I’ve noticed a few news stories lately without comments available. Is there a reason this is happening? Isn’t that the point of coming to MacRumors to read the comments for many of us? Thanks!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Front page threads without comments
- Thread starter Mayostudent
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It is an experimental change based off the ongoing discussion in this thread: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/hoax-rule-is-not-being-enforced.2280734/
I just noticed that, on the story about Steve Jobs being selected for the national garden project that Trump sponsored. I suspect that in that case at least, they just thought for a moment about where the comments would go and said, “nope”. But I’ve also seen stories that have comment threads, but without showing the top-voted comments underneath the article on the main site. And I frequently use that handful of comments to “see which way the wind is blowing” and perhaps get a few interesting perspectives (and occasionally see one of AngerDanger’s photoshop extravaganzas), and it’s annoying when that “overview of comments” is missing.
Why are all comments removed from this article and hasn't it just been marked as 'politically sensitive' as usual?
www.macrumors.com
Steve Jobs to Be Memorialized in National Garden of American Heroes
Steve Jobs is to be memorialized in the National Garden of American Heroes, after his name appeared along with hundreds of other notable figures in...
www.macrumors.com
We have been testing turning off comments for threads that are "political".
because it degenerated into a pro-trump vs anti-trump political discussion of the worst kind very quickly.Why are all comments removed from this article and hasn't it just been marked as 'politically sensitive' as usual?
Steve Jobs to Be Memorialized in National Garden of American Heroes
Steve Jobs is to be memorialized in the National Garden of American Heroes, after his name appeared along with hundreds of other notable figures in...
and let me tell you, it's a great move.
I can see reasons both for and against such a decision, but, nevertheless, it is interesting that this has been done.
Kinda says something about the political divide when the easiest answer (open for debate but not my point) is to simply not have the conversation. As a former PRSI participant I know how pretty much every thread devolves in the same way so I totally understand this move.
^ Tony nailed it. A necessary move given the outcome generally ends the thread the same way when you have such extreme opposing views mixed with stubborn emotion.
As a non USA resident ( and there many members here in that situation), it's most appreciated.
There are forums for politics, this is not one of them.
I personally stear away from threads that get political and sometimes that annoys me, because the thread gets derailed.
Just my 2c worth, hope that's ok.
I noticed those posts having no comments as well and simply thought that's probably a good thing. Any political post that hit the front page was usually a cesspit of arguing by page two.
I don't frequent PRSI, so I'm not aware of what was going on. But it's absolutely incredible the site admin seem to want to live in a fantasy world refusing to *acknowledge the very real problems we are facing today. Especially when so many big tech companies like Twitter, Apple, Spotify, Instagram, Facebook, etc made it a mission to help curb the spread of political misinformation over the last year or so.
Imagine if Mark Zuckerburg just said fact checking is not his job, we're a social site. Or if Tim Cook said the world at large is filled with misinformation and Apple is a reflection of the world at large. Like just imagine if the heads of other tech companies made these ridiculous statements passing off the responsibility they have in managing the content on their site. "This company I run, I allow discussion that is 80% not relevant to the site because it gets clicks, and if damaging nonsense gets said and spread, so be it... not my job to moderate it and it is too much work for us to handle".
Maybe on future posts that are flagged over and over by users reporting misinformation, there should be a pop-up link to an official site quite like what IG and Twitter do so people can find information from credible sources. I'm not advocating for PRSI to be removed or shut down. But at the very least MR has a responsibility here to make sure they aren't contributing to rampant misinformation.
Should be interesting to see how removing political comments from the main page and blocking PRSI from new members affects the site in the long run. If we can all keep up with how Apple is changing as a company, the site admin can surely keep up with how the world is changing. Things that previously didn't need to be addressed, now need to be. Parler might not have been a problem or an issue before, but it is now.
Sites grow. People change. Challenges arise. ADAPT!
Holy god, I just went through that thread. It's extremely telling how so many mods stayed chillingly quiet in that thread until the ninth hour.
I don't frequent PRSI, so I'm not aware of what was going on. But it's absolutely incredible the site admin seem to want to live in a fantasy world refusing to *acknowledge the very real problems we are facing today. Especially when so many big tech companies like Twitter, Apple, Spotify, Instagram, Facebook, etc made it a mission to help curb the spread of political misinformation over the last year or so.
Imagine if Mark Zuckerburg just said fact checking is not his job, we're a social site. Or if Tim Cook said the world at large is filled with misinformation and Apple is a reflection of the world at large. Like just imagine if the heads of other tech companies made these ridiculous statements passing off the responsibility they have in managing the content on their site. "This company I run, I allow discussion that is 80% not relevant to the site because it gets clicks, and if damaging nonsense gets said and spread, so be it... not my job to moderate it and it is too much work for us to handle".
Maybe on future posts that are flagged over and over by users reporting misinformation, there should be a pop-up link to an official site quite like what IG and Twitter do so people can find information from credible sources. I'm not advocating for PRSI to be removed or shut down. But at the very least MR has a responsibility here to make sure they aren't contributing to rampant misinformation.
Should be interesting to see how removing political comments from the main page and blocking PRSI from new members affects the site in the long run. If we can all keep up with how Apple is changing as a company, the site admin can surely keep up with how the world is changing. Things that previously didn't need to be addressed, now need to be. Parler might not have been a problem or an issue before, but it is now.
Sites grow. People change. Challenges arise. ADAPT!
Last edited:
Fair, but then they become editors, fully - and legally - accountable of what ends up being published on their platform. It's not that easy as in "if it's the ethical* thing to do, then doing it is easy".
*= which can be argued.
I've noticed in charged threads, unless flagrant violations are being posted, the mods tend to let the conversation play out. Probably to take the temperature of what is being said.
Do you think it's a sustainable business model if internet forum sites had to decode millions of posts and scan for disinformation and misinformation? Might as well shut the internet down. And it really doesn't matter if the subject matter is political, health or religious or technical. As far as misinformation, it could be just that, people being misinformed.
Maybe some don't care if there is technical disinformation and misinformation, in some ways it could be worse than politicial disinformation and misinformation.
My question is, why post an article about something if you don't want people to discuss it.
The solution would be don't promote anything remotely political. Problem solved.
What is considered political? SOME people see a post about an Apple holiday commercial featuring a black musician, and they feel they MUST come on the forum to make derogatory statements, leading to a very “political” discussion. A post about Oprah became political very quickly. When Lisa Jackson spoke at WWDC, the post became political almost immediately as well.
Perhaps you are sensing a pattern? None of those posts should have been political, but SOME people have ”political“ feelings triggered within them when they see a certain type of person that they dislike getting attention in a news story.
And let‘s not even get started on why discussing methods of preventing the spreading of germs is somehow considered political....
Correction:
SOME people see a negative post about an Apple holiday commercial featuring a black musician, and they feel they MUST come on the forum to claim those posts are RACIST.
Correction:
Perhaps you are sensing a pattern? With my @SuperMatt powers I have determined that some people have "political" feelings triggered within them when they see a certain type of person they dislike getting attention in a news story. Those people didn't say anything other than "I didn't like it" or "Not my cup of tea" or " I couldn't understand the lyrics" or "Not my idea of a holiday ad", but I'm @SuperMatt and I know what they meant and I am going to call them out for it!
***********************************************************************************
And here we go again! Another attempt to find racism where there is none.
In trying to keep this response within the thread topic I will offer this. The thread you are referring to did not go "off the rails" until certain members decided that just because there were negative posts about the ad/performer/music that those negative posts HAD to be of racial origin and could not simply be that other members didn't like that specific ad/performer/genre of music.
Admittedly the thread got mod'd heavily but if you read it now most members simply don't like the performer, don't like the music or didn't understand the ad or how it would be holiday appropriate. None of these opinions make the poster a racist!
This constant over policing of posts by members looking to virtue signal is every bit as much to blame for the toxic state of some threads as are posts by people who are trolling or have genuine hateful intent. News flash... individuals who are not racist take offense when they are called a racist! You may think you are the bionic woman with super hearing that allows you to hear all the dog whistles mere mortals cannot but you aren't.
This is one of the reasons why we have news articles without comments.
Edit: As an example, imagine the Holiday Ad thread if the member responses were only about if they liked the ad or didn't like the ad, no posts about how anyone who didn't like the ad is automatically racist. It would have been a much different thread but certain members here felt the need to virtue signal and claim every post about not liking the ad/performer/genre of music were racially motivated. This is what caused that thread to devolve into a mess.
Last edited:
I am not sure why you are going after me personally. I am just drawing attention to the issue, and I didn’t call anybody a racist; you’ve projected that upon me based on some simple observations, in which I left the interpretation to the reader. You are accusing me of a lot of things I never said. But it doesn’t change the fact that a lot of non-political threads become political out of nowhere. Take a look at threads that are moved to “political” and you’ll see that anything can be made political... there is stuff about a 5G rollout that is somehow in the political thread?
So, AFTER the mods deleted a bunch of content and closed the thread, the final result is no racist posts are left standing? Not the greatest argument if one is trying to say there was no racism in the thread in the first place... why would the mods delete a bunch of posts and close the thread then?
Exactly what issue are you calling attention too? Seriously? I projected nothing on you, you very clearly stated below that you feel people post negatively when they see a black musician, you may have intended to veil this insult better but you didn't.
I am not going after you personally but YOU put the post below out there for the community to consider and it really leaves nothting to the imagination/interpretation of the reader.
Now your post above very clearly states that you feel members here disliked the Apple Holiday Ad because of the race of the performer. I take exception to that, why can't people just not like the ad? Why can't people simply not like the genre of music? Why can't people simply not like the performer? I do not remember a single post stating "I don't like this ad because the performer is black". What led to a "political" discussion was the many attempts to label members who didn't care for the ad as racist, like your post above and their replies defending their position of simply not liking the ad/performer/genre of music.
This is how and when the thread went off topic.
I was active in that original thread and got a few responses mod'd BECAUSE the posts I was replying to were deleted. Every one of my deleted posts were in reaction to the implication that one is a racist if they don't whole heartedly enjoy every single non-caucasian performer. So again I will state that IMHO that thread only became a mess after some SJW types came in to call everyone a closet racist because they didn't like the ad. I believe it is against the rules to point out specific posts but there are examples of these types of posts remaining on page 5, page 6, page 7, page 8. You can see, even in the mod'd version of the thread that around page 5 the posts became more about members accusing other members of being closet racists and other members calling out how dumb that assumption is.
This is when the mods killed the thread and rightly so.
This is one of the reasons we have articles/threads with comments disabled. Again, if the thread was nothing but posts that said "I liked it" or "I hated it", no posts about supposed or perceived racism the thread would not have been mod'd or closed.
Last edited:
I just find it interesting that recently this discussion has been increasingly prevalent in this board, and every time the current thread in which the discussion is taking place is closed another one just pops right up. But at least actions are being taken to address the problems. It was starting to look like 2012 all over again here.
So far, I personally think that this is a good move. The problem with the political news threads is that they get derailed very quickly, staying with the realm of politics but no longer directly touching on the topic of the thread. This effectively renders the idea of 'news discussion' moot as it doesn't even end up getting discussed by many...
So far, I personally think that this is a good move. The problem with the political news threads is that they get derailed very quickly, staying with the realm of politics but no longer directly touching on the topic of the thread. This effectively renders the idea of 'news discussion' moot as it doesn't even end up getting discussed by many...
Read my post again. I had no idea you were involved in that thread. My initial post in this thread had nothing to do with you. You came on and attacked me, by name, multiple times in a very long post, accusing me of being too sensitive about racism.
My point was (and is) that any thread can become political. Case in point, just today: a 5-page long thread about a new Apple TV+ show featuring Justin Timberlake got knocked down to 2 pages and a warning placed on the thread... reason being: people literally accusing Apple of trying to “cancel” the white “race”.... I kid you not.
I honestly don’t know why YOU are offended by the observation that there are people turning non-political stories into “political” discussions, and that those offensive posts are far more prevalent on news stories involving certain minority groups. Not once did I accuse YOU of doing it, yet you seem to find it necessary to attack me.
Also, it’s interesting that the posts YOU find to be offensive because they are made by ”SJWs” (a derogatory term that has no place in this discussion IMHO) have been left up by the mods... It seems like they don‘t violate the rules, unlike racism which is banned on these forums.
I applaud the mods for taking a stronger look at the problem of racism and other hate speech on the forums, and although it is disappointing when a thread about a TV show can be taken over by racist and anti-trans posts, I am glad the mods stepped in and wiped out the offensive content. It can pop up in just about any thread...
Again, having been in that original thread, I didn't see any racist comments. That being said I was not refreshing my screen every second before it got mod'd and shut down so someone could have snuck in a truly hateful and racist comment that I didn't see. What I did see were a lot of comments by members expressing that they didn't like the ad and if you take these members at their posted word their opinions had nothing to do with race. What I also saw were claims by other members that anyone expressing dislike of the ad were doing so specifically because of the performers race and your comment about the thread seems to back this up.
You don't see how this comment, taken in its current context, of a closed thread, could be taken as an attack of sorts against the remaining posts in the thread? Perhaps this was not your intent but I think most would assume you are implying that derogatory statements were made based on the performers race as the absolute and sole reason.
I truly believe that the thread only got "political" when members started accusing other members of being racist. As I pointed out there are several posts that still exist in the thread that speak of "dog whistles" or implied racism. To claim you perceive a "dog whistle" you are flat out claiming that you know what someone else meant to say even though they didn't say it, kind of absurd isn't it? People actually have the nerve to assume they know exactly what some other anonymous person on the internet meant to say but didn't, that is quite possibly the most foolish thing one could claim.
Example:
Member1: I didn't like this ad, I don't like hip-hop.
Member2: Not really my idea of a holiday ad.
Member3: I couldn't understand the lyrics.
Member4: OMG, so many dog whistles, obviously a bunch of racist white males in this thread.
Members 1, 2 and 3 respond back about how their opinions aren't racist.
And the thread is lost to off-topic mod'd hell.
I'm not offended as much as I am frustrated that posts get heavily mod'd and locked. I probably have an alternate view as to why this occurs than you do though. You, by your above statement, seem to feel that threads involving certain minority groups garner more negative comments than those involving caucasians and I just don't see this being true or race based. I see plenty of dislike for caucasian performers too but what doesn't happen in threads about caucasian performers is other members calling people racist because they are posting negative comments about the caucasian performer. Does this make sense?
Take my example above but change the performer to a country singer:
Member1: I didn't like this ad, I don't like country.
Member2: Not really my idea of a holiday ad.
Member3: I couldn't understand the lyrics too much twang
Member4: Nothing to say
Members 1, 2 and 3 have nothing to respond to.
And the thread left alone and just fine.
Yup, I guess you could say that I'm triggered by the type of person that thinks they know better and wants to tell everyone all about it, whether that be their super hearing that allows them to interpret "dog whistles" or those that want members/posts canceled because of some perceived injustice that most wouldn't blink an eye at regardless of their race/sex/orientation/nation of birth/etc.
Anyway, apologies, on the tails of our last interaction in the hoax thread my comments did get personal, I should have left it more anonymous creating a better atmosphere for conversation.
P.S. - I didn't see the mayhem in the TV show thread but on this we can agree, I also find it sad that it devolved into 3 pages of mod fodder.
You don't see how this comment, taken in its current context, of a closed thread, could be taken as an attack of sorts against the remaining posts in the thread? Perhaps this was not your intent but I think most would assume you are implying that derogatory statements were made based on the performers race as the absolute and sole reason.
I truly believe that the thread only got "political" when members started accusing other members of being racist. As I pointed out there are several posts that still exist in the thread that speak of "dog whistles" or implied racism. To claim you perceive a "dog whistle" you are flat out claiming that you know what someone else meant to say even though they didn't say it, kind of absurd isn't it? People actually have the nerve to assume they know exactly what some other anonymous person on the internet meant to say but didn't, that is quite possibly the most foolish thing one could claim.
Example:
Member1: I didn't like this ad, I don't like hip-hop.
Member2: Not really my idea of a holiday ad.
Member3: I couldn't understand the lyrics.
Member4: OMG, so many dog whistles, obviously a bunch of racist white males in this thread.
Members 1, 2 and 3 respond back about how their opinions aren't racist.
And the thread is lost to off-topic mod'd hell.
I'm not offended as much as I am frustrated that posts get heavily mod'd and locked. I probably have an alternate view as to why this occurs than you do though. You, by your above statement, seem to feel that threads involving certain minority groups garner more negative comments than those involving caucasians and I just don't see this being true or race based. I see plenty of dislike for caucasian performers too but what doesn't happen in threads about caucasian performers is other members calling people racist because they are posting negative comments about the caucasian performer. Does this make sense?
Take my example above but change the performer to a country singer:
Member1: I didn't like this ad, I don't like country.
Member2: Not really my idea of a holiday ad.
Member3: I couldn't understand the lyrics too much twang
Member4: Nothing to say
Members 1, 2 and 3 have nothing to respond to.
And the thread left alone and just fine.
Yup, I guess you could say that I'm triggered by the type of person that thinks they know better and wants to tell everyone all about it, whether that be their super hearing that allows them to interpret "dog whistles" or those that want members/posts canceled because of some perceived injustice that most wouldn't blink an eye at regardless of their race/sex/orientation/nation of birth/etc.
Anyway, apologies, on the tails of our last interaction in the hoax thread my comments did get personal, I should have left it more anonymous creating a better atmosphere for conversation.
P.S. - I didn't see the mayhem in the TV show thread but on this we can agree, I also find it sad that it devolved into 3 pages of mod fodder.