This is an interesting take: Facebook has peaked, Insta has limited potential for growth. Meta needs something new. By @Kantrowitz bigtechnology.substack.com/p/for-facebook…
Good morning, what happy news is there to share this mor…
@james__glen @corinne_podger And we need to know more fast.
@james__glen @corinne_podger Yes, as she’s been saying from the start, there needs to be money invested in general research into post-viral conditions, including Long Covid, that have been shamefully neglected in the funding terms in the past. We don’t know enough and we need to know more.
@corinne_podger “Interesting starting point for investigation — not terribly informative scientifically because of lack of rigour”.
@corinne_podger Showed this to immunologist wife: she points out that (a) it’s self-reported, so it would be more accurate to say thinks they have long COVID. (b) What we’re calling “long Covid” is actually a bundle of symptoms and conditions, some of which will be mis-attributed.
@PaulOckenden @Cyberwest Ha! That would explain it.
Well, this is a surprise to discover. I have literally never interacted with the man. t.co/zxaQ5oSnq… 
@iTibz Yeah, I loved it.
@alya_zayed @callummarius @myldn @smurraymorris might know…
@masa_kepic That is… quite something. t.co/Dzl3PD8pa…
I really should have just written a blog post about this, shouldn’t I?
I understand that might not be the Mumsnet culture — and they’ve built an huge and vibrant community with a light touch. But there are always issues that are incredibly hard to manage and which need stricter moderation.
(All this brings back memories of trying to handle the New Atheists versus Evangelicals wars in the comments sections of the late, lamented @newscientist blogs. They seem like more innocent times now…)
The single issue questioners were off-topic, so you had perfect grounds to delete. Point 5 in the guidelines — “5. If one topic or question threatens to overwhelm the webchat, MNHQ will usually ask for people to stop repeating the same question or point.” — is too weak.
Don’t ask: tell. You’re the hosts, you make the rules. It needs to be “we will delete further questions on that topic, and repeat offenders will be suspended”.
All that does is make anyone else looking at that thread go “well, I’m not touching that with a bargepole”, and back off from asking questions. And that’s when the brigade win. And your original topic of discussion is dead in the water.
In short, if you don’t want people on the internet to accuse you hyperbolically of being a home of radicalisation, perhaps make a wee bit of early effort to stop people essentially hijacking a discussion?
(It should be noted that @Stellacreasy and @carolinenokes both did an excellent job of ignoring the repeated questions, addressing the point briefly, and moving on to reward other questioners with answers)
If you’re holding a quasi-live online event, and you allow a small cohort of politically-motivated single issue campaigners to dominate the discourse, you’ve failed at basic moderation.
And it’s not like Mumsnet doesn’t have form here — it’s always been very light-touch.
On the other hand, it’s not like they don’t know that trans rights is a hot button issue for many. They’ve had specific policy on it for years: mumsnet.com/i/trans-rights….
As soon as it was clear that the thread was being brigaded by GC activists, moderation should have stepped up. Sure, leave one or two of the “how do you define a woman” questions up, if that’s what your free speech policy suggests. But dozens of them?
That was a poor call.
I’ve finally got around to poking at the Mumsnet business that seems to have been slipping in and out of the trending topics for the last day or so. And, well, it looks mostly like a massive failure of community management.
Short 🧵👇🏻
@iroughol I assume it’ll pass eventually, then, once they realise you’re not a good bet.
@iroughol I get three or four link builders a week. I have literally never said yes, but they keep on coming.