Hoax rule is not being enforced

[NT1440]

I truly don’t understand the overall notion that appealing to the mods is going to fix a broken society. Out of sight out of mind for deep structural issues driving an ever ratcheting wave of resentment, eh?

Nor why if PRSI is so distasteful to some of you why you don’t just ignore it. Comparing it to other forums, in an effort to ban a vibrant community of political discourse, is nonsense. MR is MR.

 

[pmiles]

Seems to me, there is far too much "censorship" going on these days... akin the the McCarthyism of old.

People may not agree with one another, but to suggest that only side be allowed to voice their opinion but not the other, goes against the very fibre of the First Amendment.

Every American has a voice, denying even one person of a voice is denying everyone of their voice. Why bother having an election if your vote only counts if you vote with the mainstream?

These are perilous times... censorship is a slippery slope.

That being said. MacRumors is free to allow or disallow whatever content they choose... it's a free country after all... the last time I checked.

Be carful of who you call radicalized... because the definition of radical changes as often as the wind. Dr. Martin Luther King was a radical. Steve Jobs was a radical. Hitler was a radical. You can't lump everyone together any more than you can say one side of the story is the only story.

 

[ouimetnick]

I truly don’t understand the overall notion that appealing to the mods is going to fix a broken society. Out of sight out of mind for deep structural issues driving an ever ratcheting wave of resentment, eh?

Nor why if PRSI is so distasteful to some of you why you don’t just ignore it. Comparing it to other forums, in an effort to ban a vibrant community of political discourse, is nonsense. MR is MR.

I don’t think the OP is asking the mods to “fix” a broken society. I get the feeling that he (me and many others on the other political forum) want the moderators to actually enforce their own rules. Apply them evenly. If you can’t moderate evenly and with out bias, don’t be a moderator.

If you are going to be inconsistent with enforcing the rules, why have rules?

 

[JayMysterio]

I simply suggested those who have a problem with using said forum should remove the problem from their life. It is a simple solution for said members. They won't get frustrated at the cesspool and the staff can continue on dealing with the romper room.

It makes no sense to continue using the PRSI forum that brings so much frustration into their life, every time they are using MR and said forum.

The cesspool is going to keep being a cesspool.

That's the thing though, the poster & a few others aren't having a "problem" with the forum. The problem is with the stated rules of the forum being enforced. A set of rules that for most are followed, but there are the few who confuse a forum that they agreed to join by agreeing to follow the rules of a private companies for, as opposed to when they are out in the wild free to say anything they want with NO concern for truth. The difference of course being that a forum will probably have wider reach than those have 'in the wild' on their own, which makes such falsehoods / hoaxes more dangerous.

It isn't unexpected if you use PRSI as asked, that others do the same. If they can't it also isn't unexpected that those tasked with enforcing such rules, enforce said rules.

 

[svanstrom]

I truly don’t understand the overall notion that appealing to the mods is going to fix a broken society. Out of sight out of mind for deep structural issues driving an ever ratcheting wave of resentment, eh?

Nor why if PRSI is so distasteful to some of you why you don’t just ignore it. Comparing it to other forums, in an effort to ban a vibrant community of political discourse, is nonsense. MR is MR.

The problem is that you legitimise the cranks if you let them continue with outrageous lies and fantasies by treating their made up stories as if they are equal to actual facts.

Just look at what happened at the Capitol building. There were people there that honestly thought they were just trying to save their nation; very much due to no one standing up to the people spreading lies about the election, about political figures, about reality.

If you facilitate, rather than refute, all these weird conspiracy theories you are in fact supporting them; you are taking their outrageous delusions and making them mainstream.

So it isn't as simple as "just ignore it", because we've seen throughout history that very bad things happen if you let what appears to be just a few cranks try again and again until they've convinced enough people to join their cause (or one of them get a big enough bomb). (Yes, consider Godwin's law triggered.)

 

[Apple_Robert]

I don’t think the OP is asking the mods to “fix” a broken society. I get the feeling that he (me and many others on the other political forum) want the moderators to actually enforce their own rules. Apply them evenly. If you can’t moderate evenly and with out bias, don’t be a moderator.

If you are going to be inconsistent with enforcing the rules, why have rules?

That could apply to any part of the forum. People are fallible. Moderators make mistakes. And no matter what the rules are and how they are regulated, there is always going to be groups of people dissatisfied with how certain parts of the forum are handled.

With with staff procedures in places that produce a checks and balance system, there are still posts that don't get moderated that probably should, as well as posts that do get overly moderated.

What I saw last weekend in the PSRI forum was some of the most vile posts I have seen in a long, long time. It is basically a free-for-all in said forum with many, many members skirting a line so thin you would think they were professional ice skaters. And a few days later, the same garbage spewed forth from the same forum causing more shut downs. It makes no sense (to me) to have a section of the forum that is constantly churning out such vile things, as well as the appearance of inconsistent moderation.

The staff has tried making changes to the rules, to try and create some kind of ongoing civility in said forum and it hasn't worked. Why keep a forum that doesn't bring in money, requires constant romper room / garbage - hate speech removal, were so many grown adults go to spew hate towards one another on a tech site?

 

[Apple_Robert]

That's the thing though, the poster & a few others aren't having a "problem" with the forum. The problem is with the stated rules of the forum being enforced. A set of rules that for most are followed, but there are the few who confuse a forum that they agreed to join by agreeing to follow the rules of a private companies for, as opposed to when they are out in the wild free to say anything they want with NO concern for truth. The difference of course being that a forum will probably have wider reach than those have 'in the wild' on their own, which makes such falsehoods / hoaxes more dangerous.

It isn't unexpected if you use PRSI as asked, that others do the same. If they can't it also isn't unexpected that those tasked with enforcing such rules, enforce said rules.

I have been an active member here going on 9 years and the PRSI forum has been a constant cesspool and problem of moderation. Either regulate said forum with much stricter rules that include official rules of debate etc. or shut it down, so that the staff can handle and focus on the sections of the forum that are bringing the money and people who do want to talk tech.

 

[calderone]

Seems to me, there is far too much "censorship" going on these days... akin the the McCarthyism of old.

People may not agree with one another, but to suggest that only side be allowed to voice their opinion but not the other, goes against the very fibre of the First Amendment.

Every American has a voice, denying even one person of a voice is denying everyone of their voice. Why bother having an election if your vote only counts if you vote with the mainstream?

These are perilous times... censorship is a slippery slope.

That being said. MacRumors is free to allow or disallow whatever content they choose... it's a free country after all... the last time I checked.

Be carful of who you call radicalized... because the definition of radical changes as often as the wind. Dr. Martin Luther King was a radical. Steve Jobs was a radical. Hitler was a radical. You can't lump everyone together any more than you can say one side of the story is the only story.

The First Amendment prevents Congress from abridging your speech. However, we know that some things are not protected speech and as a society we have agreed to that (hate speech, violent speech, etc).

While a person is free to say what they would like anywhere - they are not free of the consequences up to and including challenges and removal. Your comparison to voting actually proves the point - you are free to cast your vote however you’d like and you can choose to make your vote known or not. Voting is still the purest form of freedom we posses - there is no requirement that you vote “with the mainstream.” Now, if someone wants to be hateful/violent and vote for hate/violence, they are free to do so. Your speech can be rejected by society even though your vote is not.

I see the suggestion is to ”just” ignore PRSI, but the reality is that a lot of news related to Apple is political in nature. To suggest that individuals not partake in discussion regarding these new events isn’t practical.

In regards to radicalization - I think we can agree that all of those individuals are not the same. What should always be true is that we reject views that intend to harm individuals and their freedoms.

I’ll close by saying that in my opinion, MacRumors has chosen to give shelter to numerous individuals that are knowingly or unknowingly spreading misinformation and hate. I personally don’t intend to continue being a member unless they get serious about the rules and their enforcement.

 

[pmiles]

Removing the forum doesn't remove the fact that there are differing views in this world. You say the moderators are sticking their head in the sand when they opt to stay out of it, and yet asking them to remove it is akin to you sticking your head in the sand because you would rather not see it.

Everyone can choose to read or not read it. You chose to read it. You disagree with it. You can't change their viewpoint so rather than accepting that fact, you would rather have them removed. You win by virtue of censorship.

But did you really win. They are still out there. They still don't agree with you. Only now, you have given them more fuel to support their fire because "the man" won't let them speak publicly about their peace. You are not resolving a problem by denying people their voice. You are only sticking your head in the sand.

 

[Apple_Robert]

The First Amendment prevents Congress from abridging your speech. However, we know that some things are not protected speech and as a society we have agreed to that (hate speech, violent speech, etc).

While a person is free to say what they would like anywhere - they are not free of the consequences up to and including challenges and removal. Your comparison to voting actually proves the point - you are free to cast your vote however you’d like and you can choose to make your vote known or not. Voting is still the purest form of freedom we posses - there is no requirement that you vote “with the mainstream.” Now, if someone wants to be hateful/violent and vote for hate/violence, they are free to do so. Your speech can be rejected by society even though your vote is not.

I see the suggestion is to ”just” ignore PRSI, but the reality is that a lot of news related to Apple is political in nature. To suggest that individuals not partake in discussion regarding these new events isn’t practical.

In regards to radicalization - I think we can agree that all of those individuals are not the same. What should always be true is that we reject views that intend to harm individuals and their freedoms.

I’ll close by saying that in my opinion, MacRumors has chosen to give shelter to numerous individuals that are knowingly or unknowingly spreading misinformation and hate. I personally don’t intend to continue being a member unless they get serious about the rules and their enforcement.

One way around that is to create a special forum for Apple news that is directly related to politics and is strictly moderated. Often times, MR post stores that aren't about politics and then sticks the article in the cesspool, which is rather disappointing and all the dysfunctional hate post begins and the actual focal point of the article is lost.

 

[pmiles]

The First Amendment prevents Congress from abridging your speech. However, we know that some things are not protected speech and as a society we have agreed to that (hate speech, violent speech, etc).

While a person is free to say what they would like anywhere - they are not free of the consequences up to and including challenges and removal. Your comparison to voting actually proves the point - you are free to cast your vote however you’d like and you can choose to make your vote known or not. Voting is still the purest form of freedom we posses - there is no requirement that you vote “with the mainstream.” Now, if someone wants to be hateful/violent and vote for hate/violence, they are free to do so. Your speech can be rejected by society even though your vote is not.

I see the suggestion is to ”just” ignore PRSI, but the reality is that a lot of news related to Apple is political in nature. To suggest that individuals not partake in discussion regarding these new events isn’t practical.

In regards to radicalization - I think we can agree that all of those individuals are not the same. What should always be true is that we reject views that intend to harm individuals and their freedoms.

I’ll close by saying that in my opinion, MacRumors has chosen to give shelter to numerous individuals that are knowingly or unknowingly spreading misinformation and hate. I personally don’t intend to continue being a member unless they get serious about the rules and their enforcement.

But Sir, you are incorrect. That is your belief, not the the truth.

"Hate speech in the United States cannot be directly regulated due to the basic, human right to free speech recognized in the American Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that hate speech is legally protected free speech under the First Amendment."

 

[Apple_Robert]

Removing the forum doesn't remove the fact that there are differing views in this world. You say the moderators are sticking their head in the sand when they opt to stay out of it, and yet asking them to remove it is akin to you sticking your head in the sand because you would rather not see it.

Everyone can choose to read or not read it. You chose to read it. You disagree with it. You can't change their viewpoint so rather than accepting that fact, you would rather have them removed. You win by virtue of censorship.

But did you really win. They are still out there. They still don't agree with you. Only now, you have given them more fuel to support their fire because "the man" won't let them speak publicly about their peace. You are not resolving a problem by denying people their voice. You are only sticking your head in the sand.

This is a tech forum. There are plenty of other places adults can go to act like impudent children spewing hate and any other vile thing that comes to mind. Many of the PRSI regulars have gotten adept at skirting the line of insults and hate. And do so day after day until one day, they get a time out.

It is a real shame that on a site like this, educated people can't have real honest debate of the issues.

 

[svanstrom]

Removing the forum doesn't remove the fact that there are differing views in this world.

There's a big difference between something just existing in a darker alley somewhere, and making it mainstream by going out of your way to give it a home where it isn't even a natural fit by subject.

 

[Eraserhead]

But Sir, you are incorrect. That is your belief, not the the truth.

"Hate speech in the United States cannot be directly regulated due to the basic, human right to free speech recognized in the American Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that hate speech is legally protected free speech under the First Amendment."

Free Speech

xkcd.com

 

[NT1440]

There's a big difference between something just existing in a darker alley somewhere, and making it mainstream by going out of your way to give it a home where it isn't even a natural fit by subject.

Do you honestly believe that’s what Arn has done? Created a sub forum and going out of his way to give hate speech a home? I think we’re inflating the power of this website and crossing into hyperbolic rhetoric instead now.

 

[svanstrom]

Adding a bit of facts to the thread:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States

What's important here is that just because someone is free to say something, that doesn't mean that other people and organisations are forced to carry that person's messages.

So MR isn't forced to carry my theory about how the moon is flat; and I still have my freedom of speech (just not the USA one, of course, for obvious reasons) even if they repeatedly remove my messages about how rats are aliens from the moon (it may be flat, but it's still made of cheese, of course).

 

[ouimetnick]

That could apply to any part of the forum. People are fallible. Moderators make mistakes. And no matter what the rules are and how they are regulated, there is always going to be groups of people dissatisfied with how certain parts of the forum are handled.

With with staff procedures in places that produce a checks and balance system, there are still posts that don't get moderated that probably should, as well as posts that do get overly moderated.

What I saw last weekend in the PSRI forum was some of the most vile posts I have seen in a long, long time. It is basically a free-for-all in said forum with many, many members skirting a line so thin you would think they were professional ice skaters. And a few days later, the same garbage spewed forth from the same forum causing more shut downs. It makes no sense (to me) to have a section of the forum that is constantly churning out such vile things, as well as the appearance of inconsistent moderation.

The staff has tried making changes to the rules, to try and create some kind of ongoing civility in said forum and it hasn't worked. Why keep a forum that doesn't bring in money, requires constant romper room / garbage - hate speech removal, were so many grown adults go to spew hate towards one another on a tech site?

So moderators make mistakes. Perhaps Arn should have a similar 3 strike rule with them. 3 “mistakes” and you are no longer a mod. Mod turn over rate would probably sky rocket, but Arn could hold his moderators accountable somehow if he wanted to.

But a site admin (Steve) generally sides with the moderators and often interpret things the same way the mods do. The rules aren’t really rules but guidelines. How about spending 30 minutes to update the rules so they are more clear? I could improve the forum rules 😂

 

[calderone]

But Sir, you are incorrect. That is your belief, not the the truth.

"Hate speech in the United States cannot be directly regulated due to the basic, human right to free speech recognized in the American Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that hate speech is legally protected free speech under the First Amendment."

Thank you for providing a citation. If you read further into the Wikipedia article where you lifted the quote, it talks about what we as a society have done to enforce what should be our collective belief that hatred should not be tolerated. This still doesn’t negate the point - as I stated Congress cannot regulate it but we as a society can do so by not tolerating it.

My apologies for placing these two ideas so closely together - I shouldn’t have used the term protected as I was referring to society in that regard.

 

[Geepaw]

Telling members to put 'that' forum on ignore which avoids the sites admin and moderator staff from doing their jobs and enforcing the forum rules is not the way to go. Regardless of the fact that 'that' part of the forum is a cesspool, forum rules still need to be maintained and enforced. It does the site no credit to have moderators respond with 'no moderation required' on threads/posts that sprout hoax or fake news, especially when the topic relates to elections and the pandemic.

The ONLY reason why social media platforms took action against hoax's and fake news is because their lack of moderation action in dealing with them resulted in the platforms being outed in the media. When the social media platforms saw the high levels of bad PR they were getting, they took action because they could not take the chance of having advertisers and sponsors leave in disgust. Maybe the same method needs to be applied to forums as well.

Twitter and other social media platforms took action NOT against so-called "hoaxes" or "misinformation" or even "propaganda" but against content that constituted incitement of violence and/or actual threats. This is a different animal all together if you ask me.

 

[NT1440]

View attachment 1714762

Free Speech

xkcd.com

Sure, that’s why mods have the ability to remove posts and ban people.

Now, do you think the cartoon (I love these) is calling for the complete removal of PRSI as many in this thread have now called for? Is banning an entire forum and lumping us in with those who truly deserved to be banned not just showing us all the door? I feel like this thread has split between the actual feedback it started with, and a growing number of people so aghast that they’re calling for the removal of an overall healthy and vibrant community that has developed in PRSI over the years.

 

[ouimetnick]

Do you honestly believe that’s what Arn has done? Created a sub forum and going out of his way to give hate speech a home? I think we’re inflating the power of this website and crossing into hyperbolic rhetoric instead now.

If you create a political sub forum and poorly moderate it, that’s exactly what you get. I don’t believe it is intentional on Arn’s part. I doubt he set out to create a **** show with PRSI, but the folks he has doing his moderation (often very selectively moderating) created the end result.

I’d be curious to know the background of these moderators, their political affiliation, education, etc. If hoax threads are allowed and you only have to do a simple google search to try to back up your conspiracy evidence (that’s another rule poorly enforced) then what’s to stop other crazy conspiracies involving Apple, Arn or his staff?

 

[SuperMatt]

I truly don’t understand the overall notion that appealing to the mods is going to fix a broken society. Out of sight out of mind for deep structural issues driving an ever ratcheting wave of resentment, eh?

Nor why if PRSI is so distasteful to some of you why you don’t just ignore it. Comparing it to other forums, in an effort to ban a vibrant community of political discourse, is nonsense. MR is MR.

If you are referring to my OP, I think you are reading way too much into it. Current forum rules say that spreading a hoax is instantly bannable. This rule is not being enforced because the mods say they do not have the resources for fact-checking. I can think of more than one way to handle that:

1. Make a shortlist of well-known hoaxes and refer to it: maybe even make such list available to forum members to view if they want to avoid posting a hoax.
2. Select fact-checking website(s) that they approve, and if you see a hoax, as the reporter of it, you must link to a page on that approved site list.

Measures like that would save the mods time yet still allow the hoax rule to stay in place. If a mod wishes to give the benefit of the doubt to a poster that might not know they posted a hoax, they can have a policy of warning every time a new hoax is posted, but if the person re-posts the same hoax, they are banned then.

I’m sure there are other ways to do this, but I think a forum free of dangerous hoaxes is something almost everybody wants, and the more transparent the process for identifying them and moderating them, the better.

 

[svanstrom]

Do you honestly believe that’s what Arn has done? Created a sub forum and going out of his way to give hate speech a home? I think we’re inflating the power of this website and crossing into hyperbolic rhetoric instead now.

I was speaking in very generalised terms here. No pointing at anyone in particular.

I've seen some of that content (not my area, with my youngling account and all, so I'm far from a regular consumer of that content); and I do think that I question some of the moderating decisions.

But at the end of the day I fully accept that it's me leaving MR if I'm not satisfied with what is and isn't here.

 

[calderone]

Sure, that’s why mods have the ability to remove posts and ban people.

Now, do you think the cartoon (I love these) is calling for the complete removal of PRSI as many in this thread have now called for? Is banning an entire forum and lumping us in with those who truly deserved to be banned not just showing us all the door? I feel like this thread has split between the actual feedback it started with, and a growing number of people so aghast that they’re calling for the removal of an overall healthy and vibrant community that has developed in PRSI over the years.

“healthy” and “vibrant” are not terms I would personally use to describe PRSI.

I do agree it should be removed as it has no place here and would help prevent the “leak” from PRSI into other areas of the forums. The case for this should be easy - MacRumors staffs individuals that understand technology - not necessarily politics or certain areas of the law. They have shown repeatedly that they are not equipped to deal with these more sensitive topics. A political forum designed to be sure would inarguably do a better job at moderation.

If they feel they can properly handle it - I see no issue with it remaining, but I would still question what is gained from doing so. Part of that means enforcing the Hoax rule as SuperMatt points out here.

 

[JayMysterio]

I have been an active member here going on 9 years and the PRSI forum has been a constant cesspool and problem of moderation. Either regulate said forum with much stricter rules that include official rules of debate etc. or shut it down, so that the staff can handle and focus on the sections of the forum that are bringing the money and people who do want to talk tech.

While I can't say I have been an active member 9 years , I can say that since my time in PRSI that I have been a more active user, I've never considered PRSI the cesspool that I believe the regular politics forum is. In PRSI there seems to be more users aware that a set of rules exist, while in the politics section it's like the old Dan Akroyd / Jane Curtin SNL news skit, with people getting hostile if you don't spell iPhone with a lower case I first.

PRSI maybe a problem of moderation, but I personally think that falls under how it's moderated. Meaning I think there has been consistency issues more than anything else.

It's a consistent regulation and/or enforcement that is being asked for. Not even more strict, as that can become an issue with inconsistent moderation.