want to be quoted in it (not enough to change my name atm <stubborn>). But at the same time I am trying to look at it rationally from all angles, which has apparently set me up as a DM supporter, in cahoots with Moldies and all kinds of other things.
I am lucky though, there isn't a great deal on here that would matter if it was posted, whereas for many of you (especially SN) I know that isn't the case I could wind up in deep sh*t if my thread about brides and haircuts got posted, but nothing life affecting tbh
And all those posters who feel that they make friends on messgae boards, don't they get in touch with them discreetly anyway?
You're either public or you're private. There is no happy middle ground.
my dream room would be me
and FAQ for flouncing purposes
and mamag for gavel usage
King: "She freely gave out her old name so I feel a bit differently about that but her new name is private, the same as anyone elses on here."
I freely 'gave out' my old name, I do not want it linked to any new ones. That's the point of changing names for me.
You want your DP in a room with you???
No, you want DaftPunk.
Again... must read more carefully.
no dafty
my room will be called "opinions r us"
no being offended allowed
I have also freely given out pretty much everything I am under this name, I also often name change with no hiding of it being "me".
That doesn't give anyone the right to free reign over all of my name changes.
I've been thinking about this all day.
I can totally see why people wouldn't want to be quoted in the mail, and how it has the potential to make people feel exposed. I also really don't like the daily mail.
But - if the daily mail is a misogynistic paper which is packed with articles to make women feel bad about themselves and their choices - surely this is the opposite to what mn is all about. And if LH is a decent person, she's always seemed pretty intelligent to me - and she's highlighting issues such as women being unfairly dismissed for being pg - well that's not SUCH a bad thing is it? If we all hate the mail so much, then surely being in the mail, in our own words, is actually a good thing. That article is mners giving really good, reasoned advice. I do see how the fact that WE have no control makes it harder to be relaxed about - but if it's a mnetter, who likes mnet and mnetters - then it doesn't seem so bad - does it?
Dunno, just thinking.
I completely see your point
But with twoprovisos:
Thre names of posters are changed- the sit. where LH nerroneously amed someone TTC is ludicrous and in fact mean
Aforesaid agreement on 'safe zones'
Still not my personal fave idea but heckb compriomise is acceptable
I still find it bizarre that a regular mumsnetter would thinks this was ok, I know we are not suppose to be vitolic but just how stupid is the woman I would think most posters HUSBANDS would realise the furore this would cause.
I don't think MNHQ should out her I just think it would be good if she either came on and said sorry or came on and said suck it up you posse of whinging trouts. However I presume she has been gagged until this has been sorted out.
I think people are mainly uncomfortable with it because it is the more sensitive posts that will be sought for this type of article.
If it was a column about the Great Wit of Mothers Today or Household Calamities or Aren't Pesky Partners a Hoot then it would be very different.
I'm not sure it's such a big deal, though.
What if all of us just nicked stuff of here and published it? Isn't that cheating instead of thinking up your own work?
As it stands - if I start a post about antenatal depression in the next week, with other posters coming on sharing stories, info about the support that is out there... PLEASE will you use that for the column? It is desperately under-mentioned.
That's the thing FlameSparrow. This column could actually do a lot of good.
If LH got permission to do it, of course.
Halfmumhalfbiscuit - as the copyright thingy in the tearms and conditions pretty much seems to be pointless and MNHQ seem pretty much unwilling to enforce it, I would think that a prescident is being set for everyone and anyone to take whatever they want from the mumsnet forums and publish it however they want.
The last one too - although it went tits up by attributing to the wrong person - highlighted some crap stuff going on out there.
SN too - there is all stuff (that admittedly I don't understand) going on about DLA and other benefits afaik - that could be the latest MN uproar.
Or when VVVQV (was it her?) started the thread a couple of years back about how many women had been raped or abused, and how few reported it - that (without usernames!!!!) could have made one hell of an article. A sad one, but one to make people sit back and think
There a re quite a few journalists on mn, no? Just set up a system where mnetters can suggest topics to them (pnd or whatever), offer a personal story and leave it at that.
Why let a load of slightly unsuspecting posters stumble into a dm column?
Can't journos ask people to come forward with experiences already?
How is this somewhat skulky way any better?
So do we think that the Mail has never had a chance to print anything postive about women before, people are being naive if they think we can run a campaign to save the souls of Daily Mail readers with LH leading our charge.
What you're talking about it opt out rather than opt in. ANy as it's a message board, there's no need to ask anyone to opt in.
Justine, Can you now introduce a facility to delete our own old posts?
I've asked about this before and I was told that it would destroy the conversations, but I think it would give people some control, to rein back if they overshare and then regret it. On another forum I visit this facility is available and people only seem to cull their posts once a month or so.
That's not quite what i'm saying Ionlyread.
It's too late for the souls of daily mail readers for a start.
Just that generally mn is pretty liberal and there are lots of outspoken and smart people who say things I'd rather read than the stuff in the mail, which is often quite infuriating.
I'm still not sure I think it's a good link - but was just thinking about whether it could actually be positive after all. I was wondering what people thought about that.
There's too much thinking and wondering in that last bit. <thinks and wonders>
Maggie I think she's answered you in her op about deleting own posts.
deleting own posts makes it all weirdy
So the terms and conditions on MN site are a load of cock - is that right? Copied somewhere else and not legally enforceable in anyway?
This means all information / posts on here is free for all or anyone to use in any printed or digital media that they wish? And is not in fact the property of MN at all? Which is a bit different from I thought was the case.
Perhaps the t&c should be changed so we all know this? It does make a bit of a difference.
is a weird world.
also when Justine said that line about other journalists would have liked to do this - the fact kind of remains that they CAN and COULD if they so wished - in fact anyone could put together a book called 'Wisdom from Parenting Interenet Sites' couldn't they?
MN owns nothing. Except it's name perhaps.
Have I got this all wrong?
I think that's nonsense though. You go to rollercoaster, where the facility is available to delete your own posts, people hardly EVER do it!
Oh I see. Flat no. Hmmmm. I don't understand that at all.
I mean if they say we own the copyright for everything here. Is it now true that is not in fact the case? Is it like me drawing up a document which says, I am The Queen or something??
I've just read the t&c. I don't really understand them. That seems to be the way of it.
"She can know who we are but we can't know her user name"
She doesn't know who you are - how can she know who you are?? Why should she have her posting name(s) linked to her real name? Do you want to tell everyone your real name?
Yes Soupy is right. This shouldn't be about her at all. If nothing else she was just doing a job - and it's not personal.
I think it's the principle which is relevant, and how and in what ways there being freedom to reproduce posts from here elsewhere in other media changes things. If it does, at all.
MaggieBeauLeo, wrt to deleting your own posts, you say people "hardly ever do it" but also that they "cull their posts once a month or so". Once a month is not "hardly ever".
I think it's a dumb idea.
I don't even understand the idea.
I think it HIGHLY unlikely given the Gina Ford fiasco that Mn aren't v v v clear on copyright law as it stands and as it applies to them.
But yes, maybe the copyright notice is 'a load of old cock'
I think Justine said on another thread that they'd copied it from somewhere at the start - and she wasn't sure if it was true or accurate or something. But then there were 25 other threads and I never found out if the lawyer told her differently.
They tip top shit shot on libel I think, not copyright. God, poor them. What a headache.
I mean if MN want to sell threads to the Independent or start up a This Week on MN column somewhere - then it's their intellectual property and they can do so. You would think. And take the flak this end, if there was any.
But for other people to do it, just seems wrong somehow and against what their copyright says?
Who knows. I don't!
Yes, give over with wanting Lh on here to give some sort of public apology. Neither here nor there.
Justine did say on this thread on Friday that "very quick, blackberried legal opinion appears to be that this may, indeed, constitute an infringement of copyright... "
not sure if any other legal advice has been taken since... I think so but not sure what the outcome was.
Of course the weekend has not helped eh?
LilyOfTheMountain re your earlier post about LH coming here to promise not to touch certain areas of the site, I find it hard to believe that this would happen because, if she puts that in writing, she would be stuck with it and who knows what the future holds, signing up to somthing like that would be foolish for her.
The other point is that anything she says here would only apply to her, she cannot speak for the Daily Mail or any other freelance journos out there so it is not really going to do much longer term!
Boco, even if they copy a thread verbatum that does not mean they cannot twist it with the 200 word top and tail "On MN This Week; lazy mother whines about being sacked after she proves herself unable to work..." would nicely turn what was published this week into something totally different, it is very easy to do, especially if a large amount of your readership are ued to reading things a certain way!
Stripey - that is exactly the point I was making, her previous name was given out by her, the new one has not been and so should stay private until she sees fit to release it - the same as it is for all of us!
she got all her posts deleted didn't she? What was her old name (For those of us who don't know) and why was she so concerned about people being able to search her old posts?
I mean - it's a public forum and everything, what's her problem.
But because she gave it out on some threads at some point does not mean that others are free to state it at any point in the future imo. I'd never disclose anything about anyone across threads.
The issues seem to be to me:
Whatever happens about copyright, someone, somewhere at any point can quote you so be careful what you post. This should be stated at regular intervals on a sticky I think, along with a reminder of posting etiquette.
Are MN members happy with an officially sanctioned regular column in any periodical, with or without editorial control?
For the latter, whether we like it or not, it might happen, so people need to be reminded to the first point repeatedly.
That's all this boils down to essentially.
chichi, don't think people want LH to come on to make public apology, do they? you're making that into a red herring.
i personally think she should have come on days ago to make clear what happened, what the thinking was etc. i do think there's some sense in her doing it even now because i do think it could diffuse a lot of the concerns that people have. plus, there may very well be a simple explanation as to why she didn't contact MNHQ to seek permission etc, so a lot of this could be cleared up. then we could move onto the meat of it, which is that MNHQ's 'we own this' line is hot air.
to those people saying caitlin moran quoted from here etc, in fact when she wrote that big piece those of us who were interviewed were contacted first by mn to find out if we had an objection to being CATed by her. mnhq was keen for that publicity too, but they still did the mannerly thing.
Beanie, do you want your posting name(s) linked to your real name?
i agree with aitch and soupdragon on this now that I have thought more thoroughly
Aitch, posters on MN have been quoted left right and centre by journalists for YEARS! Without any permission being asked. I've been quoted, wasn't asked. (Not that it bothers me at all, I am of the 'it's a public forum' school of thought)
"By StripeySuit on Sun 16-Aug-09 17:27:18
King: "She freely gave out her old name so I feel a bit differently about that but her new name is private, the same as anyone elses on here."
I freely 'gave out' my old name, I do not want it linked to any new ones. That's the point of changing names for me. "
she has changed her name, some time ago, post-flounce. i don't think anyone's trying to out her new name, are they? so there's no link between old and new name, it's between LH and old name, which as King said, she gave out freely.
of course they have, www. what's your point? this isn't a one-off, it's completely different.
"Whatever happens about copyright, someone, somewhere at any point can quote you so be careful what you post. This should be stated at regular intervals on a sticky I think, along with a reminder of posting etiquette."
for a lot of people, that would just mean no more posting for advice for the fear that they end up in the national press and so bye bye mumsnet.IMO
dp, lay off with the fat and lesbian benefits thing, had enough now. I'll see you on the Fantasy Football thread and you better not be beating me.
<uppity dyke emoticon>
bye bye mumsnet and hello bumsexnet, i fear.
Well, if it was given out freely, whoever wants to know can just go and search it out. That's fair game.
Posting "LH is <<enter name here>>" or directly pointing people to it is not on though.
who is LH?
<sets up stall selling Mumsnet threads, verbatim>
aitch, a couple of people have mentioned apology but I admit, there is so much chatter I am losing track of what the hell is goingon.
Soupdragon: "Beanie, do you want your posting name(s) linked to your real name? " no!
But I do think it would be fair enough to ask the journalist to log in for one chat using a new name which is not in any way linked to any of her previous names.
Anyway - I thought the journalist happily outted her old name? Or am I mistaken?
If agreeing to t's and c's that hand copyright of our written words over to MN, then the least we should be secure in is that MN does indeed own the copyright, and therefore can protect it too.
I can't believe this so complicated re copyright. you either own it or you don't. Proving it is hardly difficult in this case.
Mumsnet user hands over copyright to MN. MN retains it for their use.
Just because stuff is nicked and replicated over the net, which makes enforcing copyright infringements on the net nigh on impossible, does not mean a print publication is equally beyond the law. They are firmly governed by copyright laws, and its damn easy to prove it and track them down!
Didn't she ask for posts linking her posting name to her real name to be deleted? That doesn't sound like she's overly happy to me.
lol - it wouldn't be 'a chat'. It would be a proper roasting
<puts up hand to make geeky point>
Copyright and defamation (libel) are very different areas of law. It's perfectly possible to libel someone and own the copyright.
<joins people going round in circles, anti-clockwise>
Its the MN synchronised swimming team....
oh sorry is LH the journos real name - apologises and runs off coz i just dotn want to know but wondered if it was known who her mumsnetter name was or his even.
Stripey, you may not - I would never publish quotes from MN without permission but it seems that other people would, we all have different standards. As has been said again and again, you have to watch what you put on the internet - LH put a link between her real name and her previous posting name on MN so it is a bit much to expect it not to be noticed or discussed on MN.
Anyway, I am actually defending LH here against people saying that we should know her new posting name to make it "fair" - and other such silliness.
i've got this feeling that if it was the indie there'd be a lot of preening instead of this
you're right, imo, soupy. given that she has clearly expressed that she doesn't want her name known, and MNHQ is going along with that and deleting, then yes, it's not on to keep outing her old name. (mostly cos it's a bit teenage).
BUT, i actually think that it's a hellacious cheek under the circumstances for her to be able to contact MNHQ now, having neglected to do so prior to running the pieces, and i think it's a cheek not to come on here and front up. look at twiglett's recent post on MN for an example of how to hold your hands up with considerable dignity. no apology necessary in either case (although i beleive twig did for having 'caused' the situ) but a 'here is what really happened' would be helpful.
madame is that a cryptic clue coz im shite at crosswords
lol @ synchronised swimming team
Heavnes, we a re useless
so what if that's true, stuffit? the mail is a paper with a strong brand image, it's not one that has a good fit with mn, whereas the indie or guardian would.
twig posted recently? What about?
'Yes, give over with wanting Lh on here to give some sort of public apology. Neither here nor there'
If ythats to me, I never asked for an apology, or her to come on here.
Just to make that clear.
Indeed, I actually proposed a way LH could address the very most pressing concersn without actually opening herself up to whatever on here.
Though amnyone who 'knows' me and would think I for one would do that is completely screwed in their opinion of me.
To reiterate
I can survice (though would not choose) someone lifting my views on the tories,the NHS, school run dresses and religion. I would be devastated if some of my posts about my boys were used, or a few otehrs that I wont identify as frankly I am not giving keywords for searches. So if LH issued a statement to MN saying that she isn't going to launch a full on into SN etc I would he happy (ish, enough anyway)
LH wouldn't be at risk of being called whatever.
however she chooses not to do that, personally I am mightily confused as to why. No she dosn't have a legal responsibility, personally I feel she has a moral responsibility to do so.
Some have argues its an open forum and it is her right- well with those come responsibilities.
In June 2009 The Independent published a feature called "a snap shot of modern family life" which consisted of around 4,375 words virtually every one of them taken from threads on Mumsnet. I do not think for one minute that The Independent got approval from all of the individual members who posted, neither have I have read anywhere of anyone being upset when that feature was published !!!
The feature in the Daily Mail consisted of around 375 words, about 175 of them taken from a thread that consisted of around 1,475 words. The point I am trying to make is that any lawyer could argue that the thread is in the public domain and therefore they are legally allowed to quote the 175 words. For some people to demand that Mumsnet should take on the Daily Mail is simply mad - look at where the last legal battle got them !
Members on here are very keen to boast that mums know best about raising kids and they are the real experts, and indeed now Mumsnet.com along with its books is considered the latest parenting guru. Legally journalists are free to publish articles about them, and lift a certain amount of text from quotes on the website or text in the books. It is simply plain stupid to think that Mumsnet.com and its members can dictate to the press what should be published about them. This looks like a nothing more than a witch hunt against a journalist who happened to write a feature for the Daily Mail, if this is not the case why have we not had thousands of hysterical messages regards the feature in The Independent ?
Justine and co have worked for years for little or no money, and the very least they deserve is to be given a break about this whole business. Repeated posting about this issue is not doing the reputation of the website any good at all, and makes many of the members on here appear to be hysterical control freaks trying to dictate to the press, what should be written about them. Given this is the website of free speech it sounds and appears as if many on here have double standards !
WickedwaterWitch is one of the few people posting here that really grasps what a public forum about and her quote below is spot on.
Wickedwaterwitch quote
"a) this is the WWW, anything you type here IS in the public domain. If you don't want to be identified, don't post anything that could identify you
b) MNHQ never have shied away from journalists using Mn for quotes
c) MN is a business, more hits, more publicity = more money/profit
I don't get the big deal tbh, you post here MN can turn it into a book, anyone can copy any of it, any time, it's public"
Stuffit, I don't think so. The principle is the same for any paper.
And anyway, the Indy is a rubbish paper.
i have never read the guardian or independant - does that mean i shouldnt be on here - oh heck i didnt realise <stuffs the sun out of sight>
The comment wasn't to anyone in particular, lily. I just remembered hearing a couple of people asking for an apology/account of herself.
And I do agree that this is not a great situation because it is the sensitive posts that will be published, rather than the comedic/flippant/impersonal ones.
KingC- yes I recognise that would apply only to her, somehow that would be enough. Not sure why, just how I personally feel. I was always OK with random risk, weekly column that everyone looks to is a bit more. Am just speaking for myself as someone whose family is without access to a PC in the main though.
As for it would set up a precedent that she might want to break- ah yes, and that is why SN is no longer my on my radar.
Yes, the principle's the same -- hence, Aitch, why I disagree with you I guess.
People here (we) might like to think they (we) are interested in higher things but if you leave aside the politics, the Mail demographic is basically interested in many of the same issues as mumsnet.
I mean, it would be lovely if mn had an Indie brand image (except for Mdefarge ) but it doesn't. It has a middle class mums' image.
the problem is that they did not seek permission. That's all. Oh and the fact they attributed the posts to the wrong person which was a bit crap.
She should have got permission, mumsnet HQ should do something to ensure permission is asked for in the future. If it's true that previous articles have expressly asked individual posters permission to reproduce their words then why not continue in the same way with any future journalism, if only to avoid similar issues in the future?
Seems simple and polite to me. I am surprised that MNHQ are not pressing this point TBH.
I don't want to know her old username either and don't think anyone should disclose it.
Swedes, I start the bidding at 5p.
Piriyag, again (this really does go round any time anyone new comes on doesn't it- iinevitable with the length) I don't have an issue (only referring to me deliberately as I know we all vary, rather than thinking I am Queen Oldie or somesuch crap) with the non sensitive areas, I do think SN generally operates differently, and that in areas such as MH etc there are too many 3am / post DX / on the edge postings from people who really are not in the place to be thinking 'Now I wonder if this would make excellent tabloid fodder'- they just need to be told it will be OK, that tomorrow will still come and someone out there is actually hearing what they have to say.
Yesterday I ended p mentioning gently to someone in just that place that their privacy had been breeched by the info they ahd given- Goodness I felt like a prize shit.
Priyag, I think you are missing the point. MN is supposed to own the copyright. They were not asked permission to reproduce verbatim their intellectual property.
Just because something is already published does not give you the right to reproduce it without the agreement of the copyright holder.
That would make it an infringement of copyright.
Its a legal thing.
If Justine et al thought a feature in the Indy would be harmless publicity that nobody would mind, then that's their call, as the copyright holders.
This is slightly different.
raise you to one hundred million pounds, i am curious for five minutes
I think the problem is that they are doing it at all. Permission or no. If permission had been granted that would be just ghastly, even worse. Unless it was put out to a poll by mnhq.
It's pretty awful for a lot of people I think.
indie and guardian are totally middle class parents both. i agree with the principle, but we go back to 'it's the www'. which might as well stand for wild wild west at the moment. so you'd seek to manage what you can. if the indie was lifting stuff there would be less outcry (and indeed has been) because it fits our demographic more. (maybe not our reading demographic, but most definitely our posting one).
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
MadameDefarge, I am not missing the point at all, and can assure you exactly where the law stands with this. Although Mumsnet owns the copyright, because they publish online and in books, it means that journalists are allowed to lift a certain amount of text - trust me that is the law. I know this because I have been there myself.
yes, she came back and made a lovely 'line in the sand on moldies' kinda post. apologised for upset, cleared up a few things, waved goodbye again. although she's been having a rough time medically she said, so had been on here looking for help. and got it, for which she was most grateful.
There is another aspect that just occurred to me
In the past (think advertising etc) mumsnetters have been not just consulted but given rather a large say in these matters
If 'we' (OK some of us) thereby felt that was aprt of the site, are we entirely to blame? There was a definite precedent set!
not in the same way
Mail has middle class mums running through it like a stick of rock.
sadly, or not sadly, whatever, so does mn
Yup priyag, the issues is over just how much: it seems very possible that this article exceeded that.
Hopefully that ansswer will be known in the next few days anyway.
ignorant middle class mums, stuffit. same cannot be said of mn.
(should say i do read it, but i don't self-identify as a mail reader, iykwim?)
eh, stuff? you saying I ain't cool?
I think a lot MNetters will be rather put at at being described as middle-class mums. It certainly wasn't the impression I got when I first joined, and I don't think it holds up now.
MN is home to a diverse bunch of women who come together over a range of issues, ideas and interests. If I were developing brand alliances for MN, I would certainly not recommend a joint venture with the DM.
DM readers needs to be directed here for re-education. [joke]
perhaps you are mixing up aspired political leanings rather than the issues people are interested in
whether or not posters disagree with the mail on such issues, they are more often than not interested in the same ones
not only the number of links, but basically, day to day life
annoying neighbours, poor relationships, celebrities, child protection issues, vaccinations, what to wear to weddings
eco threads do not dominate I think it's safe to say
I have also been there, Priyag, and it generally doesn't amount to much more than a few quotes.
I have been quoted from here in the past as WWW (which isn't my real name, obv) without anyone asking my permission. It didn't and doesn't bother me.
It has happened loads. <shrug>
And the British Middle Classes is a very broad church.
That's the crux Lily, do we get a vote/should there be a poll on these things etc?
Ultimately though it's up to MNHQ to make decisions.
you are well cool madame
well they might be put out but there it is
how many times has there been a running thread on question time? the credit crunch is dealt with on a micro level.. the last thread I read about a political leader was someone who wanted to shag George Bush
i don't really know what you're talking about any more stuffit. every human being is interested in these things, more or less, it's their slant that is different. our politics is not mail politics. it just isn't.
i don't really know what you're talking about any more stuffit. every human being is interested in these things, more or less, it's their slant that is different. our politics is not mail politics. it just isn't.
Priyag, a lot of us are aware of "fair usage" that is why there i not really any bleating about the odd bits and pieces that go in the papers, this is not going to be an odd bit or piece though.
Well, I think those interests apply to most women, whatever class they feel they belong to.
It does not make the DM a natural home or partner for all women.
"our" politics? aitch you have given yourself a generous remit
and I speak as a born and bred Labour voter, picket, demonstrator and a few other things extremely unlikely to endear myself to the Mail demographic
no, not all papers give these issues such prominence
however, my list was rather glib and careless when it comes to the very serious issues which can be dealt with very sensitively here and I apologise for that
Also must add that I have a very robust respect almost amounting to awe for the extensive knowledge some have in their particular issue
what I'm saying is, the image is Mail. That's why the Mail bought it, that's why she sold it.
Political discourse is one thing, and yes, a niche MN topic. However politics is not merely restricted to the immediate concerns of political life, it informs all our lives and our attitudes. The DM has an political attitude towards life that many here disagree with, and feel is objectionable.
And come to think of it, MN copyright has already been established through the publication of the MN books.
KingCanuteIAmAndTheDMCanFOff - I think that even if the Daily Mail feature is a regular one, taking 174 words from a thread that has 1,475 would not legally be breaking the law.
Reading the thousands of posts over the last 24 hours, to me is appears the real problem with many members is that the feature appeared in the Daily Mail and not The Guardian !
I don't think a public apology is owed, just one to Thunderduck really as she was quite upset because of LH's fuck-up rather than the column itself.
The different slant that the mail has is everything on certain issues
If someone is looking for advice on a benefits claim becuase say they are a carer- what slant will the Mail give that? Or soemone is looking for help with a child who has SN (and quite possibly an SN that Mail readers as a specific target group 'know' are made up) and is trashing their nice middle calss school? Or someone who is here homeless but perhaps mentions that they are an asylum seeker?
That twists eerthing
What happens when posts are edited. We say we're happy-
' made up scenario
' My DH just called the GP a bitch and hit her ahrd. He actually has advanced alzheimers and cannot help it, but can this be used as evidence of needing supervision on his DLA claim- I have a poor grasp of English so am struggling with it'.......
edited to
' MY DH just called the GP a bitch and hit her..... I am not English, can I get benefits?'
There may be nothing we can do about it, still scary though. Not for me now, but for people who pass by say next week when we've all done the
thing and poeple get back to normal.
PrincessT- its not for the main an apology people want
It just isn't
No Lily sorry that's what I meant - that I don't see people asking for an apology - jsut that I do think one person is owed one. Can't imagine how I'd feel in TDs shoes.
Priyag, I agree that a lot of people are not happy that it is in the DM but I don't think many have said they would be perfectly happy if it were the Gaurdian. Even if they have please do not try to tar us all with the snobbery brush in an attempt to make yourself sound good. If you have indeed read the 1000s of posts then you will be well aware it is more than snobbery for the vast majority of people.
For me the issue is that it is the mail, I probably would not have an issue with the Guardian or Independant using any of my posts. Infact I have contributed to articles in the past with these newspapers, not from here though.
I would not want anything I have posted on here to be used as Daily Mail fodder.
I'm much more concerned about Mumsnet's swingeing copyright policy. Especially if Mumsnet aren't going to use it to protect their members, even when their members' best interests definitely aren't being served.
PT I am sad 6that she didnt at the very minimum CAT td and say shit I fucked up sorry
I dunno, maybe she will
Canute, you are right, the principle's the same, guardian or mail is tangential
but I don't understand how it's snobby to notice that the focus of ire has been equally shared between the principle and the outlet, especially given how much people really hate the Mail on here
on the point of principle, i think it shouldn't happen in any paper without some kind of vote, and if anyone is to make money out of it, it should be the people that set it up
Message deleted by The Daily Mail.
I would think that if MN were not prepared or able, for whatever reason, to assert copyright, then copyright assignment in the t's and cs should be scrapped and should revert to mnetters.
Then we can have a groovy class action against the DM!
Anyway, I do hope it turns out to be a storm in a hyacinth bucket.
Its the learning curve of new technology.
stuffitlama I disagree that their would be preening if it were the Indie.
There would be the same worry from people who posted here in the belief that whatever they posted would be highly unlikely to come to the attention of people in RL.
And there would be the same consternation that we were not consulted, and for my part, that a journalist should be so unprincipled and lazy as to simply lift stuff from a website
< gets off high horse and adjusts bee-filled bonnet >
Jeez, there, not their
Well, stuffit, its annoying on both counts! That's why people are annoyed about both the principle and the outlet.
I am personally capable of being very very cross indeed about five or six things at a time! Multitasker that I am.
i think there might be a little bit of preening
just enough to spread on toast
but yes all this it's the Mail spawn of the devil does distract from the central principle
I don't care where stuff goes, I think, as long as editorial control is maintained by MNHQ
then we know who to abuse
OK so I posted my idea elsewhere so will share it
Right so this is going to ahppen, yes? What we need is to work with that
We ha4 options:
A. Accept it
B. delete all posts we ever made
C. private rooms- but there's issues about cliqueyness, accessibility iof info and the basic fact of how many people would evven know MN covered <<insert whatever>>if its all locked away?
So I think we need a version of chat with a much shorter delete date- 2, 3 days.
People can post there if its a crises, if its funny but embarassing etc- if they feel they want to share a pic whatever, using a different anme if they need
Poeple can either then say Hi- look we think you belong here and invite them to private rooms, or just help there. If they need certain tpes of help they couild for eg pop a post in SN saying 'emergency threads <<link>> here'
It could still be picked up if said Journo were sharpish, but when 80,000 paper readers came to search, it would be long gone.
As for the vote thing, in theory we have no right to demand inclusion in those decisions..we assigned copyright to MN. MN can do what they like with the content here. LIke someone else said, they could sell the content to any paper, and then come and tough out the responses.
it being the mail is not the Issue for me.
I just think the whole copyright confusion is a bit pants and perhaps MNHQ should be standing up and sorting that out rather than saying that other journalist posters would probably kill to have the same kind of column. That's just a terrible thing to say IMO.
IMO there's also an issue with the fact that this so called respected regular thought it was a good thing to start this series without 1. checking it was ok first and 2. without getting their facts right.
Another issue is that MNHQ don't seem to really care that much about it.
Exactly, morningpaper.
'Course they could, but over the years that ahsn't happened so it does feel a bit like Woah! where did that come from (except not, as they were not asked but.... ykwim)
I think before they have had a very pragmatic response...not doing any harm, and a nice bit of publicity, so let it go and enjoy the exposure for the site.
At the risk of repeating myself (moi? shurely not?) a regular column ties MN firmly to the DM masthead.
Not a good look, so worth asserting copyright of those sections used.
I am personally looking forward to MN - the MIni-Series. I'm hoping for big hair and shoulder pads....and Joan Collins to play me.
No, actually, I'd prefer Glenn Close.
I'm up tempted yours to Daily continue Mail
posting up like yours this Daily so Mail
that up if yours my Daily quotes Mail
are up altered yours either Daily while Mail
stating up my yours username Daily or Mail
as up a yours member Daily of Mail
Mumsnet up then yours I Daily can Mail
sue up them yours for Daily libel Mail
nice look, tragically doesn't libel them, just insults them.
sorry, being dim there!
Don't think you can sue for libel. Its not libelous to report verbatim your posts.
Lily I think a v short-lived chat forum is a good idea, 90 days is quite a while really... 2/3 days would be good, I'd feel better about posting more than I currently do I think
...even if they remove the lovely bold bits...
Thank you PT LOL <<feels wanted again>>
And you know I could go back to Peachy on the main board and only have secret crap namesfor other things
Yay to that
spot on beanieb. I don't understand why 1) they appear to be so clueless about this (copying and pasting someone else's copyright notice - WTF? and possibly an infringement itself) and 2) so unbothered.
I think the idea of private rooms on Mumsnet is terrible. It will totally spoil the democratic nature of Mumsnet. We'll all think all the pretty/witty people are in the invitation-only VIP room, when in fact they're watching Property Ladder with their snoring DPs. It will be Moldies all over again.
It will be Moldies all over again. And we'll all blame Aitch.
Have been thinking about the copyright issue (am a lawyer but this is not my field - I did read various papers on fair use in the US (therefore irrelevant for these purposes) for a legal academic I used to know, and the one thing I recall was how complicated the whole issue seemed to be).
Some of you seem to be saying you would rather the copyright in posts were with the poster. To be honest I think that would make life more difficult - if the DM copied a three line post of yours, I think you would have more difficulty arguing against fair use than Mumsnet would if the DM copied 175 lines of various posts - not to mention the logistical difficulties of trying to actually enforce the rights you did have against the DM (to do which you would end up having to put your real names in the public domain in connection with the issue raised, and would basically increase the chance of people who know you getting curious and searching around on mumsnet.)
as far as I know from the legal and other MBs I have played around on, the Mumsnet approach is the default one (even if Justine had not admitted that they lifted the terms from somewhere else - they are relatively standard).
Personally, though I have not posted a lot (mostly just read) and don't think I have ever posted anything terribly embarrassing - there is no way my mother would come across anything I write on here; she would almost certainly read it if it were published in the DM (she insists she reads it for the puzzle page )- that does make a difference to the 'feel' of MN for me.
I'm messing about, madameDefarge
(though I've inadvertently brought up a point: sadly, messing about is all I feel confident to do on MN now - you won't see me asking for support about any personal situation - however vague - here again )
I'm smirking a bit about this 'Mners are SO very different from Daily Mail-ers', we're all just so liberal.
Every week, no, every day, someone will post asking if they should 'report' someone for failing to parent their children in a way they consider correct: eg, leaving a six-year-old alone outside a shop for five minutes, or for giving their child a medicine which they don't consider suitable.
Or they'll ask if they are unreasonable for wanting to hit someone (usually another woman) in the face for doing something they didn't like.
If we want a punitive approach to the tricky business of being a mother in the 21st century we don't need to worry about the DM: some (a minority but a loud one) here will provide it first-hand.
The private rooms idea (if really floated by MN) shows such a collosal lack of judgment I'm starting to get worried. Did they learn nothing from Moldiegate? As the girl always picked second to last for netball, I dread such an idea. It's impractical too. I post sporadically - I can't access MN during the day - what if I posted in a private room and someone with the answer to my problem was trying to answer me, but because I wasn't online I couldn't OK them? I like tuning in and catching up. Stupid idea.
Dynasty ended with a shoot out in the wedding chapel. I'm not sure that's the kind of blaze of glory we want MN to end in.
Just a bit of bunny boiling then, eh?
pauldacre, lots and lots of businesses copy things like the copyright notice, as illogical as it may sound. Look around - there aren't that many different ones out there, many have very largely been lifted from each other (including by expensive law firms!)
not to mention the number of businesses who have clearly just borrowed an email disclaimer that their law firm uses, as it is written in the way you would write a disclaimer for emails likely to be providing legal advice
I would be really saddened if MN went the way of private rooms.
I think is just that diversity of opinion that makes MN. nobody caters to anybody, its just get on with it. I laugh my pants off at the parent police...it's such good value. And I am sure if anybody paid any attention to me, a few might want to give me a sound thrashing for my snotty ways...
madameDefarge I pretty much agree with everything you've said!
Have been discussing this today with my DH who is in the internet/comp programming industry.
The internet is the Wild West re the law so it isn't so mad that Justine et al have admitted to having no idea what the copyright means on all of thie.
I'm not sure that this means they can jaut change the rule without telling us- or adding to them/taking things away ad hoc as happened the other day (though this is my opinion...)
But as they don't understnad and we don't understnad and if we took a mass action VS MN if we want our posts deleting en masse.... wouldn't it just be easier to draw a line in the sand and ask who is in and who is out at this stage..
And if we wnat out- considering the fact that MN didn't understand the terms and conditions when they asked us to abide by them- why can't we just leav and take our stuff with us???
Where did my post go?
Anyway, what I said was, if you are going to cut and paste (oh the irony) it's a good idea to read it and at least have some idea what the words mean individually and together.
mmmm. Thoughts on the law front. I am not a lawyer.
Usually, some sort of 'reasonableness' test is applied to this law stuff, no?
So...1) is it even reasonable for MN to claim the copyright to its posters' 'work'? Always? If I'm finishing my novel in window A, and Mn'ing in window B, and cock up and post the novel on MN, do they now own the copyright? I would strongly suspect not. But that line of thought leaves Thunderduck suing the DM all on her ownio, so maybe I should keep quiet on that one.
2) If a website is selling something created (words, music, film) [Media requests] and you think, 'sod that' and download it for free - and publish it for profit - how is that not piracy? "You wouldn't steal a handbag"? Apparently the DM would. And then call for itself to be hanged. (God I hate those adverts - I already paid for the fecking film, ok?)
I personally think that the way the posts are being used recently is very veyr different to how they were used 5 yrs ago when I joined.
Had I known that their intention would one day be to use my words in the press and to consider allowing this in the way that has happened, then I would never have signed up.
I would have been happy re the books as I would have felt that MN would hahve chosen wisely as they want their brand to ahve a positive image.
So even if i disagreed with some of the things posters had said in the books- I feel that 's fine..but to be lifted wholesale and used in a column.... this is not what i felt i was signing up for...
PD - you would think - but the people who use the inappropriate email disclaimers clearly haven't done so, and some of these are pretty big businesses; so MN are in good company.
And in any case, what sounds entirely reasonable when read 'cold' can sound entirely unreasonable when there is actual context - that is why I have a job. People read contracts, think they are fine; I give them the 'yes but', 'what if' questions.....
As someone in a very closely related industry, I take exception to the following:
1. That this was printed without the express permission or knowledge of Justine and MN. As I understand it, the copyright holder (Justine) does need to give consent for any content to be re-used via a written permission. This didn't happen. The fact that we have been shafted by a fellow MNetter makes it even worse.
2. We all know when we sign up to MN we give permission for our text to be reused by MN - that's part of the T & Cs in the same way it is on any forum. However, none of us gave permission for a journo to come on and quote us word for word in a rag national newspaper.
3. If she had given Justine a call, she could have asked the MNetters in question whether they minded. That would have been far more appropriate. With this in mind, doubtless the journo knew how everyone would have felt if she had asked mumsnetters which is why she didn't. Can you imagine anyone who posts anything on here at a time when they feel really raw saying 'Oh yeah, of course I don't mind it being printed in a national newspaper.'?
4. My main concern is that she could have protected people's anonymity by not printing their posting nicknames. That way DM readers couldn't come on here and do a search for that person's posting history. i.e. if she had said 'One mumsnetter pointed out...' that would sit more comfortably with me.
5. And as for people saying journos have to eat, well yes they do, but they also have a responsibility to respect copyright law and peoples' privacy. If one of us had wanted to talk about the issues in the article in the national press and the paper had called and asked for an interview that would be OK, but the point is none of us did. And that is what reoubles us most
6. AS for saying about name changing etc. It has been said many times on many posts, but if you do use a board like SN, you need to post your back story (i.e. things like your kids ages, the conditions they have etc), otherwise people can't help you so this kindo f blows that argument out of the water. There's not much point in having the forum if people feel unable to post details that are relevant to their problem!
Personally, as someone who has opened up recently about a new, very raw issue to me and at the time MN was of immense support when it was to raw for me to share with anyone in RL, I now feel that I have lost that support, as I will not post anything on here that might end up in a national rag for millions to see. If I wanted to do that, I may as well take out an ad and post it all in there for all and sundry to read!
Finally, Justine, thanks for taking the time to clear up some of our questions. I think a letetr to the journo in question would be the order of the day, asking her to change poster's names and to give a precis of posts but no direct quoting. Maybe she'll have to actually <gasp> write something herself!
I'm a lawyer too, desertgirl. Not an IP lawyer admittedly, but for MN not to understand that the words (I paraphrase, can't be bothered to search) "we can reproduce your name, geographical location and profile information in print or other form" in their draft new disclaimer meant "we can tell people your real name and where you live if we feel like it" was a bit stunning. Plenty of people immediately pointed that out, and they weren't lawyers.
"Everyone else is shit at IP" isn't much of an excuse.
I was uncomfortable about the MN guides, I didn't say so at the time as was obviously a relative newbie who just didn't know about this aspect of MN everyone else clearly knew about (in any case I don't think I was quoted) but I was uncomfortable.
PD, then surely you KNOW that people (clients) don't read things that clearly? maybe not ideal but an awful lot of the people I deal with would get defensive, insist that was exactly what they had meant, it was reasonable because, etc - am personally quite impressed at the honesty here!
Of course they don't read things. They pay lawyers to read it. But they have at least figured out that they need to do so, not least because if the lawyer gives shit advice and it all goes tits up they can sue their lawyer.
MN just seem to have gone control+A, control +C, control+V.
I was stunned that the bit about priting our real names and location- ?adress?? managed to find its way into the terms and condtions when they got replaced the other day.
I think this was the final straw TBH, sorry, justine, i know we were talking at the time.
But it made me realsie that I don't know what rights they have over my posts......and nor do MNHQ.
which means i feel somewhere the "contract" we have re my posts is void
I have repeatedly asked to delete my posts, but apprently it takes too ling and may upset some other posters.
Not like I am a prolific poster tbh,
yes, PaulDacreEatsBabies
and it doesn't make feel particularly comfortable tbh.
oops, I've only been here a year and this issue of ownership of posts has come up time and time again. Yes, MN could draw a line under it and mass delete a load of stuff in the wake of this, but they would have to offer that option on almost every post, every day to ensure everyone gets the message forever more.
That's why a periodic reminder via sticky for a few days is a good idea.
Also, I'm not sure about the argument regarding what members get out of various associations. We still get a free space to obtain instant help and advice and to chat and share experiences. That's what I get out of MN; who they 'chose' to associate with or accept advertisements from is not really my call.
Like someone said the other day, this site could change hands and then all bets are off anyway. Post or don't post but I don't see this site as any different to lots of other internet phenomena: there comes a point where it either makes money to support the running costs and continues to attract new members, or it dies.
Then we pay. I am happy to pay to not be associated with the DM.
Stripy, while is not "my call' who MN associate with, or take advertising revenue from, I can certainly vote with my feet, as it were.
And yes, it does need to make money, but there are other partners out their that would 'fit' MN a good deal better than the DM.
And just because it could be sold to another proprietor is not an argument for not debating the nature of the MN product and brand. And the issue of copyright!
We create the content, so we are part of the MN offering.
Its symbiotic.
On the Mail forum... "There is a huge debate on the parenting forum Mumsnet about how safe it is post personal information on the internet"
I notice it avoids any mention of why the debate has arisen......
I seem to have come to this very late but have gotten the story.
I for one an totally against being quoted in any newspaper unless it is of a very general nature ie: most MN thnk the Daily Mail is for curtain twitching shites suburbanites.
I want to feel that I can come on MN for support and more and don't want to worry about someone copying what I write or respond to and tell it to the nation. I feel pretty betrayed that LH did this without the permission or MN or the users quoted in her piece. NOT COOL.
The DM really is shameless...endless piggybacking.
We could tell them why the debate has arisen? or is it moderated? bet the DM censors would not post it.
Rustybear, can you do a link to the forum?
Sorry, that link was supposed to be to the forum - but I managed to bugger it up....Try again The 'debate' on the mail forum is so far only one post....
No that, that is really taking the piss.
lol, mrschatty seems not to live up to her name. it's her only post.
Yeah, it should say 'were', not 'was', terrible grammar.
Mrs Matty couldn't be a Daily Vile plant, could she?
Agree it's symbiotic but how to make decisions /shape is the thing.
Anyone who replies to that link will lead in the next Femail feature.
More polls maybe but then would MNHQ feel bound by the results?
Basically, as far as I see it, and I am repeating myself from another thread, the problem is that
If Justine and MNHQ had agreed to this weekly column, we would have had to suck it up or walk.
fair enough.
But this was not the case. and therein lies the crux of the issue.
and anyway, re the DM forum, all posts are vetted....(quelle surprise, can't let the truth get in the way of a good story) not likely we would get published.
So copyright is the issue but as I said, any infringement could only be addressed reactively so nothing's changed really.
disgusted LH is presumeably getting paid for lifting chunks from mumsnet.
I know exactly who she is and thought better of her
not sure if this has already been mentioned or noted even ... tis a long thread, but the indy on sunday has done similar articles
in the past
not doing much to challenge the notion of journalists as "scum of the earth"
slarty, I think permission was granted for that...but I could be wrong.
and as I mentioned earlier, if bits and bobs crop up in benign places, and it promotes mumsnet, then I would be less unhappy with it. After all, pragmatism has its place.
Some of the articles asking for specific more detailed information from particular posters will have involved MN permission but I doubt very much that every article using quotes from an open freely accessible website will have had permission granted from MNHQ.
I was away I think when that T&C thing about names came about
Why is it when my bank or anyone else changes T&C they write to me but MN don't?
I thought you had to give notice to amend contracts? Otherwise what's the point of reading them if they can be changed afterwards willy nilly?
Perhaps MrsT, although when I used to copy write articles for a charity for newspaper purposes I was amde very aware that not getting approval for quotes (even if we made them up then asked people if it would be OK to assign them to them ) was a sackable offence
yes but then you're presumably getting approval for quotes made in someone's real name.
You can't get permission from someone posting anonymously on an open to anyone to read website. I think the industry treats closed websites differently.
As for T&C's.The T&C's on my website include this:
"I may revise these terms of use at any time by amending this page. You are expected to check this page from time to time to take notice of any changes I made, as they are binding on you. Some of the provisions contained in these terms of use may also be superseded by provisions or notices published elsewhere on my sites."
I suspect MN has a similar clause.
If it does I acn't see it (disclaimer being that it is alte, I am tired and also BF)
Saintly, as I mentioned above, I work in a closely related industry. I once asked some forum members on a different site if I could use some of their material. They were used and printed as is, but after I had contacted each and every one of them for consent, as well as asking the forum owner. It does not take long, and copyright matters aside it is a common courtesy.
re the searching
I've just looked for the post from Twiglett (wanted to see what she said) and couldn't find it
I see huffypants has set the record straight on the DM chat bit.
I think MN is still in transition from a friends thing to a viable business. There are bound to be hiccups/issues as things crop up.
I still can't see how they can protect it all and keep it open.
well done Huffy. Shame the mail itself didn't get mentioned.
1dilemma - I had a look too but I think it must have been in chat and then disappeared after 90 days
Every single forum I use has a facility for posters to delete or edit their own messages. Why is mumsnet HQ so against this? Because 'it's confusing for other people'? What a ridiculous reason. Surely people can live with a bit of confusion i.e 'what happened there?', 'oh so and so deleted their post because it had a lot of personal stuff in it', 'oh, right thanks for letting me know'
Even if it were just an edit facility people could edit with 'just deleting this as I have had second thoughts about having this info here' ... they still get the help they seek and have some control over what they put out there.
or is that what it's about, that posters basically aren't allowed to have any control?
I'm against private 'rooms'. Just wanted to add my view in there!
But I do agree with the facility to delete our own posts. And the more I think about it, the more I think it would be a good idea to prohibit searches on nickname (beyond the last week). Ok yes marginally harder to out trolls, but let's face it, most uses of that facility are probably nosiness about people's backstorie and/or trying to work out if someone is who you think they are rather than a more legitimate looking for a useful post you know someone made. (or is that just me )
I think it would be a good idea to prohibit searches on nickname. I've been 'outed' by RL friends, and now namechange regularly as I post things on here that I wouldn't want to share in RL.
I don't care for the idea of private rooms either.
I do think it's very cheap journalism to lift stuff of MN. But I am one of the people that Justine mentions - namely a journo who'd love to do it and get paid for it!!
I do think it's irrelevant that it's the DM, though.
hambler - 'scum of the earth' - ha ha ha ....do you know how stupid you sound?
actually, no, that didn't work. you have to search under tw1glett, she lost her original name when she deregged.
Doesn't it Lily? They need my lawyer (Mind you I read my T&C's for the first time last night- there's some I want to change because they're a bit too draconian about not reproducing suff on the site when actually I want peope to!)
Just catching up on this fiasco. Good grief <shakes head>
Ages and ages ago I started a thread about how we should have the option to remove our names from being searchable.
There was a good defence raised for it (ie if you are innocently wanting to learn about Show VSCs or pyramid tents then it makes sense to search with a nickname who is the 'guru' on that topic)
<bigs myself up to stratospheric proportions>
For anyone who has a long backstory on mn and who needs to use their regular posting name in order for things to make sense (and to get sensitive and understanding replies) then I think they shoud absolutely have the opportunity to dissallow anyone to trawl back through years of their mn history.
yep, i must say i'd like to be able to wipe my posts now from quite a few topics. not useful ones, say weaning or the miscarriage bit. just blether where i feel in retrospect i've given too much away. i do feel that should be my choice.
as it happens, on the forum i run people very rarely use the delete function. (it comes up saying they've used it when they have).
I cannot understand why you cannot just make the search function different. I don't know, make posts unsearchable over a certain period of time so trawling would have to take place or something or maybe even turn it off altogether. It would certainly make it far more difficult for people to use the search function as easy fodder for newspaper articles and it may also reassure people that their old posts will be harder to find (and they will feel less exposed)
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
I can see why people would want to prohibit searches on nicknames, however, even in MN removed the facility, it would be simple to do the same search on Google on one of the zillions of talkboard searches.
Removing old posts haphazaardly is impossible if Mumsnet is to maintain it's business, to be honest. It's vast resources of parental chat ARE Mumsnet - and it totally buggers up the archives when people remove things. The remaining posts are largely incoherent. Even with the limited deletion that's occured, it was really hard for me to put together the toddler book because so many conversations didn't make sense, and I was left trying to work things out from half-remaining conversations.
There is more of an argument for a retrospective change-of-nickname to anonymise past history - so that the content remained intact - but it would have to be a very rare event TBH. If we allowed users to delete/anonymise old posts then we would ALL do it at some point (we all have crises over MN from time to time - although mostly they blow over) and the past archive would be rendered useless.
Perhaps a good revenue stream would be to charge users £1 per post deleted. ;)
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
e.g. for an equivalent user search on google:
"by morningpaper" site:http://www.mumsnet.com
brings up all threads I've posted on
"by morningpaper" site:http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/styleandbeauty
brings up all threads I've posted on within style and beauty
I would like the facility to remove my own posts. I know that Mumsnet have said that they will remove posts, but my own experience with post-removal wasn't reassuring.
I was pregnant and hormonal and terrified of another delivery and posted on here in a complete state. The thread was awful and was making me sob every time I opened it, but I couldn't stop myself looking, it was compulsive. It wasn't my finest hour, and I certainly wasn't thinking clearly when I started the thread. I was feeling completely awful, and didn't want to talk to anyone who actually knew me in real life, but had to talk to someone. I've always felt that this was a big part of Mumsnet you can get advice and support on embarrassing stuff that you could never discuss with friends or family.
I realised that I had posted too much information, and asked MN to remove the thread, which they did. But MN was quite huffy about removing it, as though I was asking a huge favour and as though I was being unreasonable. When they did remove it, I was sent an email telling me that their opinion was that the thread should have remained as I had been given some good advice. OK, but I had already read the thread and wasn't going to magically forget! And meanwhile there was a lot of information up on the boards that I had posted while hormonal and scared and that had the chance of outing me as well as being a permanent record of a very dark time (that was resolved anyway a short while after).
"I can see why people would want to prohibit searches on nicknames, however, even in MN removed the facility, it would be simple to do the same search on Google on one of the zillions of talkboard searches"
I thought, as a non technical person, there are ways and means of making a talkboard less googleable
Fio: It's either on google or it isn't
Fio: That is, while the google results can be weighted, i.e. come to the top of popular searches, if the site is within Google, then the correct search (i.e. restricting results to a certain domain or folder within a domain) will bring up all the right pages.
But certain posters have in the past had ALL their posts deleted, posters who have been most prolific, isn't that right? And thus caused huge amounts of threads to make little or no sense when read back?
So why is it one rule for some posters and another rule for other posters?
Surely that isn't fair?
MP can the people-of-the-shed create some sort of cyber shield around mn to stop googlable searches of nicknames?
If they can put jaunty santa hats on the emoticons at christmas then surely they can put up a protective force field of techno wizardry.
Maybe mnhq should get them out of the shed for a start, perhaps their work environment is causing less that 100% maximum efficiency and cleverness. Put the techs in a openplan hub next to a river, with brightly coloured ceramic bowls full of smarties generic chocolate sweeties. I'm sure they could keep us safe from there.
By the way, I don't think that the archive is a vital part of Mumsnet. If I have a problem I tend to post about it (or rather I used to, before all this kicked off - I with think twice now ). There are a hundred threads about packing a hospital bag, or dealing with a baby that wants to breastfeed constantly, or a baby that won't sleep through at 6 months, or... well, you get the gist.
Mumsnet could always keep the old threads for their own purposes. I don't mind a snippet of advice being used for a book, it's the lifting of a whole thread with lots of personal info that's the problem for me.
techs eat pizza, actually.
And drink coke
Dh know abouot this stuff...
Slubber: Essentially, the Private Rooms are the ungooglable shield, but I think most people will prefer not to use them
Nope, you can ask for any post, or any posts, that you have made, to be deleted, however senseless it leaves the thread looking.
what you can't do is delete them yourself
How many people think of searching a whole website using google?
ahh ok. Thanks.
the archive is a vital part of Mumsnet because it forms the repository of googlable parenting advice which drives users to the site
Why does it need to keep such a huge archive? Many sites dump them after x number of days once they cease to be still active. People start threads all the time on well-worn subjects so it seems not many check them anyway. I'm sure they are mostly used to nose about people.
And how often have the T&C changed in all of MN's existence? Because knowing them at one time doesn't mean that you know what they are after they have changed. If the T&C don't come up everytime you log on are they enforceable? I'm sure lots of people have MN saved to just come up with Active Convos. And hide "Stickies". There was something on the radio about this the other day - if T&C are incomprehensible/unseen to most/many people then they are possibly not worth the paper they are written on.
mp, i completely disagree re the archive. i just don't think it's necessary to have an archive going back beyond a year, all the problems are the same, endlessly recycled. there isn't that much that can happen with a toddler.
wrt the books anyway, MNHQ could keep a copy of the archive for you to look at, and i take it that people would trust you not to include toddler tips that would not humiliate or identify a person.
what does the archive get used for anyway? troll-hunting and that's about it.
I actually don't mind if people search my username. If I have ever posted something really sensitive I have used an alternative name - every time. Obviously not everyone does that but it seems an easy enough thing to do.
Honestly, this forum is so different to all other forums I use in that there is no facility to edit your own posts or to delete or to send private messages. I think that's weird and I have thought it's weird ever since I joined.
Maybe now Mumsnet has got so big that it is being syndicated in national newspapers someone should start to look at what is frankly a very old fashioned style of forum. Maybe now is the time to move into the modern age a bit? perhaps Mumsnet just needs a kick up the arse and to realise that as something grows in size and popularity the way it behaves changes.
Storm in a teacup imo.
Clearly MNHQ need to make sure they are on top of any copyright/other legal issues, not jsut for this but anything else which will no doubt come their way in future.
This is a public forum, so NO-ONE should provide enough information to be identified in RL without it being a carefully considered decision on their part. Whether that identification is through this site, the DM or any other quote in any other press medium is surely irrelevant?
Unless its in Chat your posts identifying you are available pretty much permanently Stopping the DM quoting etc WILL NOT CHANGE THAT.(and at least the printed newspaper will be in the bin within a day.)
oh and - every forum I have ever been on that has suggested deleting the archive has always faced a barrage of shocked posters who get very upset about losing the history of their boards. While some people here may think it's a great Idea I recon you will find that several posters would be up in arms!
but we have mn classics to protect the history, i think. we've got that covered.
"This is a public forum, so NO-ONE should provide enough information to be identified in RL without it being a carefully considered decision on their part. Whether that identification is through this site, the DM or any other quote in any other press medium is surely irrelevant?"
I think some of the problems are that mumsnet has not always been this BIG. People have posted things that they may not otherwise have posted if they had felt so exposed.
That said, MN has always had its sniff of journalists picking easy fodder off here for articles - even half a decade ago. Hardly suprising seeing as it is run by journalists (I would grin BUT as so many people are upset it seems inappropriate )
The idea that allowing an "edit" facility would make threads unreadable is ludicrous. Every other forum I've been on has this option, and they all function fine. Mumsnet is the only forum I've seen where you can't later edit your posts. (One consequence of this is you get people posting extra posts to correct typos or faulty links, which would be unnecessary if they could just go back and correct their original post).
yes, fio, i am TIRED of being lectured that we shouldn't be posting personal details.
maybe we shouldn't, but some of us have, so what are we to do about it?
There are posts from me on the internet from 1993 moaning about my FIRST husband
At that point, "the internet" was basically me and some boys in Pennsylvania
I didn't think my posts would last forever
That's the nature of the internet, TBH, always has been. It's an archive.
"I think some of the problems are that mumsnet has not always been this BIG"
Much as people may not like it Mumsnet has become a victim of its own success. With that success comes recognition in the media, the Daily mail debacle is just another example of how big it has become.
Now is the time for MNHQ to start treating mumsnet more like the huge business that it is and that IMO includes taking a look at the ancient style it uses and tightening up its commercial interests etc.
Unfortunatey this will probably result in people just not liking it here any more and leaving for good but I have seen this happen so many times on so many forums... mumsnet is not unique you know, it's all happened before.
I don't agree with wholesale deletions either. Don't post personal information unless you are clear what will happen to it. And if you are not clear then contact the forum owners to check beforehand. This is not rocket science.
Anyone who posts without this knowledge is either dangerously naive or needs their heads examined. This is the internet not a pen friend.
And yes, while the recent copyright notice etc may need a bit more work, it has always been the case previously that MN stated they woned the copyright - so it was not the case that in the past you were guaranteed any more privacy.
so if it's an archive then why can't we delete posts? like EVERY other forum on the interweb?
it does treat us as naughty children i think. when in fact we're naughty adults.
It is the nature of the internet, yes, but mumsnet sells itself as a community. We are fast becoming a community that is never consulted as to our opinion. Plus part of a community is sharing a part of yourself and trying to help others. If people post nothing about themselves, well you lose some of that dont you?
I agree with respect to not thinking your posts will last forever. I think MOST people are quite naive when they begin using forum boards as to what they are actually doing!
You can't delete posts from every other forum - believe me, I've tried
You can't delete from Usenet, google groups, yahoo groups (at least the old stuff, don't know about the new stuff) - I've no idea about other parenting forums
aitch, i love you.xx
You saw what i want to say- and you do it so well.
I ramble and lose the impact.
"Don't post personal information unless you are clear what will happen to it. And if you are not clear then contact the forum owners to check beforehand. This is not rocket science"
no it's not rocket science but it doesn't help the hundreds of people who have already posted personal stuff which may identify them and it doesn't help those who come on here in a panic seeking immediate help where the last thing on their mind is the thought that they may end up in the national press.
Simple fact is there is a forum for media requests, this journalist should have got permission from someone, she didn't, what are mumsnet doing about it?
All they need to do is follow their own bloody procedures rather than saying 'oooh there's loads of journalists on here who would kill for this gig' and 'watch out people, be careful what you post now' which is frankly quite a ridiculous form of defence/excuse and makes me snort with contempt it's so pathetic.
Sorry just seen Fio's post. I agree - MN hasn't always been this big or as widely known, but it has always been public, so there has always been the potential for vast swathes of people to read what is written, and people risk being taken unawares if they post without checkign first what could happen to their posts.
And in the same way that MNetters have often linked to other talk boards, those talk boards will no doubt have linked to MN, and increased the audience that way too.
> We are fast becoming a community that is never consulted as to our opinion
This is just insulting
google groups, yahoo groups - these are not Fiorums, they are groups.
But Aitch, MN has always beeb constructed on the basis that it its archive which is so valuable - to change now and allow deletions changes the whole basis. There are other boards which do allow this, so there are alternatives for those people who want the comfort of knowing they can delete things easily - MN isn't a monopoly.
The whole point of mn (to most people who use it) is to share the load of personal problems.
If you take that away then all you've got is where can I find a bicycle seat for a 3 year old etc (nothing wrong with that, but no great shakes).
Even if you change your name and no one is ever going to guess it's you. I bet no one wants to see their marital problem etc in the daily mail. Here, fine that is what they signed up for.
I don't even want deletions from archives, I don't mind the odd quote in the paper, I just don't want this week's round up regurgitating and editing a thread focussing on some poor op who has shared a personal problem.
The are publically searchable
Surely the DM series has only served to highlight the vulnerability of Mumsnetters. It's due to Mumsnet's desire for total control over our posts, both in terms of copyright and not allowing us to delete or amend our own posts.
I quite like the idea of a revisionist Mumsnet. We could go back and replace the word Moldies with Christans and make the whole thing sound much more exciting than it ever was.
"Anyone who posts without this knowledge is either dangerously naive or needs their heads examined. This is the internet not a pen friend."
But I've read posts where the poster has posted in the middle of the night, feeling desperate. Rationally, they may know this is the internet but at that moment they are vulnerable and need an outlet/advice pronto. At that moment they may not be rational.
But I definitely don't want private rooms. Just want to put that on record.
Wht is asking people to take personal responsibility for their actions pathetic? OK so they didn't know what might happen, but more fool them for not checking.
"I don't agree with wholesale deletions either"
me neither. No forum I go on gives a person a choice to elete everything they have ever posted. I suppose they could ask the forum moderators but I think it's a bit cheeky. A facility where individual posts can be edited or deleted by the user is a much more reasonable thing to expect. I would never go to mumsnet and ask for eveything I ever posted to be deleted. I think it's much better to give people control over their own individual posts so they can delete there and then rather than retrospectively when they decide to flounce.
(take the point about panicking by the way, but surely in this instance MNHQ does delete when requeted)
Message deleted by Mumsnet.
The problem with allowing people to change their posts is that, frankly, they can say something cruel or bitchy and then delete in ten minutes later
Far better to remove that possibility
I'm also against private rooms. Just keep as is, without the crappy DM or any other crappy paper's involvement.
Why is it insulting morningpaper? I have a particular beef about this because I opted OUT of MN books when I joined, whenever it was in history. Imagine my suprise when I am actually featured in the new toddler book I have raised this with Justine and apparently the rules were changed with respect to the books but I was not aware of this and I know other people were not aware of it either. There used to be options to appear in the books under a different name aswell, I am not sure if this is now available. So in my opinion, things are changed without the community being consulted. I am sorry if that insults you.
I think the 'archive' could contain posts for 1 year.
And chat should contain posts for 1 week.
Morningpaper - But they can say something bitchy and have it removed by MNHQ ten minutes later in any case. I think your argument is counter intuitive.
Fio, re the books - you would be absolutely right to be annoyed about that. If you have specifically opted out of something then if the rules change it should have been raised beforehand.
I also think that if you could delete or amend there is the potential to wind a situation up and run. At least this way you have to pause and think a bit before you post.
I also think a lot of the archive is probably unnecessary, I want to talk about any parenting issue I'm having 'live' with others, but then I was reading threads from 2006 about reflux at 2am this morning.
Swedes: No offence to any Moldies, but I have been told of Incidents where this happened on the Moldie board, and it was horrible and upsetting. In this kind of group environment where things get heated, the possibility of saying something that won't last 'forever' is too tempting for some people.
If we think that an editing facility will be used for fixing grammatical errors, we are much mistaken.
I also think MNHQ could communicate the rules and posting etiquette better (via periodic sticky threads). I think it's easy to think everyone knows the deal but new people are joining all the time often with an immediate problem and they don't always read the T&Cs, I know I didn't initially.
I don't really care who owns what and I'd rather MNHQ were sued than me . I like the fact it's free and mostly fun and I'm happy to give up my 'rights' for that.
daftpunk, why are you singling fio out?
"there is the potential to wind a situation up and run"
isn't there already the potential to wind up a situation and run. Anyone can change names. Actually the whole changing names thing has always struck me as a weird thing to be honest. No forum I have been on has allowed this and I think it actually gives people the opportunity to be bitchy, duplicitous etc if they are that way inclined!
Tough then - if you don't check the rules and know what you are effectively signing up to then you can't complain afterwards.
I use the archives quite a bit, rather than starting yet another thread on the same subject - for example I was looking up stuff about the menopause yesterday and found exactly what I wanted, which saved me starting a TMI thread of my own - especially useful because DD is on here & knows my name.
<<waves to ratty>>
(sorry - was responding to stripeysuits post)
I agree that the entire archive is unnecessary. Fun to have, but not necessary if the potential harm outweighs the benefits.
I think saying 'don't post personal info' is a bit unhelpful really, I don't tend to post aanything VERY sensitive but I knwo that there is enough of my life story and views/opinions etc on my past posts to put together a fairly detailed profile, certainly enough for anyone who thought they kknew who I was to work it out for certain. And to learn a whole load of other stuff about me at the same time! That's just the nature of chatting over a long period of time. I mean just talking about the ages of your kids, your work and home set up, where you live, other stuff about your wider family network etc is enough really.
And btw you can request posts to be deleted, but that's all - its a REQUEST. They don't have to do it if they don't want.
I can see why wholesale deletions might be annoying, but what about anonymising the posts? Just giving them a random number instead of a nickname? then they become unsearchable but the sense is not broken.
Still think communication is key crumpet, especially when T&Cs change. Better to have as many of the arguments in advance when there is a chance to influence things.
i've seen certain posters C&P posts to use on other threads to cause maximum trouble.....not sure how these posters have the nerve to talk about "doing the right thing"
I never realised that the rules about the books had changed either - I remember the discussion about the first one and somewhere in the back of my mind thought that they had asked everyone.
Agree completely with elliott. Good idea about random numbers
Morningpaper - As things stand, there is a definite power imbalance on Mumsnet. All the power and control rests with MNHQ - it makes a mockery of its "By Parents For Parents" line.
The internet IS an archive - that's how these things have ALWAYS worked
I have posts from the mid-1990s on the internet about everything from the mooncup (it was tcalled the keep then) to brain scans of people talking in tongues
It's all untouchable - and it gets sold on from one company to another as the years go by
That's the way it is, there is absollutely no point objecting
Swedes: Mumsnet owns your posts when you use the boards. That's the nature of the transaction
that's a good idea, elliott. then the archive is kept but the names are not. that would solve the problem entirely.
i don't see the problem with people deleting btichy stuff tbh. if they do it after people have seen it they'll be pulled up for it anyway, and if they do it before because they've thought better of it, fair enough.
I think there are some big issues here though - much wider than mn. It strikes me as very inconsistent that at a time when we can't do ANYTHING with people's personal info in the public services, the lack of any similar safeguard on the internet is pretty rubbish. I mean there's not even an optout clause about 'what I am happy for you to do with my info' . I think its wrong the MN and Google etc own our posts in perpetuity. And I think that eventually it will change.
mp - just wanted to say you are the voice of reason on this thread [crawly bum-lick emoticon].
In the meantime, shall we all just wait and see what happens next? [some hope]
Agree about flagging rule changes.
But still stand by the fact that people need to take personal responsibility for understanding what will happen to their posts before they post (and frankly there are not going to be many instances where a new user needs to post in an emergency without having the time to take 10 mins to check the rules etc - not sayign it doesn't happen but it will not be an everyday occurrence and in these cases I bet MNHQ will delete if needed).
Every forum wil have rules, and it is an idiot who doesn't know that. <waits for 10000 links to forums with no rules...>
i don't understand the point your making tbh MP. you know that people can't delete off all websites because you've tried? why did you want your stuff off the old websites, was it for the same reasons that we might do now?
so why argue that the facility shouldn't exist here, if you understand the desire to take down your old posts?
i agree, if google's indexed and cached them then they're out there somewhere, but really we're just asking to delete from here, not the whole world wide web? why's that a problem?
Yes, but elliott, no-one is forcing you to use MN - it is a choice (this isn't meant as a don't bang the door on the way out), and the decision is yours as to how much info to disclose.
i'm not singling fio out...if you read one of my post from yesterday i said all the moaners and whingers should naff off...
why are you flattering yourselves..?
Daily Mail readers couldn't give a toss about you..
newsflash for crumpet.
some mners are idiots. what do we do with idiots? hang them out to dry or give them the opportunity to change their behaviour?
dp we're not talking about the DM any more.
I agree with Elliott's post about deleting the archive. I would strongly prefer the archive to be deleted now, and for threads to be kept for a very limited time - Eustacia's suggestions would be good IMO.
Failing that, then anonymising ALL posts after say a week would be second best.
There are all sorts of reasons why someone might want to remove their posts, or at least anoymise them. Its not just the suicidal/abused/unfairly dismissed. It might be as simple as someone rumbling our nickname and then searching all our info and using it agaist us. And we all know that has never happened has it
OK so maybe a pop up for new users (if they tick an "I am an idiot" box?): "Don't post until you know what will happen to your posts"
"There are all sorts of reasons why someone might want to remove their posts, or at least anoymise them. Its not just the suicidal/abused/unfairly dismissed. It might be as simple as someone rumbling our nickname and then searching all our info and using it agaist us. And we all know that has never happened has it "
this to me sounds like another good reason why allowing people the facility to delete theri own posts might be a good idea. no?
for me, it's just that if i think back to all the little dribs and drabs of personal info i've given here over the years, people could identify me. so, i'm an idiot? och, probably, but i'd prefer not to be punished for it if i don't have to be.
anonymising after a year would work fantastically well to prevent that while preserving the archive.
I think the anonyminity of the archives is a jolly good idea
i think that would be most off-putting to new members tbh, if it came up saying 'remember that this might go ANYWHERE'. i'd strongly advise mnhq not to do that as part of the sign up process, it would have stopped me in my tracks despite it being logically true of all sites. [idiot]
offer deletions, anonymise after a year, sorted.
crumpet, i accept that. But people change their minds about things don't they? And as we have all said, this is a very different place to when I first started posting seven years ago. I do feel mildly uncomfortable that 7 years of my history is sitting in the archive. I didn't plan it that way, and there's nothing very terrible there, but it strikes me that there is a very real power imbalance here concerning individuals rights to protect their privacy. And if it is possible for MN to improve that, without compromising the utility of the site or (god forbid) their business model, then why not try and persuade them to do so?
OK, so a hell of a lot of us who've been on here have been total bloody idiots. Although I would say in my defence that my reading of the terms and conditions was similar to FioFioFio's, and I opted out of being included in books.
Accepting that there are a huge number of total bloody idiots who have posted incautiously on Mumsnet, should MNHQ just say: "Bad luck, you really screwed up, but there's nothing we can do about it, because we're not deleting or anonymising archive threads, so there."?
Agree about anonymising archives.
I'd be totally hoisted by my own petard if a poster comes along and identifies me! But I am an infrequent poster and really careful as a rule, as this is exactly what I dont want to happen.
It's not that I don't get people's concerns, particularly if there are rule changes without them being properly flagged, but the internet is what it is and should be treated with caution.
yes, i also opted-out of the publications and am very surprised to learn that this decision does not stand in perpetuity.
i know who you are, crumpet.
Morningpaper - But everything I write on here is already subject to copyright. I am writing a book called "Conversations with Myself On Mumsnet" and it's subject to a valid Copyright notice. It's impossible to claim copyright on material that is already subject to copyright.
Ok, all this talk of mass deletion, we know that is not going to happen. MNHQ would not want to lose the archieve and they own it so that is that.
How about then, for a limited time, giving posters the opportunity to go back and remove identifying information from their posts? I am sure tech could come up with some kind of system where changes could go through an approval check so random posts can be looked at by HQ to try and ensure no-one is taking advantage of the situation. Anyone who misses this opportunity could email HQ for permission at a later date but, essentially, HQ would end up with an archive that people are happy for them to use however they see fit and - better than that - an archieve that people feel happier having used in newspaper columns etc.
HQ have made it clear that advertising like this is not something they will rule out if the right offer comes up so I think we should be able to have a limited chance to prepare for that.
And Aitch only ever regurgitates posts that she has already published on her own forum, over which she has a valid Copyright notice.
I'm sure most of us have worked in organisations where we've handled people's highly sensitive personal info, and where there have been safeguards to prevent us from selling that info to the tabloids.
If you really wanted to, you could make a mint using the info currently available on MN. But only if you could trace the posts to RL names.
sorry aitch...you're onto talking about deleting you're own posts.... i'd go with deleting everything after 90 days....like chat.
if the argument is posts are kept for info purposes...don't agree with that, the advice given about something last year could be meaningless today.
I have to confess that despite my pontificating I have no idea what I signed up to on the books front when I originally joined.
The thing is, you only really need about 6 or 7 bits of info about a person you know to be able to work out if it is or isn't them. So you do have to be pretty careful, over a long period of time. I have been fairly circumspect, and have never been prolific, but all the same I know that loads of people could potentially identify me. I've certainly identified people on here without even really trying. And I've been caught out when I've had second thoughts about posts - I had requests for deletion refused...
Anyway I'm glad a few people think anonymising is a good idea
I suspect MNHQ will say its too much hassle though...
Just caught up with twig's recent post. Was so happy and relieved to realise she is not an arse after all
But, KingCanute, what would be the objection to anonymising all archive posts for public/tabloid consumption?
Surely that would be a solution?
To make them more entertaining to read, MNHQ could just put in made-up posting names.
lol swedes and crumpets. [revolting dinner emoticon]
dp i'm with you, i never use the archives (although i'd keep longer than 90 days). but a few people have said they do, so making posts past a year come up with anon names would have the desired effect. i think elliott is a GENIUS in fact.
milli, it has been noted ad infinitum that part of the problem here is nto people knowing posting names but that you can be identified from the information within the post itself - regardless of the posting name.
Oo, yes, I like elliot's idea.
Yes, well done, Elliott! Can I have your RL name so that when your genius is recognised by the world and tabloids, I can be counted as your quotable confidante?
Swedes - have you looked at the new T&C? -Justine changed it over the weekend - it now says you retain your copyright, but give MN "a worldwide, fully-paid, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive [my italics], fully sublicensable, and transferable right and license to use, record, sell, lease, reproduce, distribute, create derivative works based upon"
Hey, how come no-one called me a genius when I suggested anonymising posts on the previous thread?
Though I did only suggest MN should let people who requested it do this, not a blanket anonymising of the whole archive.
How about no one posts anything at all for 2 weeks? This would have the result that (a) there would be nothing for DM to publish which would mean no column and (b) would help some MNers to break their MN addition!
Please explain to me what anonomysing means - if it is limited to just changing the posting name then I don't think that is particularly going to solve the problem - as I said above it is the content of the post as much as the name of the poster.
Rusty - Oh I didn't know that. Phew. Will go and look.
Putting thinking cap on re the archive. I understand the desire to keep the archive as an important resource. But is there really any need for the posts in the archive to be atrributable? The posts in the archive should all be anonymous.
Sorry Rusty, you're a genius too.
Do the new T&C apply to the archive? Or just to the stuff that's posted since this weekend? Because that's a bit underhand, isn't it? I could set up a website saying that I would never use any of the posts, and then change the T&C years later and say "ha ha, jah boo sucks to the lot of you, I'm going to use all your posts anyway and there's nothing that you can do about it".
where's this post by twiglett then?
Goosey, why would it stop the dm - they can use older posts too - they just need to register and stick a post on the end of an older thread and hey presto - In MN this week...
Yes but it does stop people searching the archive for previous posts by a mumsnetter who has been quoted in the column, so they can't find additional details to confirm their suspicions that they know the person, or to use against them.
Changes to T&C have always been retro-active in the past so I see no reason why this would have changed now....
mrs tittle mouse,
I asked that 2 days ago.....
<resounding sound of silence>
and elliot- great idea, but what abut the posts in with the situation one has written about coming out into papers is the most improtant thing- not what naem it is attached to?
Anonymising the archive would even make the DM journo happy as well - everyone wins
God, I do like playing detective though.
But it wuld not stop the thread being published in full with all the identifying details left in - which would be worse than publishing it with a user name on it - unless your user name is "IAmRobertSmithofGilbertonSurry" of course.
sorry rusty, great minds and all that
And you've have to stop mentioning posters by name in a following post. Or c&p their posts before replying. Minor problem though.
King Canute, I think we are talking about randomising as well as anonymising; so we wouldn't just have different posting names in archive threads, but a different posting name in every archive thread we posted on; so no-one could be traced by running a search on a name and putting together the info from a number of threads. Each made-up name could appear on one archive thread only. They could still be clever(-ish), entertaining names!
And no it wouldn't solve the problem of individual identifying threads/posts - but that's much less of a risk of being identifying than being able to go back and triangulate with other bits of info, imo.
Rusty - I can't find the terms and conditions. Can you please link to them?
milli, my point was that the details in one thread could be enough to identify someone for instance anyone who would recognise sweetness from her work situation would have recognised her regardless of her being called sweetness, rambo or 1773947762678728.
Randomising names would not stop that.
And I'm absolutely certain that from now on, everyone's going to be a lot more circumspect about what they post, so it's only the archives that are the problem. People have already talked about changing names on a weekly basis, being much more careful, not disclosing personal info, etc.
I think numbers hould be used and recycled so searching 123456 could bring up many different posters. Or just a fresh number all the time.
"Mumsnet Terms of Use
Copyright: This Web site and its contents are copyright Mumsnet. All rights reserved. Reproduction of all or any substantial part of the contents in any form is prohibited. No part of the site may be distributed or copied for any commercial purpose without express approval.
Submissions to Mumsnet: We may now or in the future permit users to post, upload, transmit through, or otherwise make available on the site (collectively, "submit") messages, recipes, text, illustrations, files, images, graphics, photos, comments, sounds, music, videos, information, content, and/or other materials ("User Content"). We have the right to publish, edit or reject any User Content that you send us either via email, via the site or in writing via post for any purpose whatsoever, commercial or otherwise, without payment to you - unless we have specifically agreed otherwise in writing prior to submission.
By submitting User Content to us, simultaneously with such posting you automatically grant to us a worldwide, fully-paid, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, fully sublicensable, and transferable right and license to use, record, sell, lease, reproduce, distribute, create derivative works based upon (including, without limitation, translations), publicly display, publicly perform, transmit, publish and otherwise exploit the User Content (in whole or in part) as Mumsnet, in its sole discretion, deems appropriate. We may exercise this grant in any format, media or technology now known or later developed for the full term of any copyright that may exist in such User Content.
Subject to the rights and license you grant to us under these Terms of Use, you retain all your right, title and interest in your User Content submissions. This means that copyright in your User Content will remain with you and that you can continue to use the material in any way, including allowing others to use it.
You agree that you will not submit any User Content protected by copyright, trademark, patent, trade secret, moral right, or other intellectual property, personal, contractual, proprietary or other right owned by a third party without the express permission of the owner of the respective right. You are solely liable for any damage resulting from your failure to obtain such permission or from any other harm resulting from User Content that you submit. You represent, warrant, and covenant that you will not submit any User Content that:
violates or infringes in any way upon the rights of others, including, but not limited to, any copyright, trademark, moral right, or other third party right of any person or entity;
impersonates another or is unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, obscene, harassing or otherwise objectionable;
contains a formula, instruction, or advice that could cause harm or injury;
the licensed use by us hereunder would result in us having any obligation or liability to any party.
We rely on you to present us with User Content that contains accurate and factual material. We assume no responsibility for the accuracy of information provided on Mumsnet.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, you waive any and all claims you may now or later have in any jurisdiction to so-called "moral rights" or rights of "droit moral" with respect to the User Content.
We reserve the right to display advertisements in connection with your User Content and to use your User Content for advertising and promotional purposes"
They are clickable at the bottom of the page Swedes under 'terms of use'
yes, but where's this post by twiglett?
Actually what I'm thinking is:
1. Change posting name at least weekly
2. Be inconsistent about number of kids, their gender and ages
3. Be inconsistent about where we live
4. NEVER even think about meet-ups
5. Don't post on MN Local
6. Lurk, don't post
I disagree, the problem here is that individual columns could be printed in a paper, we have no control over when or how much or what. They could choose a very identifying thread - eg a problem with a neighbour (like the one whos neighbour removed the fence between their council houses). A thread like that could identify the person even if the poster had never given out the barest idea of their user name. We are sitting with an archieve full of potentially identifying information and changing usernames around is not going to fix that.
greens, search for tw1glett
Terms of use
Greeny - see Aitch's post Mon 17-Aug-09 09:42:18
Well, I would still favour deletion of the archive in its entirety, King Canute. Anonymisation is only second best IMO.
FioFio - thanks.
Those new terms and conditions are unacceptable to me.
I really think that deleting the archive is going to be the quickest and cheapest solution. Otherwise TEch's going to be tied up for months, surely. It makes sense to start again with new terms and conditions which MN can try to make sure everyone's aware of from the off. LIke someone else higher up this thread, I find it rather a bitter pill to swallow that terms and conditions can be changed relatively unannounced (I didn't know about the MN books - I thought my 'no' was binding.) Doesn't a duty of care come into all this somewhere?
The point I am trying to make is that changing user names does not anonomyise the archieve, it just changes the names so stopping searches - great - but not making it anonomous. I think it would be dangerous to say that it did - if people think the archieve is made anon they may continue to post identifying information thinking ti would be removed later.
Looking on the bright side, this could be a chance to completely re-invent myself. From now on I will be a Mongolian goat herder called Rolf, with triplets. All of them called Blaise. I will only be giving advice on diseases specific to goats. And employment law as it relates to goat herding.
Why Swedes? It's always a trade off isn't it? MN provide me with a free service to contact loads of other people and they own the content. It really doesn't bother me at all. In fact, our ideas should reach a wider audience because they are largely well-researched and considered.
I'm thinking about the FSID's webchat for example, excellent, challenging info came out of that.
Agree with the anonymising and/or removing old stuff though, although MNHQ probably want that for the books and so on.
i'd be too identifyiable if were goats-
I'll tak about cooking and shooping for shoes!!
Shooping is very identifiable. As is shawadawadaying.
TBH I am wondering what sort of service we are going to be left with once this is all over - people cannot post for help or advice if they are unwilling to divulge detail, people cannot give advice or help if they are not willing to divulge any detail... the content they own could get pretty bland and the people who really need help could be a little let down IMO.
Surely MNHQ can fix it so that they themselves still have access to the archive material? Without it being publicly accessible? In fact, surely that would make the info in the books more valuable, since not freely available in the archives? After this, I hope they wouldn't just sell it to the highest bidder, but would control publication?
King, people will forget or slip back into old habits once this blows over, until the next time. I know I progressively divulge more over time. I have pulled right back now and I have namechanged and removed my profile this time though. Ironically, I'd only just put my profile up after deliberating for ages.
I still think there is plenty on here for me.
lol @ boco. Tempted to re-invent myself too. Many times over.
I never did like myself much.
Stripey, true, I do tend to go further and further then catch myself out and stop before slipping again. I do think part of it is just the need to divulge certain things adds up over time so, when answering a thread about the age children can go to school alone I reveal the age of one of my dc, on another about puberty I reveal the age/gender of another dc... evntually I am aware that all the info is out there already so I start talking more openly on threads....
and hwat happens when Justine et al sell the site on.
Mn will own all our posts, but it won't be Justine and the gang at the helm.
It will be kelvin mackenzie/robert maxwell (we all know he'snot really dead!)/elvis/who ever...
then what?
We'll all have to be much more tolerant of inconsistencies, seeing them as necessary rather than the Sign of the Troll.
I really do think we should be able to take back the identifying bits - if we can't get rid of the lot that is.
Oops - aaaarggghh - delete the archives!!!!!!!!!!!
Those terms are heaaavily loaded toward MN using everything for advertising etc, anything but no responsibility if the crap hits the fan?
Seeing them in black and white make it fairly clear what the point of the content on here is to them. Which does feel at odds with why the place is used -for support.
It feels different to how I viewed MN but then I admit I haven't thought too much about it. Have they changed massively from before?
Now I am more in favour of deleting names in archives (doubt they will do it though, I mean, on the premise that information is worth something).
still think deleting everything after 90 days is the better option;
keeping posts but under anon names wouldn't work....you could still work out who the posters were..other posters will mention your name, ie; that was a great post daftpunk...
on my phone so not really keeping up, you're prob talking about something else now..
But, Marsha, surely MNHQ could fix it so that THEY could still trace the poster, only the public/tabloids couldn't?
dp if anyone EVER says that I will eat my own poo
Oh, I nearly said it in my post - lucky escape, Greenie.
alchemillamollis yes I think it would be good if MN do something to lessen the feeling of uneasiness on here.
It's also probably worth more of us posting on the daily mail page www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/chat/r/t-10011867/p-1/index.html?threadIndex=1&class=thanks
I guess someone there must be tracking it....
"You agree that you will not submit any User Content protected by copyright, trademark, patent, trade secret, moral right, or other intellectual property, personal, contractual, proprietary or other right owned by a third party without the express permission of the owner of the respective right. You are solely liable for any damage resulting from your failure to obtain such permission or from any other harm resulting from User Content that you submit. You represent, warrant, and covenant that you will not submit any User Content that:
violates or infringes in any way upon the rights of others, including, but not limited to, any copyright, trademark, moral right, or other third party right of any person or entity;
impersonates another or is unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, obscene, harassing or otherwise objectionable;
contains a formula, instruction, or advice that could cause harm or injury;
the licensed use by us hereunder would result in us having any obligation or liability to any party."
This places all Mumsnetters under a personal obligation to not post copyright material and not libel anyone, outrightly, through juxtaposition or through innuendo. So I might post jamie Oliver's recipe for Faggots Brulee (breaching copyright) asking if anyone else found the recipe to be complete rubbish as the faggots go soggy at the grilling stage and I might ask for a laugh whether Jamie owned a grill (defamation?) And I would personally be liable. So mumsnet get all the breaks (advertising revenue, publicity, revenue from spin off books, etc) and none of the responsiblity. Libel law is entirely separate from copyright in any case. Don't believe you are without personal responsiblity for libel. If the Daily Mail repeating a libel lifted from Mumsnet, it is entirely possible for the Daily Mail, its publishers, its distributors, Mumsnet and the individual Mumsnetter(s) to be sued for libel as each repetition of a libel is a fresh publication and creates a fresh cause of action.
Clearly Mumsnet previously accepted responsiblity for libel in the GF case but it seems this has now changed.
Oh and the other thing I should say is that it's not always possible to appreaciate the importance of juxtaposition, especially on Mumsnet. You might post something seemingly innoccuous on its own, without reading the rest of the thread properly, only to find yourself being libellous due to the juxtapositioning.
They could collate a book all from one poster in A Certain MNers Great Life, sell it for millions and not give you a dime and then you could get sued for libel and copyright infringement if it is in there....
not to give any ideas or anything
what day does this column come out on and is the last one on their website at the moment?
ha ha greensleeves...it has actually been said to me...(twice i think)...and not even in a taking the piss sarcastic way..
I think berating any poster for not reading the ever changing terms and conditions properly is rather unfair, considering MN don't seem to know whether their own ts and cs are enforceable or not.
I wouldn't expect MN to go public with what is going on on the board, but it might be nice if they could tell us whether they have reached agreement with the DM (now, I don't mean the original articles being agreed to, I know they weren't) and if so what it is. Then we can all make an informed decision about whether and what we post in the future.
For the sake of those people who are not comfortable with how the goal posts have shifted, the entire archive either needs to be deleted (say after 90 days) or all posting names need to be deleted. If certain former MNers can have all their posts removed, leaving vast swathes of archived threads that say little more than "message deleted by MN" then the same should go for all of us.
The MN rules are pretty standard I would think.
MNetters do have a personal obligation anyway these rules aren't changing the position a user would be in anyway - a wronged person could choose to sue the company (as publisher)or the user (as author)for libel and as a general rule would generally sue the company as it'd more likely to have the money if a court orders a payout.
Great post dp!
I've not berated anyone for not knowing about rules which have changed without their knowledge - and have said that I understand those concerns.
It's those who haven't bothered in the first place to read the rules when they signed up who don't have a leg to stand on.
So Swedes, does that mean that if their terms had been like this a couple of years ago, GF would have been suing MP and she would have been personally responsible for her comments?
Pauldacre, they are contacting them today but do not expect a response so Justine will chase when she is back from holiday. I assume, therefore, that the next column or two could still go ahead regardless of HQs position on it all.
Thanks Swedes, so what is an acceptable solution? How do other comparable sites handle all this?
I think one of the problems here is that comparable sites are in short supply - especially when you add in the political and media attention MN gets....
Boco, I think that the individual can always be sued, but often won;'t be if there is a company (which is likely to have deeper pockets) which can be sued instead.
I took my profile down after I was quoted in the Independent, and name-change to start threads on subjects I wouldn't want to discuss with friends in RL.
However, I've spotted a RL friend on here in the past from reading one post of hers which immediately identified her to me as an old sixth form friend. I spotted one other friend on the basis of her nickname and the scant info on her profile. I suspect she has since namechanged as I haven't seen her for a while.
In the last few days I have stopped myself posting on several threads because I am still deliberating whether I should continue to post. There are several points here that have been raised by different people which I have been mulling over.
Firstly, morningpaper pointed out that there threads posted by her on the internet since about 1993. I'm not sure how I feel about posts of mine being around that long. What if they are used against me in some way in the future? How will I feel about my children reading posts of mine one day?
Secondly, someone mentioned what would happen if mumsnet was sold on. There is a lot of personal information held here which I wouldn't want to fall into the wrong hands. I feel quite happy with Justine etc at the helm, but I'd be very unhappy if mumsnet was sold on a la friendsreunited.
I think LH has done me a huge favour. Maybe I have spent far too long here, handing over vast amounts of information and invading my family's privacy. Maybe we've all been too naive.
Yes I will admit to not thinking too much about this stuff and it is good LH has prompted a rethinking.
It is a shame though, because alot of the enjoyment of being on here is lazily talking about one's family and building up a sense of 'knowing' people and people knowing you.
Going back to the book about A Certain MNers Great Life, if the Certain MNer recognised herself and then wrote her own book based on her posts here would she then be in breach of copyright?
I'm not so bothered about libel, think that's been thrashed out often enough. But the changing T&C - well I've been here years and wouldn't be able to tell you what they were at every stage. I can't get into my work pc without clicking that I accept the the acceptable use policy - could not a similar thing happen re T&C? Not sure whether it's possible.
The site being sold on (which will undoubtedly happen) with the archive is pretty disturbing.
Just for comparison, here are Netmums' Ts & Cs - pretty similar stuff.
1. Acceptance of Terms and Conditions
These terms and conditions govern your use of Netmums.com, as provided by Netmums Ltd., including use of message boards and notice boards. We may amend or add to these terms and conditions without notice to you, so please check them periodically.
2. Registration
When you register with us you are stating that you are over 18 years of age or are a minor, aged over 13, with parental consent to use the service you are registering for. You agree that any information you provide to us about yourself upon registration or at any other time will be true, accurate and complete.
You must keep the password which you use to access Netmums.com confidential and must not disclose it to or share it with anyone. You will be responsible for all activities that occur under your password.
3. Privacy
Click here to read our privacy policy, which forms part of these Terms and Conditions.
4. Netmums Newsletters
By registering you will agree to receive a local Netmums newsletter by email from time to time. If you do not wish to receive these newsletters you may unsubscribe from the mailing list once you have registered using the link to your personal details on the site home page.
5. Use of Message board and Noticeboards
If you use a message board or noticeboard, you alone are responsible for the content of your messages, and any consequences arising. By using Netmums.com you agree to comply with the following:
(a) Netmums.com is to be used by you for your personal use only and may not be used for commercial purposes (to promote a company, product or service or to recruit staff) without prior written permission.
(b) Netmums may not be used to send chain letters, junk mail, 'spam', solicitations (commercial or non-commercial) or bulk communications of any kind. If a member puts an email address or web address into a message, you may not use it for any purpose other than that which the Member intended.
(c) If using the Boards to arrange to meet someone, you do so at your own risk, and Netmums Ltd. accepts no liability for any consequences.
(d) If using the Boards to find childcare, it is your responsibility to check registrations, qualifications and references. Netmums is in no way liable for any consequences and accepts no responsibility for the verification of any childcare notices.
(e) You may not post to Netmums.com or use Netmums.com to publish, send or distribute any message or material (in any media or form) that is unlawful, harassing, defamatory, abusive, threatening, harmful, vulgar, obscene, profane, threatening, racially or sexually or otherwise discriminatory, offensive, inaccurate, is in breach of confidence or a third party's intellectual property rights or which otherwise includes objectionable material of any kind or nature, that encourages or engages in conduct that could constitute a criminal offence, give rise to civil liability or otherwise violate any applicable local, national or international law or regulation or which has a disruptive influence on Netmums.com.
(f) You (whether acting in your capacity as a journalist in any media or otherwise) must not post appeals for case histories on Netmums.com. All media requests should be sent to email@example.com. Unauthorised appeals for information will be removed.
(g) You must not impersonate any other person or entity, whether actual or fictitious.
(h) You must not use Netmums.com in a way that might reasonably be expected to cause the website to be interrupted, damaged, rendered less efficient or which could in any way damage the operation of another's computer.
Netmums Ltd reserves the right in its absolute discretion at any time to edit, alter, delete or move any material posted to, appearing on or distributed by Netmums.com and you. Netmums Ltd. will not enter into any discussions about its decision to edit, alter, delete or move such material.
(a) Netmums may at any time, and without prior or post warning, close discussions on message boards as it feels appropriate. No discussion will be entered into.
b) Netmums Ltd. may with draw membership of Netmums.com from any member at any time. Attempts to rejoin, may result in legal action. Netmums decision is final and no discussion will be entered into.
6. Submission of Listings & Comments
By adding a listing or comment to the site, you agree to comply with the following terms:
(a) Netmums Ltd. reserves the right in its absolute discretion at any time to edit, alter, delete or move any material, such as listings or comments added by Netmums.com and you. Netmums Ltd. will not enter into any discussions about its decision to edit, alter, delete or move such material.
(b) Netmums Ltd. reserves the right to share material, such as the content of listing and comments with other organisations who may also publish the material.
7. Intellectual Property
All copyright, trade marks (registered or unregistered) and other intellectual property rights of whatsoever nature arising from all materials, content and information on this site, including the site's design, layout and organisation, are owned or licensed by Netmums Ltd.
Except where stated, none of the material may be copied, reproduced, distributed, republished, downloaded, displayed, posted, or transmitted in any form by any means, including but not limited to, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of Netmums Ltd.
Permission is granted to access, download, or print such material for your personal, non-commercial use only and is subject to these terms and conditions.
By submitting content to Netmums, including your first name, you grant Netmums Ltd. a right to use, reproduce, modify, and publish it in other works. You also permit any member to access, display, view, store and reproduce such content for personal use.
8. Third Party Web Sites, Goods and Services
Netmums.com provides links to third party web sites. We make no representations as to the quality, suitability, functionality or legality of any sites to which we may provide links, or any goods or services available from such sites.
All matters concerning any goods and services that you purchase from a third party site, including without limitation all contract terms are solely between you and the owner of that site and Netmums Ltd. will not be liable for any costs or damages to you or any third party arising directly or indirectly out of any third party website. You hereby waive any claim you might have against Netmums Ltd. with respect to any such sites.
9. Disclaimer of Warranties
· Netmums Ltd is providing this site on an 'as is' basis and makes no representations or warranties of any kind with respect to this site or its contents and disclaims all such representations and warranties..
· The content on the site and forum has been included in good faith. The Content may contain inaccuracies or typographical errors. Whilst Netmums endeavours to ensure that the information on this site is correct, no warranty, express or implied, is given as to its accuracy and Netmums does not accept any liability for error or omission.
· In particular, the support and information in the forum and site does not constitute any form of advice, recommendation or arrangement by Netmums and is not intended to be relied upon by users in making (or refraining from making) any specific decisions or to be a substitute for obtaining professional advice. You should consult a doctor, health or appropriate professional if you require specific advice.
· You are responsible for checking the accuracy of relevant facts and opinions given on the site before entering into any commitment or taking any other form of action or inaction based upon them.
· Netmums does not represent or guarantee the truthfulness, accuracy or reliability of postings submitted by users , moderators and parent supporters on the forum, or endorse any opinions expressed by users, moderators or parent supporters.
· All conditions, warranties, terms and undertakings express or implied statutory or otherwise in respect of the provision of the Content and the Site are excluded to the fullest extent permitted by law.
10. Limitation of Liability
Neither Netmums Limited nor any of its directors, employees or other representatives will be liable for loss or damage arising out of or in connection with your use of this site or any information contained in it. This is a comprehensive limitation of liability that applies to all damages of any kind, including (without limitation) compensatory, direct, indirect or consequential damages, loss of data, income or profit, loss of or damage to property and claims of third parties.
You agree to indemnify and hold Netmums and its directors, employees and agents harmless from any claim or demand made by any third party due to or arising from your use of the Site
11. Breach of these Terms
Netmums Ltd. will be entitled to restrict, suspend or terminate your membership or deny you access to Netmums.com or take such other action as Netmums deems appropriate if Netmums Ltd. determines, in its sole discretion, that you are in breach any of the Terms and Conditions or that your use of Netmums.com is inappropriate or otherwise unacceptable.
The restriction, suspension or termination of our service pursuant to this section will be without prejudice to any rights which Netmums Ltd may have against you in respect of your breach of these Terms and Conditions.
Netmums Ltd. shall be entitled to disclose your user identity and details if required or requested by the courts or other law enforcement authorities and/or agencies or in such other circumstances as Netmums in its sole discretion considers reasonably necessary or appropriate.
12. Indemnification
You agree to indemnify and hold each of Netmums Ltd, its directors, sponsors, representatives, employees and contractors, harmless from any claim or demand, including reasonable solicitors fees, made by any third party due to or arising out of your use of Netmums.com, the violation of these Terms and Conditions by you, or the infringement by you, or any other subscriber of your account, or of any intellectual property or other right of any other person or entity.
13. Applicable Law
These Terms and Conditions shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and any dispute shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts.
14. Forum rules
The rules for usage of the coffeehouse.
15. Miscellaneous
Any failure or delay by us to enforce strict performance by you of any of the Terms and Conditions or to exercise any right under the Terms and Conditions will not be construed as a waiver to any extent of our rights.
These Terms and Conditions and the Privacy Policy constitute the entire understanding between you and us as to your use of Netmums.com and supersede all prior agreements and understandings between us and you.
Netmums Privacy Policy
Our Commitment To Privacy
Your privacy is important to us. To better protect your privacy we provide this notice explaining our online information practices and the way your information is collected and used. To make this notice easy to find, we make it available on our main homepage, our registration page and on each local site home page.
The Information We Collect:
This notice applies to all information collected or submitted on the netmums website. In order to view the netmums site you are asked to register as a member. The personal information collected at registration is:
Email address
Where you heard about netmums.com
If you use our community parent supporter service we will collect details of our posts and private messages exchanged with parent supporters for quality control and protection of individuals.
Use and storage of your personal information
When you supply any personal information to netmums (e.g. for registrations, comments, community services or etc) we have legal obligations towards you in the way we deal with that data. We must collect the information fairly, that is, we must explain how we will use it and tell you if we want to pass the information on to anyone else.
In general, any information you provide to netmums will only be used within netmums. It will never be supplied to anyone outside netmums without first obtaining your consent, unless we are obliged or permitted by law to disclose it, or to for example to safeguard the welfare of our members and their families.
If you use our community parent supporter service we may use the information you post and the responses to compile aggregate statistics (eg; number of registered members, number of individuals addressing specific issues, etc.), to assist us in research and development to supply to our partners. In these cases, all information will be completely anonymous.
We publish a newsletter and occasionally operate on line surveys. We will never sell our members e-mail addresses.
Our Commitment To Data Security
To prevent unauthorized access, maintain data accuracy, and ensure the correct use of information, we have put in place appropriate physical, electronic, and managerial procedures to safeguard and secure the information we collect online.
Our Commitment To Children's Privacy
Protecting the privacy of the very young is especially important. For that reason, we never collect or maintain information at our website from those we actually know are under 16, and no part of our website is structured to attract anyone under 16.
I have always posted in quite a reserved way, not talking about relationship difficulties, not regurgitating conversations with friends etc. It seems a bit unfair because those are the bits of MN I enjoy (I don't enjoy other people's relationship difficulties, obviously, but I like the feeling that when you get into a chit chat with someone there is a real woman who you know a little about on the other side). I share certain things, you can cobble together roughly where I live, my son's name, my occupation, my education etc if you bothered to look for it. Armed with all that someone could identify me if they already knew me, but that doesn't worry me too much.
Oh, I was PDEatsBabies a minute ago but felt this was more topical.
LLareggub, my feelings exactly. It's been a wake-up call. I'm awake now.
I must admit the whole thing with the changing T&Cs applying to everything on the site - regardless of what the T&Cs where when it was posted bothers me - as has been said some of us opted out of being included in books only to find that our opt was scrapped when the question was scrapped. I find that a bit odd - in fact I suspect it is not legal but no-one challenged it at the time as HQ did not publicise it, it was more of an "oh, I thought I opted out" "well you may have done but we don't do that anymore".
I don't like a few things TBH but I am most interested in being given the chance to change my posts to keep up with the way that HQ have been able to change things their end. At the end of the day if they can decide to do things differently we should be able to change to match that shouldn't we?
To me it seems to be like saying to a kid "you can no longer ride your bike to school without a helmet - here are all the detentions you will get for every day you rode without a helmet in the last year" if you are not going to enable them to go back and fix the problem!
I think so DailyMailsaysVOTELABOUR, I suppose they could take the photos from the profile page for a nice little spread and PR shot too...
<imagination runs wild>
Indeed KingCanute, when laws change in this country they aren't usually retrospective. When rules change we should be made explicitly aware and allowed to take action to protect our position if that's what we want to do.
Unilateral variation of a contract clause is unenforceable at law. Whether what any of us have with MN amounts to a contract is another matter.
I am not sure - but I am sure that, if I decided to write a book about "KingCs adventures on Mumsnet" it would be considered a breach of somesort, I am not sure why it should be any different the other way around.
lol @ kingcanutes adventures on mumsnet
I am really pleased I am not the only one who did not realise the opt out thing had been scrapped. I felt a bit foolish at the time for not realising
No, I think it caught most people by surprise - I am sure some of them were just too proud to admit it
This is the bit from netmums (and a lot of other websites) which seems to be missing from the MN terms and conditions *"We may amend or add to these terms and conditions without notice to you, so please check them periodically."*
I've just written a pretty clear message to our little friend on the daily mail website. She probably won't see it, but a sub will. She's just such an offensively poor journalist!
I tried to get stuff deleted off very old boards - but I'm not sure it's comparable: originally some of these were "email groups" (such as Onelist) which were opt-in emails sent to the list-members. I did, on two occasions, try to get stuff deleted from them once they had been sold on. But I was told that it couldn't be done. <shrug> this was about ten years ago, and when we'd posted some of the stuff we had no idea that the internet would "take off" .
But Mumsnet has always been a publically searchable database which is somewhat different to a privately-circulated email list.
llareggub: Yes it is very likely that your children will access your posts, should they want to, here and elsewhere. If not on Mumsnet then one some enormous INTERNETIN2009.ARCHIVE server based somewhere in 2045. Whether they will want to is another matter (I can't think of anything less appealing than reading my mother's 30 year-old posts about Friday night *sex with my father), but I think we should all assume that they will.
morningpaper...how far back can you search..? would love to read some threads from 2000..(is that when mn started ?) just to see how much it's changed.
Aitch: In terms of social history, Mumsnet is enormously useful as an archive. Imagine if we had a similar archive of mum's posts from 20, 30 or even 50 years ago. It would be immensely interesting from many perspectives. Parenting paradigms change rapidly and forcefully - having a unique record of that is fascinating.
<apostrophe shame, sorry>
so write a book about it, mp. i'm not suggesting that we get rid of the archive, as it happens, i'm saying that after a year it should be anonymised. if mn want to keep a clean copy for their books, sure.
What's the argument for anonymising, Aitch? That people might have said too much, while using pseudonyms, that might come back to bite them on the bum if some stalker form the future decides to check the archives? That isn't really reason enough, is it?
DP: The mumsnet archives start in February 2001
yeah, how is that not an argument for it? i don't understand. it's just a website full of chatter, it's not the american declaration of independence. how do the signatures matter?
i think it's an excellent way of getting round your and MNHQ's objection that it leaves gopping great holes in threads.
I guess until this week it was still the 1990s and hardly anyone had the internet. Am very firmly in 2009 today.
bearing in mind that the future, wrt an archive, is now.
Because threads and threads of posts that say "By Anon..." will be incoherent
No they won't. I see loads and loads of boards where no one uses any posting name at all. If you want to reply specifically to someone you could say "to Anon Wed 25th May 22:15" - no real problem there.
But then the conversation fo the thread will make no sense. e.g. any post that starts "But Aitch:..." - no one will have a clue who is addressing who
TBH most people's replies start with the username anyway: Doing a search for any name will also bring up all the replies to that name as well as posts BY them
But if you want advice you don't need to know who gave it. What's wrong with By Anon?
agree that "post by anon" is crazy...either delete after certain time or keep them as they are.
But it might not be advice given, it might be the OP
It would make NO sense at all
mornignpaper, I can name at least four mnetters to whom that very thing has happened. Two of them left, one had all previous posts deleted and the other two still post. And for all those known about, I would imagine there are a lot more 'smaller' instances when we don't.
Anonymising usernames stops people linking disparate pieces of information together and working out who a person is. Not foolproof, but it does offer some protection of privacy. Its the act of beign able to search on username that most compromises privacy imo - and I believe that if it is possible to prevent that, then it should be done.
four out of 1000's ...not worth worrying about imo.
Changing the names to anon in the archives stops people doing a whole search on your nickname. That is why people are suggesting it, although i think elliot explained it better than I
Or else delete the whole archive and start again under the new terms.
Are you acting as MN spokesperson, MP?
There are not only 4 people concerned about it though daftpunk, you are only 1 person afterall, as am I, as is elliot, but collectively if people are concerned en masse, surely those concerns should be listened to?
I really don't think the new MN terms and conditions ARE similar to those of Netmums. The Netmums terms and conditions show a commitment to people's privacy, and more importantly to children's privacy.
even if i thought i reco someone on here as a mum at my school, or a neighbour ...whatever, i wouldn't do anything..i wouldn't go searching all her posts, or out her...because i'm not mad...and tbh, i'm not that interested in anyone elses life.
<pushes daftpunk down the archive steps and slams trapdoor closed>
You can't just go varying the terms of a contract when it suits you. Imagine if your builder started ad libbing, and then afterwards tells you he rewrote the contract to have the loo where the Aga was supposed to go?
Mumsnet's behaviour becomes ever more bizarre to my mind.
No I'm not MN spokesperson on the matter, I have no idea what Justine or anyone else thinks about it
But I think the deal has always been pretty clear: in exchange for the fast, bustling forums of Mumsnet, we are donating content to a massive database of parenting opinion that will probably out-live any of us. That's the nature of this kind of internet chat!
If you know how to find them, there are posts on the internet written by me in 1996 when I was an anti-gay fundamentalist preacher-girl. In THOSE days we used our real names and gave away ALL SORTS of information about ourselves.
You post on the internet - you need to understand that it is likely to be available for a LONG time, whether you are posting comments on a blog, or posts on Freecycle, or remarks on a news item, or something on a Facebook group. You have very little control how any of that information is used.
i can live with the anonymising system not being perfect, i think.
if the only things that come up on a search for my name are a bunch of posts where people are disagreeing with me by name, it would be curiously representative of my time on MN.
point is, i'd be largely unidentifiable with a number that changed every thread instead of a name.
anyway, this is all so much hooey. we should be able to ask for deletions or do them ourselves and we can't. it's ridiculous.
Morningpaper - Yes, it's a contract. An exchange of something of value for something of value. That's fair enough. But contraacts must be made on certain terms and variation of contracts will only be accepted under certain, very limited, circumstances.
Justine: "we were, privately, a little surprised that they'd not consulted us"
Come on! Everyone knows they're a bunch of venom-spewing toerags! 'Fair play' is not a word in the DM Guide To The Use of English. I am so proud to be an acquaintance of someone who sued those blood-sucking ghouls...and won!
Though in fairness, you did say you were only 'a little' surprised'...
fio, i have said from the start...you are posting on the internet, you have to be careful how much info you give away...there are measures you can take to protect yourselves...name change regularly, be vague about personal details etc...i have always done that..which is why
you'd never know i was a journo for the guardian would you..?
daftpunk, you are making the simple mistake of thinking everyone is like you. Everyone is not like you, nor would they behave like you. Just because you would not search, does not mean someone else would not
well if more people were like me the world would be a much nicer place....have you ever thought that fio.?
yes, daftpunk, we hear you. can you stop telling us the same thing over and over please?
we're talking about the archive. damage already done, so to speak.
mp i've always thought that the contract was MN makes money through ads because we're on here posting. the fact that they might be more interested in exploiting my posts long-term (especially as i've ticked no thanks) is a new concern for me.
MP "But I think the deal has always been pretty clear: in exchange for the fast, bustling forums of Mumsnet, we are donating content to a massive database of parenting opinion that will probably out-live any of us. That's the nature of this kind of internet chat!"
I wouldn't have a problem with this, it is donating to a masive database of future daily mail columns I have a problem with. I always knew my posts would be searchable for those seeking parenting advice, I did not realise the the usage of the posts would change this much.
no, I don't lend my mind to idle thoughts
aitch...i've told you what to do about that,..delete everything after 90 days...what more is there to say?
plus, that would keep all the "green people" happy, how much energy does it take to keep all those posts stored..can't be good for the environment...or is MNHQ run on wind turbines ?
plenty, dp, because there's not a cat in hell's chance MNHQ'll agree to that.
DP, there is probably a lot more to say in so far as thre is now way HQ will delete the archive is there?
Great minds Aitch
I think you'd struggle to make a T&C that says 'we can change this any time we want without telling you' stand up in any legal context.
Great post at 15:36 daftpunk! you have clearly highlighted the need for an emoticon that means "I have just choked on my coffee and spat it over my keyboard".
I think she fancies me
So when is the next 'this week on mumsnet' due to be published then?
Like my new name? <<twirls>>
I heard something terrible about Paul Dacre's so-called 'family values', from a basically very reliable source. I don't want to get MN into trouble, though. So I shall email MN towers and post it if they think it's okay.
It's not salacious, it's an 'OMG how could he treat her that way, the swine?' sort of story.
I'll be back.
<<waves to Smasher - hiyaaaa!!>>
MN would defo struggle to make their unilateral variations in ts and cs stand up in court, but we'd also struggle to demonstrate loss (other than wanting an apology). The only answer for us if the new ts and cs are not acceptable is, stop posting - or at least stop posting stuff we aren't happy for the DM to print about us (or anyone else MN decides can take their content).
It looks like it will be every Wednesday beanieb. She might use extracts from here
Messagedeleted, the problem with that is that stopping posting only takes care of the future, it does not take care of the things that are already here and that we will leave behind.
lol...as if anyone would care....correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't it labour MPs who were milking their expenses....did any of them think...hang on a minute, i wont claim £1000 a month on a 2nd home i don't even have......i'll give that money to poor immigrants....
I know that (as I said, I would like the archive anonymised - and in any case I don't know that the archive is the great resource for posters that MN think it is - a new poster wouldn't search the archives as they probably wouldn't know they were there), but what I'm saying is that unfortunately if we ask MN to delete or anonymise our past posts because we're not happy about them being plundered by anyone who cares to, and they say, "no fuck off" or even say terribly sweetly "sorry but no" there is absolutely nothing you can do about it - I don't think you could demonstrate that you have sustained any kind of financial loss.
Daftpunk - I think you'll find the DM launched a campaign demanding that all the expenses allowances should be redirected to poor immigrants. Their anthem is 'We Are The World', in fact I think you'll find Paul Dacre wrote and performed on it.
Can I ask, is this not exactly the same thing though here?
This is linked to on this sites 'in the press' section.
Sorry if someone has asked this before.
It is. I didn't know about that. I don't post here to make copy for lazy journalists. Actually that might be my next name change.
there is this one aswell
Actually I missed the difference. The Independant and The Times peices have no named journalist.
Well indeed, you don't need a named journalist if you're going to be that lazy. I don't understand why LH put her name to it. But that's by the by.
Will someone please start a googlegroup where we can go offline (and not be archived) to discuss our legal positions?
did they.? must have missed that...well there you go, the daily mail cares more about immigrants than alot of labour MPs.
do you think PD was taking the piss..?
it was a one-off, fio. the first dm article didn't cause a hoo-hah either, it was when it became clear that it was a regular thing.
careful, swedes, that's how those moldies got started....
No, I'm taking the piss, actually. But I bet you that if Paul Dacre got himself genetically tested he'd find all sorts of dirty foreigners lurking in his veins...mwa hahahaharrrr!
<<wonders if it's possible to sedate him and illegally take cheek swab to prove self right?>>
(had to truncate to fit in 30 characters)
They're a bit less personal, aren't they? I mean, no-one objected to the DM column on 06/08, about the fake tan (I think). It wasn't till it became clear that it wasn't a one-off, and they were going to use more sensitive subjects, that it all kicked off here.
Don't think the Indie should've outed 'Hamilton' lady though as that is v distinctive.
Like the way the fleece-over-the-pyjamas one descends into a complete kicking for the OP though. Good reflection of the nest-of-vipers ethos
Fio - isn't the primarly difference that the DM is a pile of sweaty, steaming shit, whereas The Indie is not?
oh I am not commenting on that. I might get sued for libel or something
I'm finding it hard to get my head round why it would be unreasonable to mention Leah's MN name, given she's outed MNers in the Daily Mail - including sensitive information that could easily identify a poster to RL acquaintances.
Not that I am about to reveal her MN name. She's always struck me as a jolly good egg. BUT I can't quite see the logic of it being horrid to out her but fine for her to out MNers.
at Fio.
agree on all counts edam
yep, edam. i can see that she's not used their real names in the piece, so it's not like for like, but i don't think anyone's talking about outing her current posting name, just her old one. i don't really get it either.
She has not outed MNers real names. Thus their real names are not linked to their posting name.
If you care to search the archives I'm sure you'll find her - that is fair game - but to post X is LH is not on.
why the fuck should her old posting name be fair game? Go and search it out if you don't know but want to.
i have no idea what her new posting name is but do know her 'longstanding MNer' one. I have no intention of outinng thoumy main feeling on the whole thing is confusion as to how it all could hve happened like this
oh..you were taking the piss.....well it's a good job i never do that....we'd never get anywhere would we.
seriously fullofimmigrants, the DM is honest and up frount about what it believes in, those beliefs might not be to everyones taste (you don't have to buy the paper) but you know pretty much where you stand with a DM reader.
I can't get my head round how you don't see that it's wrong to actually state that LH was <<insert name>>
Are you prepared to out your real name so we all know who you are?
Edam - She hasn't really outed Mumsnetters has she?
Why don't you say something defamatory about me and I'll sue Mumsnet but spare you and we can test whether Mumsnet's new terms and conditions are incorporated into your contract even though you have been here for donkey's and you certainly didn't sign up to these new amended terms.
Go on, call me a tosser.
DP - I never said it wasn't honest about its values, and I've certainly never bought it! I just happen to think it's an objectionable piece of shite and that the world would be a better place without it.
i'm not goinig to do it, because the message is loud and clear that we've not to, so it would be a childish rebellion imo.
mnhq has to respond to this request by agreeing to delete, yes. but i think if LH is concerned about people knowing her old posting name while potentially exposing some woman who got the sack last week for being pregnant, surely to god that is giving her pause for thought.
i don't want my rl name known, i'm concerned i may have given away sufficient detail fo people to put two and two together, but i have no right or function to have those posts removed as it stands. this is annoying.
seems to me the LH situation has only pointed up a pre-existing problem with the archive. like you say, soupy, search the archive and you'll find her. how is that right?
I assumed the indie ones were written by MNHQ
Why are we doing the new name old name RL name debate again? [confused]
it was edam, miss, she started it. [clipe]
Swedes, you are an unmitigated tossser.
OK, I get the linking Leah's name to her MN one. And I did say I'm not about to reveal her MN name, new or old. But still think there's a point about her putting sensitive posts in the Mail that could easily identify the MNers in question to RL acquaintances - that column where she got the OP's name wrong made me wince.
Thing is, I liked Leah and thought she was a good egg...
Lol - I will start clipping ears soon
I see they have taken down the thread from their forum about this situation.
Interesting, was it getting a bit heated???
i'm sure everyone did, edam. she does seem like a good sort. dunno why she's not been on, i'm sure she could sort a lot of it out quite easily.
I've just looked at some of the DM journo's MN posts and she was/is an asset to Mumsnet (helping people out all over the place). It wasn't a malicious article or anything. And perhaps the confusing poster's names was intentional, to spoil the identification trail? I have no gripe with her personally. At all.
But I have really hit a brick wall with Mumsnet and have decided to de-reg due to the contract terms which I absolutely did not sign up to.
Well, that's like saying we understood that we'd assigned copyright to MNHQ and we thought they were good eggs.
Very true.
they ARE good eggs.
swedes - which contract terms?
Getting the OP name wrong was appalling, especially given the circumstances.
I think she probably is still a good egg. I doubt she realised what the reaction would be to this TBH. She clearly falls into the "it was posted on a public forum" camp and didn't see any problem with repeating something that was already "out there".
Somebody's going to start talking about omelettes soon.
Her old MN name has been quoted in a number of posts in the last week. I have only come back from hols yesterday and saw it in many of the posts. I dont really get the whole thing. We are all posting on the internet and we post our problems with the risk that someone we know may read them or someone we know could tell someone else we know. I know I have posted when upset and wouldnt like it to appear on a national news paper but I know that the minute I post something on a public forum I am running a risk of being identified. Mn is not a community of RL friends. The writer was a fantastic MN poster who gave a lot of advice to lots of people. If I had to pick a MN whose posts I enjoyed reading over the years she would be in my top 5. She appeared compassionate and I can recall some other MN's who had cause to meet her in RL describe her as such. I dont know if she still posts but I have often wished that she still did post
posters' names.
Edam, It might end up like Corrie Ken Barlow where the jury found him to be in fact boring. I am a tosser.
They ARE good eggs, but they've allowed our stuff to be published by people who are NOT good eggs.
Message deleted by Mumsnet.
DMisfullofimmigrants - having worked on four national newspapers including the Mail I have to say that they have, by far, the most ethnically diverse staff and far more in senior roles than on just about any other paper.
Another interesting piece of trivia - the DM saved the indpendent from going under last year.
Oh, that's lovely Beanie. Really lovely.
Be good if MNHQ could come on here and soothe this all a bit.
T&c's are always loaded towards the writer, schools' t&cs for example look like they hold all the cards and don't care for anyone but in reality the experience is usually a good one.
how weird, that Daily Mail female thread about mums being identified on the internet seems to have disappeared.... The forum or thread you have requested is no longer available. We apologise for any inconvenience.
sorry - wasn't I meant to mention it, I have done before and no one confirmed it. I will request that it be deleted
Yeah Beanie, I mentioned that on the last page.
I don't reckon it was getting heated though.
I think the poster went against the terms and conditions of live chat - i.e suck up to us or we'll have you banned.
Beanie, why? All things aside HQ have made to position quite clear, carrying on doing it anyway just makes you seem petulant and it is clear that you are more intelligent than that.
oh phew. Other people have mentioned it? I don't feel so bad now. I thought it had been mentioned but was worried for a second there from the eactions that I had committed some kind of sin!
have reported it anyway as I don't want to cause upset.
that's her old name though - right?
What's so bad about the DM???
I didn't get this reaction last time I mentioned the name so I didn't realise it was taboo
I am possibly therefore not as intelligent as people seem to think I am. However please don't mistake my lack of intelligence for petulance as that was not my intention.
Sorry beanie, x posted with you - I wasn't trying to stick the boot in - just a slow typist!
And x posted again, seriously, I thought it had been clear that it was not wanted sorry if it was just a simple mistake. I withdraw my comment and appologise
I won't deny I would very much like to know what her more recent name is - and I have searched in an attempt to find out - mostly because of what Justine said about her being well respected. I just want to know if I respected her. Having said that I know it's a bit car-crash of me to want to know and I wouldn't post it publicaly even if I did manage to work out who it is.
Lots of people keep posting stuff like 'well I know who she is and I always thought she was lovely' which is just annoying me to be honest.
I think really I should just ignore all of this now, what does it really matter to me personally? It's not my 'fight' really is it.
I am somewhat at some of the hearsay on here!!!!!
FWIW, it's perfectly simple to delete folks posts if need be. The database that is MN is SOOOO huge the continuity issue is irrelevant nowadays.
I don't see on what reasonable or legal grounds that a site can refuse to delete posts - despite what they say.
What hearsay VVQ?
Do you think that would be enough to get them to delete things people wanted deleting though?
canuteoid you are OBSESSED with this !!!
marking place back aft supper
The hearsay about willy-nilly deletions on mouldies, and the implication that it was due to bitchy comments made simply because it was known that it could be undone! I really am quite
WRT to deletions - I fail to see how MN can refuse to delete posts, or replace usernames when:
a) it's so bloody easy and quick to do. One button.
b) the place is so huge it would bear little difference to the whole, but make a huge difference to the individual
c) they claim not to know where they stand on copyright etc, and claim to have copied T & C's from another website!!! If they don't understand the rules - and its their business and their responsibility to know - how can they expect anyone else to?
d) they have changed those t&c's without advising people.
They haven't a leg to stand on imo. Either that, or they are trying very hard to play dumb.
Lol BA, not really, it is just the only place I can post at the moment, I feel the need to keep my MN hours up
I guess am going to have to face facts eventually though.
on "moldies" you can only delte for about 10 mins anyway - so its mainly for typos
and poeple ( rather anoyingly imo) say " altered to correct spelling of gonad" or whatever
VVVQ, I know nothing about mouldies or mouldiegate so I tend to just skim past those bits.
Interesting what you say about deletions, because they do refuse to delete, in fact thecurrent stance (and the stance I have met in the past) is simply to ignore requests to delete.... I am heartened by your thoughts though, I have beenvstuck wondering if deletion is too much to ask, if it will take many man hours etc.
Ooh, I picked up mouldies from somewhere, sorry about that - I am usually quite careful of that one!
So those of us who have concerns with this should request all past posts be deleted, and do what if they refuse? Because I don't think there is anything we can do.
Mass database deletions take seconds. Really. I know this - my DH manages servers and databases.
It's not labour intensive AT ALL. I suspect that the reason MNHQ ask folks to pinpoint specific posts rather than doing a blanket deletion is more to do with deterrent than anything else. I honestly can't see what their problem is with accommodating a few who feel they have divulged much to much in previous years - pre-SWMNBN etc.
I asked for my posts to be deleted and told it would be too difficult for them and take too long.
not wanting to wind you up veev but actually someone did just that to me, posted a nasty thing and then deleted it.
wrt that kind of behaviour i'd say well, if i hadn't seen it i wouldn't have known so who cares? and i did see it so i called her on it. no biggie.
Lucky you, I asked them to delete posts they had already said they would delete but never got round to and was ignored - again.
The thing is, I don't really understand why it would take long, all namechanges show up under one account (so threads you post on under a different name show on your threads I am on) so that bit can't be hard, isn't it just a case of calling up the posts and hitting delete?
Maybe I am oversimplifying?
From what little I know of databases, and from what VVV says (who seems to know quite a bit) it would be very easy for them to do indeed. I repeat my question, for those of us who are unhappy, we know they are going to refuse, what can we do?
I think I am going to see what if anything MN have to say for themselves in the next few days and then I'll almost certainly be following Swedes in deregging, and just be glad I've been pretty guarded on the whole about very personal stuff.
I don't remember aitch, but I don't think I could hold my hand up and say that I've never said something in the heat of the moment and then realised I shouldn't have posted. In fact, I think it demonstrates that the person was wrong to have said it, tbh. That's by the by though really.
It certainly not something that has happened a lot - clearly Else I'd remember. I certainly don't see the relevance of dragging mouldies into this - it's a bit smoke and mirrors really and commenting on how it works as a comparison of how not to do something when the person in question purportedly was only a member for a day is pretty astounding. Like I said, hearsay.
Message withdrawn
It is really that simple. You call up the username, select the delete function, confirm you want to do it - et voila. DH doesn't like to do it much - once gone - gone forever unless you are really good at the forensic stuff. (which, before anyone worries - is something that can be done on the server, not the www).
It is possible to hide things from google search too.
But, I can see perfectly clearly why mnhq wouldnt want to do that - it's how they drum up business, innit
Ooh, arentyoubored yet, can I out you?
And yet, you Just Can't Drag Yourself Away... [rubbernecker]
have to say that I am not too happy about possibly having my posts or dear friends on here posts copied and flung out for all to read in the dm.
what i REALLY dont understand is if this LH is such a good respected MN - why on earth did she do this?
surely she must have known it would upset and piss off a lot of people
my posts are normally trying to help or funny ones (pets) but for someone to have their posts dragged up from MC, SN, relatioships etc etc will be very hurtful
Message withdrawn