Quality of Moderation on MacRumors Forums

[I7guy]

It is not a case of about no rules or enforcement but a case about manipulating the rules and enforcement to force the situation that the owner of the forum wants to have total control over the narrative of what topics get discussed and how they are discussed.

I categorically disagree this forum engaged in censorship vs moderation.

For example and a very good one is the news reports that MR put out about the UK's online safety bill and Europe's stance on sideloading. Both topics are mired heavily with alleged political bias and influence but that avenue of discussion cannot be explored because it fall's under the no politics allowed.

That’s not censorship, it’s moderation. And it’s within the sites’ rights to dictate the topics (and whether or not political posts are allowed) that gets discussed in particular forums.

The UK's online safety bill is mired heavily with social issues as the root cause for it's introduction but again that avenue of discussion cannot be explored because again it would breach the rules on no social issue discussion allowed.

I’m sure there are other places on the internet that would welcome this type of discussion.

 

[Apple fanboy]

I categorically disagree this forum engaged in censorship vs moderation.

That’s not censorship, it’s moderation. And it’s within the sites’ rights to dictate the topics (and whether or not political posts are allowed) that gets discussed in particular forums.

I’m sure there are other places on the internet that would welcome this type of discussion.

Exactly. Want to talk politics? Plenty of places to do just that. You won’t find me at any of them.

 

[rm5]

I've been a member of the forum since 2008, and I can honestly say that PRSI (tone and content, both) changed considerably - and for the worse - during my time on the forum.

It wasn't as venomous, and nor was it quite as toxic and trollish in those earlier years, - you tended to have more by way of debate, - sometimes, very interesting debates - and less by way of targeted insult designed and intended to cause offence.

In fact, there was a time when it was actually possible to have a genuine debate with individuals who held different opinions - informed by different perspectives - to one's own.

In my opinion, the reason why political forums (and any other politically-driven social media platforms & accounts) never work is because:

1. They have poor moderation
2. There isn't enough control over it

From what I can tell, MacRumors suffered from the latter - a lack of control. Was there a way to increase control? I have no idea, because I don't know about the inner-workings of the forum. Again, I think it was bagged for good reason.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

In my opinion, the reason why political forums (and any other politically-driven social media platforms & accounts) never work is because:

1. They have poor moderation
2. There isn't enough control over it

From what I can tell, MacRumors suffered from the latter - a lack of control. Was there a way to increase control? I have no idea, because I don't know about the inner-workings of the forum. Again, I think it was bagged for good reason.

Actually, there is much more to it than that.

For one thing, the lines between tech and 'socio-political matters' (one can merely mention - citing as examples - stuff such as the development of AI, Apple's tax policies, Apple's labour policies, the changing - and increasingly powerful - role of some social media platforms, as examples of where tech and what one might loosely describe as subjects which fall under the heading of a wider socio-political discussion) have become increasingly blurred, and I am not sure that it is entirely possible to examine - or look at - the influence of one (tech) without acknowledging that it seeps into our lives - public and private - in ways that would have been unimaginable two decades ago.

Personally, I think that a platform dedicated to discussion of technology should be able to include discussion of such material and such matters.

Secondly, from around 2016, the tone (even more than the content) of online political debate deteriorated dramatically and drastically - while, simultaneously, the political sphere itself became increasingly polarised (a tendency, that, while it had been taking place for some time, became more pronounced) - to the extent that conducting some sort of civilised discourse and reasonable discussion presented an ever greater challenge, as insult increasingly replaced debate.

However, I do think that if one is to play host to any sort of online political discussion, that robust (and strict) moderation, is, unfortunately, necessary, which is rather demanding of available resources, especially if the resources in question (namely, the staff), are volunteers.

 

[Madhatter32]

In my opinion, the reason why political forums (and any other politically-driven social media platforms & accounts) never work is because:

1. They have poor moderation
2. There isn't enough control over it

From what I can tell, MacRumors suffered from the latter - a lack of control. Was there a way to increase control? I have no idea, because I don't know about the inner-workings of the forum. Again, I think it was bagged for good reason.

Yes ... control. But the point is that moderation of PRSI topics is practically uncontrollable on an open forum like this one. First, it would require an exercise of authority which many in this community could not tolerate ... just look at the moaning about moderation about iPhones. Second, it would require that the moderators be trained to identify on every form of racist trope, nuanced conspiracy theory and veiled false narrative amounting to nothing than couched prejudice. That's a lot to expect from the moderators (even the good ones) and without it the forum just becomes a slippery slope into buffoonery ... which it clearly became. Tall order even for a guy like Kareem Abdul Jabbar.

 

[Apple fanboy]

I think when it comes to PRSI the world (at least online) is so polarised that it makes discussing it very unpleasant on a largely anonymous forum like this.
Sadly people are a lot less open minded or tolerant online these days than they used to be.

 

[icanhazmac]

PSRI was littered with racist, anti-Semitic, misogynistic and other forms of hate speech couched as political discourse. Conspiracy theories, false narratives and other forms of political propaganda also polluted that forum.

According to whom? Obviously I cannot speak for every single PRSI post but anytime I saw instances of the above they were moderated. What I did see, on a regular basis, were complaints from members claiming posts were "-ist" in nature and needed to be moderated. If the moderation team didn't agree with them they would then throw virtue signalling hissy fits labeling both the poster, mods and site as being "-ist" which thankfully ended up with the complainer receiving a vacation or ban.

Second, it would require that the moderators be trained to identify on every form of racist trope, nuanced conspiracy theory and veiled false narrative amounting to nothing than couched prejudice.

Sorry but this sounds like another request for "I want the forum moderated to my specific standards and any deviation from my standards is the result of an "-ist" or "-ism that needs to be wiped from the face of the Earth". No thanks.

The problem with censorship, based on the current popular narrative, is that the current popular narrative can and will change. Just about the time you eliminate content from those that have a different opinion from yours you will find that the censors are now coming for you and by that time it is too late.

The way to combat bad ideas is with better ideas. In the end you can only hope that by challenging what you perceive to be bad ideas with better or different ideas you might convince someone to re-evaluate their position(s).

 

[bousozoku]

From my limited knowledge (because I wasn't a member back then), it was a Politics, Religion, and Social Issues subforum. Problem was, apparently, things got very out of hand and it was too hard to moderate effectively, so they had to permanently close it.

I remember somewhere around 2008, when the banks were in disarray and tensions were high, I went into a thread where everyone seemed to be yelling expletives at each other and I wrote in CAPS something like "KNOCK IT OFF!".

That worked for a few minutes. Then, Arn reminded me that wasn't the correct way to handle things. 😁

 

[bousozoku]

I think when it comes to PRSI the world (at least online) is so polarised that it makes discussing it very unpleasant on a largely anonymous forum like this.
Sadly people are a lot less open minded or tolerant online these days than they used to be.

The intolerant are certainly more vocal because of the tolerant.

 

[Madhatter32]

According to whom?

Me I was there. You can believe me. It's the truth.

Sorry but this sounds like another request for "I want the forum moderated to my specific standards and any deviation from my standards is the result of an "-ist" or "-ism that needs to be wiped from the face of the Earth". No thanks.

The problem with censorship, based on the current popular narrative, is that the current popular narrative can and will change. Just about the time you eliminate content from those that have a different opinion from yours you will find that the censors are now coming for you and by that time it is too late.

The way to combat bad ideas is with better ideas. In the end you can only hope that by challenging what you perceive to be bad ideas with better or different ideas you might convince someone to re-evaluate their position(s).

I think I agree with you on your general position but this is not about censorship my friend. My house, my rules -- this is not a town square. I am not advocating for more moderation (or censorship as you put it). I am merely supporting the decision to get rid of a toxic nasty forum that was not amenable to any form of moderation.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I think when it comes to PRSI the world (at least online) is so polarised that it makes discussing it very unpleasant on a largely anonymous forum like this.

There is some truth in this.

Sadly people are a lot less open minded or tolerant online these days than they used to be.

Actually, no, I beg to differ on this.

What I think has happened is not that people are a lot less open minded, or a lot less tolerant, but that the anonymity of the online world, (plus, on some platforms, increasingly lax moderating standards), in addition to the increased polarisation (and coarsening) of both the tone and content of much public debate, has meant - taken together - that some people feel uninhibited about expressing themselves in crude and boorish and offensive terms, (in fact, may take a delirious delight in so doing), or feel enabled and emboldened to express views that they might have kept to themselves in face to face encounters, or feel protected by the anonymity afforded by online platforms.

The pity of it is, that in some debates and discussions, that insult has replaced (and has come to be seen as a legitimate response) actual discussion and debate, and that deriding a different position is viewed as preferable to debating it.

 

[VisceralRealist]

While I wasn't here for the "PRSI" sub-forum, isn't that essentially what "Political News" is? It doesn't allow people to start their own political threads, but the discussions can get quite nasty and it seems as if there is always a lot of moderation going on in the threads (deleted posts, suspended users, etc.). I guess the site staff has decided the amount of moderation in that sub-forum is worth their time and effort as long as people get to share their opinions on Elon Musk... 😒

 

[bousozoku]

According to whom? Obviously I cannot speak for every single PRSI post but anytime I saw instances of the above they were moderated. What I did see, on a regular basis, were complaints from members claiming posts were "-ist" in nature and needed to be moderated. If the moderation team didn't agree with them they would then throw virtue signalling hissy fits labeling both the poster, mods and site as being "-ist" which thankfully ended up with the complainer receiving a vacation or ban.



Sorry but this sounds like another request for "I want the forum moderated to my specific standards and any deviation from my standards is the result of an "-ist" or "-ism that needs to be wiped from the face of the Earth". No thanks.

The problem with censorship, based on the current popular narrative, is that the current popular narrative can and will change. Just about the time you eliminate content from those that have a different opinion from yours you will find that the censors are now coming for you and by that time it is too late.

The way to combat bad ideas is with better ideas. In the end you can only hope that by challenging what you perceive to be bad ideas with better or different ideas you might convince someone to re-evaluate their position(s).

What censorship? Did you agree to the Terms and Conditions when you became a member of these forums?

 

[rm5]

While I wasn't here for the "PRSI" sub-forum, isn't that essentially what "Political News" is? It doesn't allow people to start their own political threads, but the discussions can get quite nasty and it seems as if there is always a lot of moderation going on in the threads (deleted posts, suspended users, etc.). I guess the site staff has decided the amount of moderation in that sub-forum is worth their time and effort as long as people get to share their opinions on Elon Musk... 😒

I honestly don't know for sure. From what I've observed, the "Political News" section only deals with articles that MacRumors staff write. So it can't be used to start a discussion about something that the editors don't discuss in an article. For instance, a recent Political News article is titled "UK Revives Antitrust Probe Into Apple's Browser and Cloud Gaming Restrictions" and "California AirTag Lawsuit Widened to Include Dozens More Stalking Cases." So it's a lot "tighter" than I imagine PRSI was. You couldn't start a thread or discuss in the "Political News" section anything related to "non-tech-related politics," if you know what I mean.

Although like I said I wasn't a member when PRSI was a thing, so can't confirm on that.

 

[icanhazmac]

I think I agree with you on your general position but this is not about censorship my friend. My house, my rules -- this is not a town square. I am not advocating for more moderation (or censorship as you put it). I am merely supporting the decision to get rid of a toxic nasty forum that was not amenable to any form of moderation.

Apologies if I misinterpreted your post. All in all I am also happy PRSI is gone. I disagree a bit though, I think the majority of folks participating in the PRSI forums appreciated the work that went into moderating it and were open to the moderation that happened. There were absolutely a few people that just wanted the "wild west" with no moderation and a few that wanted very strict moderation that targeted "-isms" that didn't exist.

What censorship? Did you agree to the Terms and Conditions when you became a member of these forums?

Sure did, I am all for MR enforcing the rules of their forums. I am usually the one posting exactly what you did. As stated above I may have misinterpreted the post I was responding to so disregard.

 

[bousozoku]

Apologies if I misinterpreted your post. All in all I am also happy PRSI is gone. I disagree a bit though, I think the majority of folks participating in the PRSI forums appreciated the work that went into moderating it and were open to the moderation that happened. There were absolutely a few people that just wanted the "wild west" with no moderation and a few that wanted very strict moderation that targeted "-isms" that didn't exist.



Sure did, I am all for MR enforcing the rules of their forums. I am usually the one posting exactly what you did. As stated above I may have misinterpreted the post I was responding to so disregard.

Oh, okay.

 

[roland.g]

Actually, there is much more to it than that.

For one thing, the lines between tech and 'socio-political matters' (one can merely mention - citing as examples - stuff such as the development of AI, Apple's tax policies, Apple's labour policies, the changing - and increasingly powerful - role of some social media platforms, as examples of where tech and what one might loosely describe as subjects which fall under the heading of a wider socio-political discussion) have become increasingly blurred, and I am not sure that it is entirely possible to examine - or look at - the influence of one (tech) without acknowledging that it seeps into our lives - public and private - in ways that would have been unimaginable two decades ago.

Personally, I think that a platform dedicated to discussion of technology should be able to include discussion of such material and such matters.

Secondly, from around 2016, the tone (even more than the content) of online political debate deteriorated dramatically and drastically - while, simultaneously, the political sphere itself became increasingly polarised (a tendency, that, while it had been taking place for some time, became more pronounced) - to the extent that conducting some sort of civilised discourse and reasonable discussion presented an ever greater challenge, as insult increasingly replaced debate.

However, I do think that if one is to play host to any sort of online political discussion, that robust (and strict) moderation, is, unfortunately, necessary, which is rather demanding of available resources, especially if the resources in question (namely, the staff), are volunteers.

Extremely well written post. Especially the idea of insult replacing debate. We are a spew, not listen society now. More spew than speak. Because as you said, insult, and I think a lot of what comes out of people is uniformed and that doesn't lead to discourse. As to the censorship and or moderation on this site. It exists. It is biased. And unfortunately that is undisputable. Moderators are people, not machines, and as much as they might say they are objective, I've seen evidence to the contrary on occasion, as well as I have enough sense to know that is to realistic or possible all of the time. Sorry. I've made mistakes. Some of them warranted in the punishment. Some punished while others clearly got away with far greater offenses. But that was another time, and not worth going down that rabbit hole. I stay away from that. But now my posts get additional scrutiny. Forever. It is what it is. MR is not an open forum. It is moderated, and the rules are applied as seen fit. If someone doesn't like it, the only recourse is to leave. Will these comments get me moderated for making statements in a quality of moderation thread in the site feedback section of the forums where we should be able to discuss this? If so, use that as your censorship meter.

Me I was there. You can believe me. It's the truth.

I think I agree with you on your general position but this is not about censorship my friend. My house, my rules -- this is not a town square. I am not advocating for more moderation (or censorship as you put it). I am merely supporting the decision to get rid of a toxic nasty forum that was not amenable to any form of moderation.

I had an interesting discussion on several occasions with a friend of mine pre-Twitter/X acquisition by the below named car / rocket guy. He said that Twitter had every right to enforce any sort of censorship that they wanted as a private company without and sort of oversight or attempt to enforce the moderation equally to both sides. It was not an open forum, but a private entity that could set the rules and silence whatever voices they deemed. While I disagreed that they this was fair to those using the platform and his suggestion was those silenced find other platforms, I didn't disagree that it was a private company, publicly traded, but free to set their own rules and standards.

MR unfortunately is much the same. Their site. Their house so to speak. Their rules. I for one was around and have been here a long time, and seen this site be a great place, unfortunately I don't believe it is anymore. I was also around for PRSI and it was a cesspool. Especially from a certain point until it's demise. The sad thing is that I went on the site yesterday or the day before and counted the front page articles. 40% of them had the disclaimer of Political in nature. Seems like you can't separate tech, at least Apple Tech from social issues.

While I wasn't here for the "PRSI" sub-forum, isn't that essentially what "Political News" is? It doesn't allow people to start their own political threads, but the discussions can get quite nasty and it seems as if there is always a lot of moderation going on in the threads (deleted posts, suspended users, etc.). I guess the site staff has decided the amount of moderation in that sub-forum is worth their time and effort as long as people get to share their opinions on Elon Musk... 😒

I think maybe you should have had the foresight to start a forum 10+ years ago called muskiverse.com or something. You could have sections dedicated to Tesla, the entire world of EV, rockets of course, and when it happened the Twitter/X Verse, as well as him as a person. Would have generated a lot of traffic. And been insane to moderate.

 

[splifingate]

I for one was around and have been here a long time, and seen this site be a great place, unfortunately I don't believe it is anymore

Ah, roland; that's a cryin' shame ;(

I remember--as a child--when my P's would take me to DQ (the Original, back when we were in-no-way concerned about the creme-content in the soft-mix (let-alone the debate about vanilla/vanillin)) . . .

My favorite was the simple-white, dipped in chocolate.

In those days, it was more about a challenge to consume satisfaction, than a let-down if the slurry flowed onto my wrist.

I hope you someday find that your chocolate is crusty, and your wrists satisfyingly sticky

 

[Madhatter32]

Ah, roland; that's a cryin' shame ;(

I remember--as a child--when my P's would take me to DQ (the Original, back when we were in-no-way concerned about the creme-content in the soft-mix (let-alone the debate about vanilla/vanillin)) . . .

My favorite was the simple-white, dipped in chocolate.

In those days, it was more about a challenge to consume satisfaction, than a let-down if the slurry flowed onto my wrist.

I hope you someday find that your chocolate is crusty, and your wrists satisfyingly sticky

Who doesn't like ice cream? I mean, seriously. As far as I can tell, and to quote the Talking Heads, it's "same as it ever was" -- which is good. "Letting the days go by, same as it ever was." As for MR, I agree with roland.g about the spew, not listen, society. It's especially irritating when the spew comes from ignoramuses -- which are evidently in the majority these days -- at least on social media.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Who doesn't like ice cream?

Me.

I don't like ice cream.

Seriously.

Even when I was a child, it made my teeth ache (and always did) and gives me migraines, hence, I don't eat it, and I have never liked it.

I mean, seriously.

Yes, seriously.

As for MR, I agree with roland.g about the spew, not listen, society. It's especially irritating when the spew comes from ignoramuses -- which are evidently in the majority these days -- at least on social media.

There is too much truth in that, unfortunately.

 

[Madhatter32]

I don't.

Seriously.

Even when I was a child, it made my teeth ache (and always did) and gives me migraines, hence, I don't eat it, and I have never liked it.

I guess that means there will more for the rest of us ... not that I condone eating it -- for health reasons. It's a treat, shall we say, and should only be consumed only in moderation. You are better off without it actually. But if we put it to a vote, I think you would be in the minority -- but that is only my conjecture and I am not a migraine sufferer so I cannot be sure.

Incidentally -- if this post gets moderated for being off topic I will consider starting a new thread about moderator bias against ice cream.

 

[Weaselboy]

Did somebody say ice cream? 😍

 

[Clix Pix]

"I scream, you scream, we all scream for ICE CREAM!!!!!"

 

[splifingate]

Who doesn't like ice cream? I mean, seriously. As far as I can tell, and to quote the Talking Heads, it's "same as it ever was" -- which is good. "Letting the days go by, same as it ever was."

It was a metaphor, Mh32

It seems that Scepticalscribe is the only outlier, here, on that matter (I feel for you, Sister!)

As for MR, I agree with roland.g about the spew, not listen, society. It's especially irritating when the spew comes from ignoramuses -- which are evidently in the majority these days -- at least on social media.

When one store in the neighborhood closes, daily management gets tough for those remaining! (another metaphor, if you will)

Such things are always an organic dynamic between influx and efflux . . .

I've had some recent exposure to the Moderation Team, and it has been . . . educational. Upstanding, succinct and quite correct in all application.

My Inner 3yo, of course, wanted to immediately swish all his peas&carrots off his high-chair, and across the kitchen floor . . . but I have learned something of grace, and patience, in my time <smile>

Try not to let the turkeys get you down, Mh32

 

[Clix Pix]

Actually, I like ice cream but since I have lactose intolerance I do tend to be rather careful about how much in the way of dairy products I consume in a given day. Ice cream is a real treat when I do enjoy it (in moderation, of course). I also love gelato, sherbet, flavored ices, etc., too -- especially during hot weather!