Another GNer feels they have to leave

GN sent the tweet Elegran - they are the originators and only 2 people retweeted it.

Not just anyone who looks at the pages - GNHQ is ensuring that it is spread far and wide.

Yes, we need a reminder on the lines of "Be aware that this is a public social networking site, and everything on the forum can be accessed by anyone who looks at the pages. Only post what you would be happy for your family, friends, neighbours and passing strangers to see."

Earlier in this thread, someone suggested that there should be a reminder about how public GN is, just above the "Add your message here" box, (and obviously it would be a good idea to have it at the point of starting a new topic too).

A previous thread had a title asking for the public nature of GN to be made more obvious.
www.gransnet.com/forums/chat/a1239569-GNHQ-please-make-it-clear-that-these-forums-are-public

There has been no comment about this, whatsoever, from GNHQ.

I have been busy all day and just came back here. Leticia That is what I meant - who had sent the tweets, and if they had been retweeted could you trace their origins? You said you had seen them on Twitter but not from whom.

Not being a twitterer I don't have the terminology at my fingertips, but I do know that tweets can be retweeted by other people, which does muddy the water. I have now had a look at the Twitter help, and apparently it IS possible to hop back in steps for a certain distance.

So those you saw were sent by Gransnet. When was the link first tweeted to the thread on which you eventually saw your post? Before or after the uproar about GN and Twitter?

If it was after then you should be contacting GN and complaining, because they said they were not going to list usernames again. If it was before, then can tweets be deleted or edited? Because if they can it should have been done (and again you should be contacting GN direct) If they can't be deleted or edited, then the damage was already done and could not have been undone - people would continue to be directed to the page and seen later comments - as seems to have happened.

As it is, a lot of flak is being fired at GN for what may be a new crime, or may be the long life of the e Twitter episode and the DM one - which are two different things..

Sorry - I think they have over 18500 followers .

I often read without logging in- I can't find anything to get involved in. I was shocked to find that when I did come back it was to this thread, which is very similar to last time I got involved but nothing had happened for change.
Last time it was about FB and I was told off for mentioning Twitter.
It all happens because it a lot of people don't understand SM as in Elegran asking whose account GN threads are seen on- with no idea at it is the GN account!
GN have over 8500 followers on Twitter and any one of those people that can retweet - potentially being read by hundreds of thousands.
Lots of people read GN without ever posting themselves.
People need to be aware that this site is very, very public.

Given all the negative feedback on the recent site changes (which were ignored) , the comments that GN is not what it was, the many 'grumpy old woman' threads complaining about young folk and the loss of many respected, longstanding posters it's not surprising that the popularity of GN is waning.
There are fewer interesting threads, more and more of the mundane and when a thread does get 'lively' ( eg politics ) it soon becomes yet another left v right barney.
It 's becoming clearer that the interests of posters/ members is not a priority and l believe we're witnessing the demise of GN.

Time will tell if it is a new policy or just that particular thread.

They could miss out anyone whose post might identify them, but I certainly wouldn't rely on GN to do that.

I think GNHQ have listened to me! (Unless a one off)
I have just looked on Twitter and their link to how to treat daughters- in-law has 'gransnetters say' with remarks and no individual names. That seems quite acceptable to me. Obviously more work for them as have to edit and not just link. It also means that if editing they can miss out anyone who could be identified by their post.

It is made quite clear on joining that GN is a public forum. Some members are happy to post photos and personal details but that is their choice. You can also choose to be completely anonymous if you want to.

I have often seen pages from Mumsnet in DM online so I wasn't surprised to see the GN pages there. It's a public forum not a private club.

Of course you are right and fb isn’t foolproof at all but it is not likely to have my conversations appear on Twitter or in a daily paper
This situation seems to get worse every time I read something on this thread and now feel I will have to post less and less on what has become a real companion to me i love reading and adding to debates and conversations on here but don’t want to be in the DM
What a shame

Actually I got it wrong- my opinion is on Twitter- the link keeps up to date so that anyone posting on that thread is appearing on Twitter too.

They are on Gransnet's account Elegran. They decide which threads to copy onto Twitter. I can only think that they want more publicity and more people to then join GN and get more money from advertisers.
There is nothing wrong with that, except that you need to know that if you give an opinion or advice on something you are quite likely to be sharing way beyond GN.
I commented on the thread about eating things before you get to the supermarket checkout - that is on Twitter. It misses me out because it linked before I commented.It doesn't bother me, but it would had I put personal information on there.

I wouldn't be fooled into thinking that FB is safe. I can simply copy and paste a GN thread onto my FB page and make it public. ( not that I would ).
You have to assume that anything you write on social media can end up being seen by everyone and anyone.
They are all prone to bugs. I have my FB set so that no one can see my list of friends because that protects them should my account be hacked.

That is what you are failing to understand Elegran - that GNHQ just lift whole threads and put them on Twitter and you can read then, just like being on GN. You can't see a profile but then anyone can can then log on to GN and see your profile and photos. In view of that I think that everyone ought to be be very careful- there is no way I would put a profile on GN .

Bluebelle please don't think that a closed FB group is inviolate. FB is a platform designed for sharing and is prone to bugs. There have been instances when details of private posts became public on personal preview pages. Your protection in a closed group also relies on other group members not sharing your comments outwith the group, This means that you still do not have complete control over who views your posts. Details of a closed group - including membership - are open for all to view. It'.s not too difficult to "infiltrate" a closed group using this available information.

Whose account were these things to be seen on? Is there an audit trail to trace them back through retweets?

I am not on Twitter, Leticia. I was a few years ago but I couldn't be bothered using it - one more thing to keep up to date. It seems I don't need to use it, my opinions get there anyway!

On GN you have no control over who sees your posts- or where they end up.

I read your opinion of DM journalists on Twitter Elegran and not GN.

I don’t know anything about twitter but there is a big difference between GN and Fb because on fb I can choose who sees my posts, here I can’t

Exactly, Katek - I don't think that some people realise that GN is social media and can be read by anyone- even those who wouldn't normally see it when linked to Twitter.

I don't think you can have been on Twitter, Elegran, or you would know that you can read most threads on there- just lifted from here. I have seen your opinions on things on Twitter.