MumsNet Accused of Using AI to Generate Posts

Click bait MN doesnt need to generate more activity threads are very fast moving

I don't read MN but won't that just mske members both there and on GN more suspicious and reluctant to invest their time?

I sometimes wonder about a few OP posts on here, though on the whole I trust everyone to be a genuine person.

I guess what I'm saying is, don't insult our intelligence with a load of fabrications.

There was some nasty publicity about the site ( MN) some time ago so I haven’t been there since. I don’t trust the site and I don’t feel comfortable with some of the comments or people making them. I know it is the same owners but I consider GN much more civilised.

Of course there are bots on SM.

On MN there is a ‘benefit bashing’ thread every few days, and others about immigration and how selfish pensioners and ‘boomers’ are for not living in hovels and eating gruel when families need our houses and pensions.

All are legitimate topics of conversation, but they are constant, with the same propaganda pushed all the time, so the same stock phrases are taken as truth and used by real posters.

It’s clear why people are conned, as it looks as though the posters are real, so it feeds the ‘common sense’ and ‘everybody knows’ narratives. Similarly there are numerous posts from people claiming to earn six-figure salaries when young, but still have time to post about their cleaners/holidays/extensions when working. It makes others feel inferior, and discontented, so more vulnerable to resentment.

MN has more integrity in its little finger than the guardian has in its entire publication, bless them though.

I love the fact we’re more civilised Nanna8

You really can read when something is AI generated though

nanna8

There was some nasty publicity about the site ( MN) some time ago so I haven’t been there since. I don’t trust the site and I don’t feel comfortable with some of the comments or people making them. I know it is the same owners but I consider GN much more civilised.

I do look at MN and it can be very combative and they don't hold back on bad language at least GN is mostly polite and swearing isn't tolerated.

I’ve thought it for some time. I’m not surprised, though, times have changed.

Galaxy

MN has more integrity in its little finger than the guardian has in its entire publication, bless them though.

Is there a link between MN and the Guardian?

Well the guardian dislikes MN and a large percentage of MN dislike the guardian.

Galaxy

Well the guardian dislikes MN and a large percentage of MN dislike the guardian.

Oh. I had no idea. I'm still not sure of why the integrity of one should be contrasted with that of the other though - it seems a bit random.

I don't rate the Guardian these days, but all the same, I'm not sure what you're getting at. For one thing, both the G and MN are not single entities, but are a collection of contributors (although the G has an editor in control, of course), so their respective integrities are not based on anything you can name.

I agree that Justine Roberts showed integrity about women's rights versus trans rights, and that the G lost the plot altogether where that was concerned, but that's one aspect amongst the many things they both cover.

It was the guardian who did the reporting on this, I think their views of MN may come from a particular ideological perspective.

I still like MN - TBH I usually find it rather more interesting than GN - and I’m 77 so it’s not an age thing.

Galaxy

It was the guardian who did the reporting on this, I think their views of MN may come from a particular ideological perspective.

Ah, that makes the link clearer, and makes more sense. I did read the OP, too

David49

Click bait MN doesnt need to generate more activity threads are very fast moving

MN, and GN, make their money from selling space to commercial advertisers.

Advertisers care very much how many views their advert gets; they pay a higher rate according to the number of viewers/ size of audience. Exactly the same as commercial |TV and radio.

There is therefore commercial incentive for site hosts to create higher audiences/ more posts/ more "footfall".

GN posters have often commented on how many threads start with some pointless question which can never trigger any meaningful discussion ; ( Do you have a middle name ?" ) but produces scores of one line yes/ no response posts . The OP makes no further contribution.

Perhaps such threads are nothing more than spacefillers.

This is possibly why we don't have a 'like' button. Too many people lurk rather than contribute to the board as it is, so if there were a 'like' button the number of posts would dwindle further, and the advertising revenue would fall.

I wasnt just randomly raging at the Guardian although that too is possible

I don’t think they would have worked that out,though. I think they just can’t be bothered. Fair enough, it’s their site,they fund it. Besides, we are old nannas with anger issues who might turn on each other. ( JOKE)

Answer was to Doods

Who knows, nanna. We 'get what we're given', as we were told as children, and need to 'learn to be grateful for what we get'

I did wonder, Galaxy