To think that GN should not share threads with Twitter & Facebook

I also belong to another forum and whilst threads are shared on the Facebook page I have never seen any threads shared which are of a personal nature. Also in order to read the forums you have to be a member, whilst I agree it would not stop journalists from joining and lifting threads, as far as I am aware that hasn't happened.

Just seen that the thread where someone asks whether they should buy their d.i.l a Christmas present has been printed in DM. Did GNHQ give permission for this, will they be asking DM to delete it?

Bumblebee 123 said :
What made you use my post about Christmas films? I DO NOT belong to either Twitter or Facebook

Gransnet Facebook page asks "What is your favourite Christmas film?" and links straight to your thread on here, Brian.

So you may not belong to Facebook, but Facebook is providing an entry to your thread.
Isn't that lovely?

FarNorth, I am a bit dim about this but does this mean that FB have access to the replies to a thread as well?
I bet you can imagine what my next thread is going to be.
Brian.

I dont understand - perhaps I am dim? I am a fb member so searched for gransnet as suggested and saw one or two quotations from threads on here but with no names and all the comments were new ones from fb members. Am I missing something?
Perhaps I have to link to GN as Lara says, but if that's just like reading it on here, surely? What's the problem? Anyone can access GN anyway and people would only see it on fb if they searched for it. Is that right?

Oldwoman70 what's DM?

You're right pollyp, I don't understand what the fuss is about either.
I think the DM is a certain newspaper.

bumblebee123, as soon as a facebook user clicks on a gransnet link about a thread, they come straight to the thread and can see all its replies as well as the rest of the site, if they want to.

pollyp, if you click on a facebook entry from GN, you will instantly be on this site and reading the whole thread.

The objection is to posts, especially posts on very sensitive or personal matters, being shared with a much wider audience than some GNers expected.

I once belonged to a forum, can't remember which one, which didn't allow threads asking for advice on personal problems. Probably because they had nothing to do with the purpose of the forum.
It would be a shame, though, if we couldn't have such threads on here.
I've just seen that on Mumsnet they have a link to the Gransnet thread about presents for a DiL.

pollyperkins Sorry the DM is Daily Mail

No, Oldwoman, you don't have to be a member here to read the forums, only to post in them. Anyone who stumbles on this site can read them.

But that's why I don't see what all the fuss is about. So some of the threads are linked on fb and twitter. That just brings more people in here. People are what keep the site going. Sometimes, I think, we get to feel like this is some sort of private club, but it's not.

I don't see what changing the usernames would do either. Unless you've used your real name, usernames are anonymous. What would changing from one anonymous username to another do? But Gransnet has offered to do that for us if we want, which is very magnanimous of them.

Changing from one anonymous username to another could prevent someone who suspects they know you, because they recognise some details in your post, from being able to search and find all your past posts which might give further identifying details (small details, maybe, but all adding up).

It is not magnanimous of GN.

Being able to change username is standard on Mumsnet, which is run by the same company as GN.
Many Mumsnetters mention in posts that they have name-changed for privacy.

I'd be interested in the reactions on MN if there was a survey about removing their ability to change usernames.

MN would go wild if that facility were taken away from them don’t you think?

I don't think "magnanimous" is the right word to describe what the majority of us have indicated in a survey that is what we want - to be able to change our usernames.

I also disagree that it doesn't make much difference changing from one anonymous username to another, by sticking to one username, forum members become familiar due to style, disclosure of details, and so on. Which - as has been pointed out - has advantages as well as disadvantages.

I agree Star Lady. I repeat, to see the GN thread on fb you have to search for it. You also search or for GN to read on line (unless you are a member.) Anyone can. What's the difference?

Printing in the DM is another matter entirely, but anything in the public domain is fair game for journalists I suppose.

Just so long as you use a pseudonym no-one you know would recognise, and are careful not to write about too much personal /family stuff . But that applies equally to GN!

Maybe an idiot-level enquiry here - but wouldn't it be possible to have GN as a private forum? Then if a "newspaper" infiltrates and publishes material they have no right to, they can be held to account? This seems fairer than asking members who are enjoying the virtual company and support of people they would probably never have the chance to meet in real life to constantly be aware of eavesdroppers and gossips. Why should the innocent have to modify their behaviour?

I've asked about the possibility of having just one forum as a closed, private one, but there are no plans to do that.

Just a point here - nobody uses their real name on gransnet so even if the thread was lifted on to Twitter or FB then surely nobody reading those threads will have any idea who you are. Will they?

There have been some cases. Its not difficult to build up a picture of someone, just by their general conversations.
And if they're discussing family issues, that too, might be recognised by family, friends, or enemies on Facebook or Twitter.

Oh, enemies sounds a bit stupid now! I meant, I suppose, anyone who you don't want knowing your business.

Parsleywin, Gransnet describes itself as a media/news company.
It makes money by advertising so the more people see this site, the better, and Facebook is a way of attracting them in.

mrsmopp, it happened quite recently that a poster's relatives recognised their family situation, after the thread was put on Facebook by GNHQ.
They might have recognised it anyway, if they had looked at the Gransnet site, but they didn't do that and yet it was brought to their attention anyway.

Changing your name would only make sense, imo, if you weren't going to talk about the details of your situation under both names. Iows, if you were using one name to discuss your personal issues and the other just to comment on general questions or make general comments to other GNers' problems. Even then, however, people might be able to recognize a certain style or whatever.

But surely, GNers should have the ability to change their name if MNers do and they're "run by the same company," as FN says. I don't see any harm in it.