Have you been censored on MacRumors?

[annk]

Originally Posted by annk

Members can see if a post was edited (we always leave a reason in the edit space under the post), and those who are participating in a thread will notice if a post suddenly disappears (they only disappear if they broke a rule). And of course, they can see if someone is banned! That's as visible as reminders and warnings are going to get.

Another admin pointed out to me that there's another case where a post might be removed, where the post isn't a problem and the member hasn't broken a rule. It's when the post is quoting a post that was deleted due to moderation. It's a matter of clean-up, since a response to a deleted post would just be weird in context.

Sometimes members send a contact to ask why their post was deleted, and we let them know that the problem wasn't their post. Though in most cases, they probably realise what happened when they read back and see that the post they responded to is gone.

[Scepticalscribe]

Originally Posted by annk

Another admin pointed out to me that there's another case where a post might be removed, where the post isn't a problem and the member hasn't broken a rule. It's when the post is quoting a post that was deleted due to moderation. It's a matter of clean-up, since a response to a deleted post would just be weird in context.

Sometimes members send a contact to ask why their post was deleted, and we let them know that the problem wasn't their post. Though in most cases, they probably realise what happened when they read back and see that the post they responded to is gone.

Yes, that has happened to me.

I have also had posts edited because topics (such as political views) made an appearance during an attempt to fill the empty ether during a WW game.

On reflection, none of these were unmerited, and I felt that I had no cause for complaint.

Actually, I've been following this thread with interest, looking in on it daily, (and have made a point of reading it from the beginning) to see what has been discussed and how it is being dealt with.

Firstly, I'm very happy to see that such matters can openly be discussed on these fora, and, in the course of this thread, the MR public, and, even more so, the mods have made some points worth pondering.

While I can see that attempting to define - and track - trolling can be rather difficult, I also think that few people have difficulty with understanding when they have been personally insulted, or addressed offensively, or treated with contempt, (rather than someone merely taking issue - sometimes strongly - with an opinion they have posted).

Has the possibility of nuanced versions of time-outs been considered? Such as imposing a version of time-out which might be termed a troll-out, as distinct from a time-out, and which might appear as such when imposed?

Moreover, while I know full well that passions run high during election campaigns, or the actual election itself, I must say that I was stunned at the number of posters whom I would view as holding opinions which might mark them as being of a more liberal persuasion who appeared to have earned themselves time-outs on - or immediately after - the night of the presidential election in the US. Indeed, in their absence, I subsequently felt honour bound to wade into the various......discussions......on abortion, a topic I had studiously avoided on these fora for years given its potential for explosive and divisive and vicious debate.

I told myself that, of course, there was no political bias in the imposition of time-outs, and that those of a more liberal persuasion may well have become involved en masse in some political brawl that I missed entirely because of work and time differences. However, it did seem to me that many liberals were hors de combat for periods which ranged from a few hours to a few days, whereas those whom they (indeed, we, if I am completely honest) occasionally engage in full, frank, robust and meaningful exchanges of opinions remained in possession of the virtual battlefield. Perhaps it is just a matter of perception......

Nevertheless, I do think that a slightly more forceful tone might be taken by mods towards those who post gratuitously nasty, and offensive posts, and seek to insult the individual rather than addressing the argument (yes, trolling, in other words; unfortunately, I don't have an example to hand; it's the old cliché, we know them when we see them.....)

[balamw]

Originally Posted by Scepticalscribe

While I can see that attempting to define - and track - trolling can be rather difficult, I also think that few people have difficulty with understanding when they have been personally insulted, or addressed offensively, or treated with contempt, (rather than someone merely taking issue - sometimes strongly - with an opinion they have posted).

You might be surprised.

We get tons of "personal insult" reports that end up not being acted upon after discussion by several mods as we just don't see the insult.

Perhaps some of it comes from the thick mod skin we get along with the larger avatars? We may just be less sensitive than other users in that respect. In those cases we generally seek the opinions of others on the staff before ultimately not taking action.

We tend to delve deeper into them if the apparent target of the insults is the reporter, but the result is the same. If we don't see it, we don't act. These are the posts where it would really be helpful if the reporter might come ask why no action was taken, using the contact form.

Any left/right bias is perceived as there are mods all over the political spectrum. Some of us participate in PRSI occasionally, others don't. We generally don't moderate threads we participate in. Most infractions in PRSI come from deviating from the Rules for Appropriate Debate, i.e. how the post was presented, and not what the opinion is. I personally have no problem in moderating a post whose position I fundamentally agree with, but which is presented in such a way that it violate the rules.

B

[vanzantapple]

I'm not sure but I don't think the admins have deleted any of my posts. I did get my wrist slapped for getting uppity once or twice. No big deal.

Still a great forum.

[SandboxGeneral]

Originally Posted by MacNut

The issue IMO is that one side might feel that they were wrongfully moderated while the other guy didn't get any punishment at all. How do you balance that line of showing fair moderation to all sides without looking biased.

It's a trust thing. There really isn't a way to know if "the other guy" was handled appropriately or not as it isn't the business of the one inquiring.

It's a matter of trust, either people trust the staff of MacRumors (Arn's appointee's) to do the right thing or they don't. If they don't then I don't see how that can be fixed.

[theSeb]

Originally Posted by dejo

Discussing moderation in general terms is allowed, as said before. But discussing specific cases of moderation is not allowed, unless the member has given explicit permission for us to discuss it in public, including their entire moderation history, which is needed to provide context. Does that make sense?

It does, but it does not. When I've tried to discuss the reasons for what I thought was an unfair moderation at the time, I was sent this:

Please use the contact form if you have a question about moderation. The rules ask that you not bring up moderation in a thread.

You'll find the contact link at the bottom of every forum page.

And my post was deleted. I was not asked if I wanted to waive my right to policy nor given an opportunity to discuss the moderation. In the end Ann and the other moderators sorted out the enquiry after some time.

To be clear though, considering what this website is about, I think the moderation rules are fairly relaxed and I don't have a problem with them, for the most part. I've received 1 warning and two reminders, since I've joined. Frankly I don't really understand why I received them, but is it something that I lose sleep over? No.

The biggest thing that really confuses me is when I see posts saying, "This guy is trolling," and those posts are fine. When I posted "Ignore the troll" I was sent a note to say that this is name-calling. I don't see the difference between the two posts, whichever way I look at it, and I consider my English comprehension to be pretty good.

[annk]

Originally Posted by theSeb

It does, but it does not. When I've tried to discuss the reasons for what I thought was an unfair moderation at the time, I was sent this:



And my post was deleted. I was not asked if I wanted to waive my right to policy nor given an opportunity to discuss the moderation. In the end Ann and the other moderators sorted out the enquiry after some time.

Since the rules already state that the only exception to the privacy rule is if you explicitly waive your right to privacy, posts where that waiver isn't stated are usually deleted.

If we see someone posting about specific moderation in a thread, we'll almost always delete the post and send a reminder (or whatever is appropriate in context of the member's moderation history) to let the member know why the post was deleted.

Sometimes, depending on the context, we might take the trouble to ask in the thread if the member is waiving his/her right to privacy. We only do that if we really feel it can serve a purpose, because:

• We honestly believe members are best served by having their privacy protected, and
• Because unless the member states clearly that they're waiving their rights, the post is technically a rules violation.

Example: a typical reason we might take the trouble to ask if the right to privacy is being waived, is when we feel the response we can give would be instructive enough to all members in the thread that it's worth it.

So, tl;dr: It's the responsibility of the member to remember to state that s/he's waiving the right to privacy. If not, the post may be deleted.

To be clear though, considering what this website is about, I think the moderation rules are fairly relaxed and I don't have a problem with them, for the most part. I've received 1 warning and two reminders, since I've joined. Frankly I don't really understand why I received them, but is it something that I lose sleep over? No.

I'm glad you feel the rules are generally relaxed enough, but I'd encourage you to ask about the reminders and warning via the contact form. I'm sure we can explain it.

The biggest thing that really confuses me is when I see posts saying, "This guy is trolling," and those posts are fine. When I posted "Ignore the troll" I was sent a note to say that this is name-calling. I don't see the difference between the two posts, whichever way I look at it, and I consider my English comprehension to be pretty good.

It's a difficult distinction, and I think it's one that there will never be agreement on.

What we've tried to do is to differentiate between attacking a member, and "attacking" the content of a post. The first is against the rules. The second is something we want to allow. This particular example you bring up is a bit of a grey zone, but as of now we treat "Troll!" or "Ignore him, he's a troll" as name-calling, and "I wonder if you're just trolling" etc. as a comment on the content of a post.

It can be discussed, and how these things are experienced by members is something we're very interested in. So if you feel "You're a troll" should be treated the same as "Are you trolling?" etc, go ahead and say so. We take that kind of feedback seriously when we discuss these issues.

[balamw]

Originally Posted by annk

So if you feel "You're a troll" should be treated the same as "Are you trolling?" etc, go ahead and say so. We take that kind of feedback seriously when we discuss these issues.

Take some other (fictitious) examples:

"You're an idiot!"
"What an idiot!"
"What an idiotic post!"
"Only an idiot would make such a post!"

"<user> is a joke!"
"Surely, you must be joking!"
"What a joke!"

Where do they lie with respect to the rules?

B

[Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by theSeb

The biggest thing that really confuses me is when I see posts saying, "This guy is trolling," and those posts are fine. When I posted "Ignore the troll" I was sent a note to say that this is name-calling. I don't see the difference between the two posts, whichever way I look at it, and I consider my English comprehension to be pretty good.

Originally Posted by annk

What we've tried to do is to differentiate between attacking a member, and "attacking" the content of a post. The first is against the rules. The second is something we want to allow. This particular example you bring up is a bit of a grey zone, but as of now we treat "Troll!" or "Ignore him, he's a troll" as name-calling, and "I wonder if you're just trolling" etc. as a comment on the content of a post.

I have already waived my right to privacy on this issue, and I expressly continue to do so. It was, after all, posted in a PUBLIC forum for all to see.

theSeb, you should be careful with the whole "trolling" thing in your posts. The line is even blurrier than you might think, and is definitely much blurrier than annk has described it in the post I copied above.

There was a thread where a user (I don't even remember who it was) was trolling hard, and arguing with several other users. I posted a picture of a (obviously fake and photoshopped) product called "Troll-b-gon," suggesting that the thread needed some. The post was deleted and I received a warning for it, saying I was "name-calling." I did not address any user, I did not direct my statement toward any user, I did not call anybody out by user name, I didn't even reply to or copy another user's post - but apparently, this action of mine was equated to directly calling someone a name, and not addressing the quality of posts.

I still have the PM I received and would be happy to share it, if anybody is interested in the details (although I haven't left any out).

The purpose of this post is to illustrate the fine line between expressly calling someone a name, and addressing the content of a user's posts; or, more specifically, that there isn't always a line between the two.

[theSeb]

Originally Posted by annk

Since the rules already state that the only exception to the privacy rule is if you explicitly waive your right to privacy, posts where that waiver isn't stated are usually deleted.

If we see someone posting about specific moderation in a thread, we'll almost always delete the post and send a reminder (or whatever is appropriate in context of the member's moderation history) to let the member know why the post was deleted.

Sometimes, depending on the context, we might take the trouble to ask in the thread if the member is waiving his/her right to privacy. We only do that if we really feel it can serve a purpose, because:

• We honestly believe members are best served by having their privacy protected, and
• Because unless the member states clearly that they're waiving their rights, the post is technically a rules violation.

Example: a typical reason we might take the trouble to ask if the right to privacy is being waived, is when we feel the response we can give would be instructive enough to all members in the thread that it's worth it.

So, tl;dr: It's the responsibility of the member to remember to state that s/he's waiving the right to privacy. If not, the post may be deleted.

Thank you for engaging in this discussion so openly and freely. I appreciate it and I now understand the distinction.

I'm glad you feel the rules are generally relaxed enough, but I'd encourage you to ask about the reminders and warning via the contact form. I'm sure we can explain it.

It’s normally such a minor thing that I don’t feel bothered enough about it. I only question when I feel that the actions have been unjust, in my eyes.

It's a difficult distinction, and I think it's one that there will never be agreement on.

What we've tried to do is to differentiate between attacking a member, and "attacking" the content of a post. The first is against the rules. The second is something we want to allow. This particular example you bring up is a bit of a grey zone, but as of now we treat "Troll!" or "Ignore him, he's a troll" as name-calling, and "I wonder if you're just trolling" etc. as a comment on the content of a post.

It can be discussed, and how these things are experienced by members is something we're very interested in. So if you feel "You're a troll" should be treated the same as "Are you trolling?" etc, go ahead and say so. We take that kind of feedback seriously when we discuss these issues.

There are no easy answers to this one and balamw’s post demonstrates it superbly. When I posted, “Ignore the troll,” I was actually trying to calm to the thread down and steer it back towards the topic. I certainly wasn’t trying to insult the person that was “trolling” in the thread. To me being called a troll is not actually an insult, because it’s simply a classification of a person based on their acts. It’s like saying ignore the man. If you have A,B and C, then you’re a man so if I call you a man, then I am not insulting you. If someone calls someone else a troll, it’s based on the fact that the person is exhibiting certain behaviours/traits that are associated with the concept of “internet trolling”. To me troll and idiot are at different levels, but I could play devil’s advocate and argue the other way too.

As for the specific examples:

"You're an idiot!" – yes, that’s an insult
"What an idiot!" – yes, that’s an insult
"What an idiotic post!" – no, I don’t think that’s an insult
"Only an idiot would make such a post!" – yes, that’s an insult

"<user> is a joke!" - insult
"Surely, you must be joking!" – not an insult
"What a joke!" – not an insult

I am sure others will have different views and this brings us back around full circle. People will interpret things differently and some people have thicker skins than others. It’s nearly impossible to have a practical implementation of a moderation policy that is unambiguous and not open to misinterpretation.

----------

Originally Posted by Tomorrow

I have already waived my right to privacy on this issue, and I expressly continue to do so. It was, after all, posted in a PUBLIC forum for all to see.

theSeb, you should be careful with the whole "trolling" thing in your posts. The line is even blurrier than you might think, and is definitely much blurrier than annk has described it in the post I copied above.

There was a thread where a user (I don't even remember who it was) was trolling hard, and arguing with several other users. I posted a picture of a (obviously fake and photoshopped) product called "Troll-b-gon," suggesting that the thread needed some. The post was deleted and I received a warning for it, saying I was "name-calling." I did not address any user, I did not direct my statement toward any user, I did not call anybody out by user name, I didn't even reply to or copy another user's post - but apparently, this action of mine was equated to directly calling someone a name, and not addressing the quality of posts.

I still have the PM I received and would be happy to share it, if anybody is interested in the details (although I haven't left any out).

The purpose of this post is to illustrate the fine line between expressly calling someone a name, and addressing the content of a user's posts; or, more specifically, that there isn't always a line between the two.

In my time on MR I've only been moderated/warned 4 times and one of those was for the "troll" comment. Arguing is something I don't normally engage in.... because I am usually right

I've had posts deleted without explanation, but they were usually full of my weird-pseudo-intellectual-combined-with-sarcasm-and-barely-anything-to-do-with-the-topic sense of humour.

[balamw]

Originally Posted by theSeb

To me being called a troll is not actually an insult, because it’s simply a classification of a person based on their acts. It’s like saying ignore the man. If you have A,B and C, then you’re a man so if I call you a man, then I am not insulting you. If someone calls someone else a troll, it’s based on the fact that the person is exhibiting certain behaviours/traits that are associated with the concept of “internet trolling”. To me troll and idiot are at different levels, but I could play devil’s advocate and argue the other way too.

This is exactly the point of the rules. You shouldn't have to classify users by their acts at all, as that tends to read as an ad hominem attack.

Certainly if I were to call someone stupid or an idiot it was because I felt that their behaviors/traits are associated with the concept of stupidity/idiocy. etc...

Per the rules, you are free to classify their posts or acts that are in evidence, but not the users themselves.

Even far more generic terms can go afoul of the name-calling rules depending on context.

e.g. if someone posts "You getting all of this, buddy?" do you think the poster is implying that the user they are responding to is displaying attributes of mutual friendship?

fanboi, fandroid, iSheep, bub, buddy, chum, bro, jets, sharks, bloods, crips, etc... we see them all and most of the time they simply add little to the conversation.

Originally Posted by theSeb

"What a joke!" – not an insult

"What a joke!" was an example of this in action. Depending on the context "joke" could be interpreted as referring to a post or the user. We need to interpret this and also see how it was taken to decide if we think it was meant as an insult (i.e. directed at a user or group of users) or not. If that's the entirety of the post, a lot is left open to interpretation.

B

[annk]

Originally Posted by Tomorrow

I have already waived my right to privacy on this issue, and I expressly continue to do so. It was, after all, posted in a PUBLIC forum for all to see.

We ask each time, explicitly. The reason for this is that we've had cases where members have declared publicly that they waive their right to privacy, only to retract the statement publicly in another situation. We can't be sure that we'll catch each public statement, so we might make the mistake of believing the member has waived the right and discuss the member's moderation history, only to discover that the member made a comment in a thread way back that s/he retracted the waiver. We don't want to make that mistake.

theSeb, you should be careful with the whole "trolling" thing in your posts. The line is even blurrier than you might think, and is definitely much blurrier than annk has described it in the post I copied above.

There was a thread where a user (I don't even remember who it was) was trolling hard, and arguing with several other users. I posted a picture of a (obviously fake and photoshopped) product called "Troll-b-gon," suggesting that the thread needed some. The post was deleted and I received a warning for it, saying I was "name-calling." I did not address any user, I did not direct my statement toward any user, I did not call anybody out by user name, I didn't even reply to or copy another user's post - but apparently, this action of mine was equated to directly calling someone a name, and not addressing the quality of posts.

I still have the PM I received and would be happy to share it, if anybody is interested in the details (although I haven't left any out).

The purpose of this post is to illustrate the fine line between expressly calling someone a name, and addressing the content of a user's posts; or, more specifically, that there isn't always a line between the two.

I was the one who did the moderation, so when you submitted a complaint the case was reviewed by another admin, who asked the moderators for their opinions. The outfall of the ensuing discussion was that the mods and the additional admin agreed with my assessment. The response you received was quite long; this is the relevant bit in this context. I've removed information that could be used to identify the other member, since that person hasn't given us a waiver:

You are correct that your post did not name a forum member nor say "you are a troll". However, our method for identifying name-calling is based on the apparent purpose of a post, how a reasonable person would interpret the post, how users did in fact interpret the post, the consensus opinion of the moderators, and common sense. Obviously, we can't read minds and we don't always have all of these types of information in front of us, but we use the information that we have available. Collectively we have years of experience dealing with countless cases like this one. We apply these same criteria in each case and we explain this in public and private whenever the question comes up.

In my opinion, your post was directed at [member name], was intended that way, and was or would be interpreted by others who saw it that way. [That member] isn't around to give us an opinion but I'm personally convinced that he would have taken it as a personal attack...

[...]

I think we can agree that it was not a direct personal insult by the exact letter of the forum rule. But by our common sense it was indeed a minor case of name-calling. Our records show that we've had no previous complaints about you making this type of post, but you did get a reminder about another forum rule last year. Altogether, that makes a polite warning an appropriate outcome, and that's what you got. I think it was appropriate that the warning came with a specific explanation that we don't want to let name-calling set a bad examples for other forum members.

If you think the evidence was "exceptionally weak" then perhaps you'll tell me that you didn't intend to break a rule, didn't think you were name-calling, and (incorrectly) assumed that we go by the exact letter of the rules without interpretation. I'd believe you, because your Contact message highlights the wording of the rule rather than addressing the intent of your post. We always deal with a level of uncertainty in interpreting forum discussions, which are even less easy to judge than face-to-face human conversations. But we know from experience that users very often try to get around the name-calling rule by posting a vague insult for whom everyone finds the target obvious, and that's how we'd apply the rule to anyone who made a similar post in a similar thread. It's worth noting that you posted elsewhere [link deleted] that you think [member name] is/was a troll.

Of course, since I did the initial moderation, I obviously thought it was clear that you were referring to member X. Since you didn't agree, you followed procedure perfectly and submitted a contact. I gave my explanation, the case was discussed by other mods and the administrator who finally made a decision and took the time to give a very precise and clear response.

I can easily accept that any member doesn't agree with moderation that's been done, and I believe you meant what you wrote in your complaint about your intentions. I've had moderation overturned, and I'm fine with that - it's important to have a transparent process, where mistakes or misinterpretations can be rectified. But I think the response you received explains very clearly why your post was judged to be name-calling, and that any similar post brought to our attention would be treated the same way.

If you thought it was a blurry line to begin with, I would think that this response cleared it up.

[Confuzzzed]

Originally Posted by cyks

starting a thread which is certain to be wastelanded and possibly worse for you.

What?!?! It's all a bit too Orwellian, don't you think dear reader?

[pknz]

Yep.

Had two quote notifications about it too that I now can't view.

No explanation given.

[annk]

Originally Posted by pknz

Yep.

Had two quote notifications about it too that I now can't view.

No explanation given.

I checked the records back to July 31, and am happy to give you exact reasons for each deleted post if you PM me or post here that you waive your right to privacy. (I won't be on MR again until the end of the day here in my part of the world, just so you know.)

[pknz]

Originally Posted by annk

I checked the records back to July 31, and am happy to give you exact reasons for each deleted post if you PM me or post here that you waive your right to privacy. (I won't be on MR again until the end of the day here in my part of the world, just so you know.)

Has there been more than one?

[Digitalclips]

I was banned for several days because tried to discuss a warning with a mod, in private I should add.

I had replied to several separate posters as separate posts rather than using a multiple reply. I got a warning that this was not allowed.

I had done this as there was very little in common between the three posts and felt this was far better for clarity than mushing them together. I asked the mod who had warned me privately why on earth it mattered given 'I wasn't exactly wasting paper!' and I was banned immediately without a reply to my question. No doubt he/she was totally within his/her rights and I was wrong.

I used to be a regular. After that I pretty much stopped using MacRumors and stayed with AppleInsider where the mods have always been really cool and never petty, to me at least.

[grapes911]

Originally Posted by Digitalclips

I was banned for several days because tried to discuss a warning with a mod, in private I should add.

Are you waiving your right to moderation privacy? If so, then we can discuss your moderation history. Otherwise we will have to remove your post.

[balamw]

Originally Posted by Digitalclips

I had replied to several separate posters as separate posts rather than using a multiple reply.

Just a quick point. We discourage consecutive posts for several reasons. Not specific to your case.

1. We don't allow bumps. Many times if a poster has several consecutive messages they are trying to bump a thread
2. Many features of the site are ties to post count. Members sometimes use consecutive posts to try and boos their post count artificially.
3. We recently added the auto merge function that helps cut down on this when the posts are close in time.

B

[Digitalclips]

Originally Posted by balamw

Just a quick point. We discourage consecutive posts for several reasons. Not specific to your case.

1. We don't allow bumps. Many times if a poster has several consecutive messages they are trying to bump a thread
2. Many features of the site are ties to post count. Members sometimes use consecutive posts to try and boos their post count artificially.
3. We recently added the auto merge function that helps cut down on this when the posts are close in time.

B

Ok np. As I say there're your rules. It wasn't that I felt a tad miffed over it was the subsequent ban for what I assume was taken as Insubordination. It reminded me of my school days

Yes, I noticed the auto merge, it works nicely.

BTW. I only added my comment here as I assumed this entire thread was intended for a clearing of the air and condoned as such by you guys. Judging by the other reply above I am suspecting this isn't the case and apologies for even posting in this thread.

[MacNut]

Rather than have people wave their right to privacy, why not just use PM and do everything privately? Do we all need to see everyones dirty laundry.

[Comeagain?]

Originally Posted by MacNut

Rather than have people wave their right to privacy, why not just use PM and do everything privately? Do we all need to see everyones dirty laundry.

Learn from their mistakes.

[WildCowboy]

Originally Posted by MacNut

Rather than have people wave their right to privacy, why not just use PM and do everything privately? Do we all need to see everyones dirty laundry.

We prefer to do it privately, but if people want to air their issues publicly then it makes the most sense for us to share the facts from our side publicly as well to help present the actual events that transpired in a given case. But we won't do so without the user's permission.

[MacNut]

Originally Posted by WildCowboy

We prefer to do it privately, but if people want to air their issues publicly then it makes the most sense for us to share the facts from our side publicly as well to help present the actual events that transpired in a given case. But we won't do so without the user's permission.

So a PM to discuss privately is still an option. People are not forced to wave a right to have it discussed in public if they don't want it.

[grapes911]

Originally Posted by MacNut

So a PM to discuss privately is still an option. People are not forced to wave a right to have it discussed in public if they don't want it.

Correct. A PM is still an option. A contact is the preferred method as it is private and the entire mod/admin team can view and address the contact.

We only require members to waive their right to privacy if they wish to discuss their moderation in public. If they don't waive it, then we don't allow them to make public comments about specific cases of moderation because then we cannot respond and only one side of the story is presented.