New conspiracy theory!! P.M.'s are being moderated now??

I Sperg said:

Did you consent to having your PM's overseen routinely?

I had a quick look at the rules:
https://community.autism.org.uk/p/rules

User agreement
By joining the Online Community, you agree that the moderation team has the authority to edit or delete content and to suspend or delete accounts that violate the rules.

It doesn't specify that the content is on the forum or private messages so it can be assumed that everything is covered by this rule.

I don't see any "right to privacy" clauses so it is therefore logical that there is none.

My interpritation of what a "private message" is in these circumstances is that is it not published publically.

I think we are assuming a lot about what private should mean here, but given the potentially vulnerable people here, there is no doubt a case that "snooping" by moderators is permissable to identify exploitation, abuse etc.

This is a free service after all and these rarely have any "rights" with them, just as with any other free platform.

Most will mine your email, search history, browser history etc and use this for advertising leads (ie they make money selling the info). I don't see this site exploiting us this way but from the safeuarding aspect I think it is entirely appropriate.

Custom and practice.

They call them "private messages".

THE VERY MOMENT I got to be admin on a forum a few years ago I immediately investigated whether I could examine peoples P.M's.just to check whether "Private" really did mean private. I was reassured to see that It did. 

The name private messages implies "privacy".

Why is this important? 

There are some views I hold legitimately, that are not hate based, but nevertheless if expressed publically can cause uproar with what appear from my perspective to be people with an axe to grind.

I don't want to upset ANYONE really, at least that's my default setting, "Do no harm" so some things I do not discuss on the public forum. Should I meet a like minded person, I perhaps DO want to talk privately about such matters, with another consenting adult, and compare notes, so I do in private secure in the knowledge that no one will get their knickers in a twist about why I voted the way I did.. Some poor moderator (who like many people here)  happens to hold very strong political views that conflict with ours reads our exchanges will end up feeling strong enmity towards me, and I will have no idea why suddenly the ban hammer keeps hitting me every five minutes. 

Private is private, public is public. IF private is monitored, then SURELY that should have been made EXPLICIT, especially on a forum made for Autists! 

I Sperg said:

The name private messages implies "privacy".

It is only your interpritation. It could also be interprited as "not public" which would put a whole different take on it.

I Sperg said:

IF private is monitored, then SURELY that should have been made EXPLICIT, especially on a forum made for Autists! 

Looking at this sites track record of keeping us informed do you really think this sort of communication is applied here?

Where the mods do respond to posts it is primarily to redirect people to the main site articles, not to engage with them in a discussion - we are an afterthought.

Wake up and smell the roses. You live in a country that lacks freedom of speech in any meaningful way and without it explicitly spelled out then it won't be applied here.

I Sperg said:

English law often pivots around the concept of what a "reasonable man" would think or do in a situation.

I would expect that is you tried to apply the law to this situation then the judge would say something like "the people on NAS are, by their nature, vulnerable individuals so they do not qualify as a reasonable person in the eyes of the law in relation to their rights".

The law tends to look on disabled individuals as less competent unfortunately and in their well meaning way the law will try to be a nany state for us to stop us from ending up in harms way, and this will be the justification for not enforcing any right to privacy here.

I Sperg said:

My beef is not that the P.M's have oversight, on this sort of site, but that it has not been made explicitly clear

I agree - it speaks volumes and I think it can mean one of two things:

1 - they lack the motivation to tell us the facts. Maybe because the truth is unpaletable and they don't want to cause upset.

2 - they don't know or care.

They have been asked on many occasions from what I have read on here and yet no response if forthcoming. Given this I'm tending towards point 1 as the most likely.

Iain said:

It is only your interpritation.

English law often pivots around the concept of what a "reasonable man" would think or do in a situation. 

If messages are touted as being "Private" and a case went to court, when the judge considers what would " a reasonable man" expect  from "Private" messaging, I believe he might find mine (and a number of other peoples expections in this regard) to be "reasonable".

I know from a stint 30 years ago at a leading software company building their servers etc. that the IT staff are excessively intrusive, being told by the guy who ran the email system that the HR lady who's perfectly proportioned body had captured my attention was shoppiing for a breast reduction surgery both ruined my day and I felt was excessively intrusive.

I've always known Govt can get into anything, some hackers too, and the IT technical staff of course, but I've also always known that private messages on forums such as the alternative one to this one, are NOT usually easily avilable to the administrators etc. 

Expanding on the concept of reasonable.IS it reasonable to expect human beings to be 100% in lock step in their thinking and actions? Is that in our basic nature? If we are not going to be expected to agree about everything, then some privacy is essential to prevent constant conflict.

My beef is not that the P.M's have oversight, on this sort of site, but that it has not been made explicitly clear, (which is creepy, at best) and my argument with your position is that it requires a person who holds a different understanding of the word "privacy" to the one generally held by most english speaking people.  

Iain said:

It is only your interpritation.

English law often pivots around the concept of what a "reasonable man" would think or do in a situation. 

If messages are touted as being "Private" and a case went to court, when the judge considers what would " a reasonable man" expect  from "Private" messaging, I believe he might find mine (and a number of other peoples expections in this regard) to be "reasonable".

I know from a stint 30 years ago at a leading software company building their servers etc. that the IT staff are excessively intrusive, being told by the guy who ran the email system that the HR lady who's perfectly proportioned body had captured my attention was shoppiing for a breast reduction surgery both ruined my day and I felt was excessively intrusive.

I've always known Govt can get into anything, some hackers too, and the IT technical staff of course, but I've also always known that private messages on forums such as the alternative one to this one, are NOT usually easily avilable to the administrators etc. 

Expanding on the concept of reasonable.IS it reasonable to expect human beings to be 100% in lock step in their thinking and actions? Is that in our basic nature? If we are not going to be expected to agree about everything, then some privacy is essential to prevent constant conflict.

My beef is not that the P.M's have oversight, on this sort of site, but that it has not been made explicitly clear, (which is creepy, at best) and my argument with your position is that it requires a person who holds a different understanding of the word "privacy" to the one generally held by most english speaking people.  

I Sperg said:

English law often pivots around the concept of what a "reasonable man" would think or do in a situation.

I would expect that is you tried to apply the law to this situation then the judge would say something like "the people on NAS are, by their nature, vulnerable individuals so they do not qualify as a reasonable person in the eyes of the law in relation to their rights".

The law tends to look on disabled individuals as less competent unfortunately and in their well meaning way the law will try to be a nany state for us to stop us from ending up in harms way, and this will be the justification for not enforcing any right to privacy here.

I Sperg said:

My beef is not that the P.M's have oversight, on this sort of site, but that it has not been made explicitly clear

I agree - it speaks volumes and I think it can mean one of two things:

1 - they lack the motivation to tell us the facts. Maybe because the truth is unpaletable and they don't want to cause upset.

2 - they don't know or care.

They have been asked on many occasions from what I have read on here and yet no response if forthcoming. Given this I'm tending towards point 1 as the most likely.