Hoax rule is not being enforced

[arn]

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.

You are conflating cause and effect.

Those posts go into a politics forum because of the posts they attract. Not vice-versa.

You seem to think removing the politics section and just posting politics-related news to the normal news forum would solve all these problems. This is 100% wrong.

 

[Eraserhead]

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.

That already exists - https://forums.macrumors.com/forums/political-news.218/

 

[Apple_Robert]

You are conflating cause and effect.

Those posts go into a politics forum because of the posts they attract. Not vice-versa.

You seem to think removing the politics section and just posting politics-related news to the normal news forum would solve all these problems. This is 100% wrong.

It wouldn't solve the problem but, it would certainly make moderating political post much easier and faster, versus having a political forum where hundreds and thousands of threads and posts are created.

My point was that often times, a good article on Apple gets sent straight away to the political forum when it actually isn't about politics. However, the writer or editor assumes the discussion will or should go down that rabbit hole and the article gets sent to said forum. In my opinion, unless the topic is specifically about politics as the recent news was, then the Apple news should stay out of the political forum and should be moderated to keep out political posts.

We may not agree on this Arn, but, I appreciate you taking the time to read and reply.

 

[arn]

It wouldn't solve the problem but, it would certainly make moderating political post much easier and faster, versus having a political forum where hundreds and thousands of threads and posts are created.

My point was that often times, a good article on Apple gets sent straight away to the political forum when it actually isn't about politics. However, the writer or editor assumes the discussion will or should go down that rabbit hole and the article gets sent to said forum. In my opinion, unless the topic is specifically about politics as the recent news was, then the Apple news should stay out of the political forum and should be moderated to keep out political posts.

We may not agree on this Arn, but, I appreciate you taking the time to read and reply.

I see what you are saying now but I still don’t agree that solves anything.

a post about coronavirus is going to draw responses about coronavirus. Deleting “political” responses would be a. A full time job b. Require a ton of judgement calls.

the only solution to completely eliminating political discussion would be to have no comment thread on potentially political news topics.

 

[pmiles]

I can't help but laugh that this very thread is becoming the very cesspool that you insist would be eradicated merely by disallowing/censoring it.

From my experience, most websites that have additional public forums that are outside the scope of the main focus are offered in a mostly unmoderated fashion... in that, you are all adults, and you are expected to conduct yourself as such, and that if you choose to sling mud at one another, then so be it. They aren't going to step in and break up the fight.

If you are going to eradicate a forum because it falls outside the spectrum of the main focus of the website, then all such sub-forums should also be removed... because, after all, we can't have an inconsistent message here.

They can go visit a website devoted to such as you say.

Waiting for those to reply as to how over-reaching a statement that is to make...

 

[Apple_Robert]

I see what you are saying now but I still don’t agree that solves anything.

a post about coronavirus is going to draw responses about coronavirus. Deleting “political” responses would be a. A full time job b. Require a ton of judgement calls.

the only solution to completely eliminating political discussion would be to have no comment thread on potentially political news topics.

There is no easy answer, much less a one size fits all approach on a site this large.

While I disagree with some aspects of administration and management, this is my favorite spot on the net and it says a lot about you that you took the time to participate in the thread, as well as responding to me personally,

Thank you for the opportunity to speak my opinion on this matter.

 

[Eraserhead]

I can't help but laugh that this very thread is becoming the very cesspool that you insist would be eradicated merely by disallowing/censoring it.

From my experience, most websites that have additional public forums that are outside the scope of the main focus are offered in a mostly unmoderated fashion... in that, you are all adults, and you are expected to conduct yourself as such, and that if you choose to sling mud at one another, then so be it. They aren't going to step in and break up the fight.

If you are going to eradicate a forum because it falls outside the spectrum of the main focus of the website, then all such sub-forums should also be removed... because, after all, we can't have an inconsistent message here.

They can go visit a website devoted to such as you say.

Waiting for those to reply as to how over-reaching a statement that is to make...

Politics and religion have been subjects avoided in polite company for centuries. I’m sure the forum would survive without them.

If the decision is taken to remove the forum there are plenty of other places to talk about those subjects.

 

[DaveFromCampbelltown]

Just to stir the possum a bit...

You cannot combat a hoax if you hide it. It must be brought out in the open so it can be discussed, dissected and cremated.

Also, one person's hoax is another person's misinformation.
I have seen stuff in the technical forums that when looked at one way is a hoax, and another is simply misunderstanding of physics or electronics.
I have also seen comments in the technical forums that are completely false. Specifically multiple versions of "[xx os] is the worst operating system Evah!!"

If a person truly believes that an election was stolen, or that you can boil an egg by putting it in the middle of three mobile phones and ringing them, or that COVID causes 5G, you can educate some people (not all) by calm discussion, but not by hiding it.

But yeah, operating rules for any system, including households, nations and forums like this one, should be regularly examined, evaluated and modified to fit current needs.

 

[SuperMatt]

Just to stir the possum a bit...

You cannot combat a hoax if you hide it. It must be brought out in the open so it can be discussed, dissected and cremated.

Also, one person's hoax is another person's misinformation.
I have seen stuff in the technical forums that when looked at one way is a hoax, and another is simply misunderstanding of physics or electronics.
I have also seen comments in the technical forums that are completely false. Specifically multiple versions of "[xx os] is the worst operating system Evah!!"

If a person truly believes that an election was stolen, or that you can boil an egg by putting it in the middle of three mobile phones and ringing them, or that COVID causes 5G, you can educate some people (not all) by calm discussion, but not by hiding it.

But yeah, operating rules for any system, including households, nations and forums like this one, should be regularly examined, evaluated and modified to fit current needs.

Well, there is an argument for the Twitter method of flagging posts that contain hoaxes but leaving the post up with that flag... but still allowing the mods the ability to suspend and/or ban people who consistently post hoaxes.

 

[laptech]

I see what you are saying now but I still don’t agree that solves anything.

a post about coronavirus is going to draw responses about coronavirus. Deleting “political” responses would be a. A full time job b. Require a ton of judgement calls.

the only solution to completely eliminating political discussion would be to have no comment thread on potentially political news topics.

No offense here Arn but it's your job to make sure the forum has adequate resources for moderation to take place. You cannot complain that an area is difficult to moderate because it would be too time consuming (a 'full time job' you reference it). You either provide the resources to tackle the issue or you remove the issue completely.

 

[arn]

No offense here Arn but it's your job to make sure the forum has adequate resources for moderation to take place. You cannot complain that an area is difficult to moderate because it would be too time consuming (a 'full time job' you reference it). You either provide the resources to tackle the issue or you remove the issue completely.

I agree. That's why posting political threads in non-political areas is a non-starter for me.

 

[arn]

to address the original question about the rule.

The origins of the hoax rule were related to Apple rumors. And specifically someone making a mockup, or making up some absurd Apple rumor and posting it, trying to trick or mislead people. We didn't want that to be a common occurrence, so that's why the hoax rule was setup.

It wasn't necessarily meant for broader more established hoaxes. For example, not sure if we would have used that rule for someone who genuinely thought the moon landing was faked.

I'm not really providing an opinion/decision just yet. Just providing the background.

 

[millerj123]

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.

Right, but for some, there is no need for evidence or proof for their "beliefs". If you "believe" the election was stolen, come up with proof at any time, in any way. Otherwise... (I concede, there were actual cases of fraud, primarily from one side, and a president who phoned to "ask" for a certain number of votes to be "found")

 

[maflynn]

For example, not sure if we would have used that rule for someone who genuinely thought the moon landing was faked.

I don’t believe a person’s post ought to be approved by some ministry of truth. If someone wants to post about the moon landing was faked or the world is flat we should not be the arbiters of what is truthfulness.

we easily can be get into deep weeds if we disallow posts because there is a question about its validity.

There are many such topics existing in the prsi specifically related to the election and recent social issues and even the pandemic. I think those people have a right to their opinion. And strictly speaking those are not hoaxes and the hoax rule does not apply

 

[ericgtr12]

I don’t believe a person’s post ought to be approved by some ministry of truth. If someone wants to post about the moon landing was faked or the world is flat we should not be the arbiters of what is truthfulness.

we easily can be get into deep weeds if we disallow posts because there is a question about its validity.

There are many such topics existing in the prsi specifically related to the election and recent social issues and even the pandemic. I think those people have a right to their opinion. And strictly speaking those are not hoaxes and the hoax rule does not apply

One's opinion that the mask doesn't work is false. One's opinion that existing president won the election is false. Both are misleading and misinformation that only serves to further spread it. If MR is to allow such discussion, they have some responsibility to ensure some degree of truth on their site, or simply let it run rampant and lose credibility such as Parler or other radicalized platforms.

 

[NT1440]

One's opinion that the mask doesn't work is false. One's opinion that existing president won the election is false. Both are misleading and misinformation that only serves to further spread it. If MR is to allow such discussion, they have some responsibility to ensure some degree of truth on their site, or simply let it run rampant and lose credibility such as Parler or other radicalized platforms.

The very notion that MR could ever be in league with those sites is absolutely absurd.

Coming from someone who is here daily... I think you guys need to take a step back and realize that *nobody* besides Apple enthusiasts, tech nerds (myself included), and some tech beat reporters have any clue what MR is. This site has literally no impact on the zeitgeist. To project that it’s on the slippery slope to being Parlor is to vastly overstate MR’s importance or significance in the real world. I mean that with all due respect Arn, but this is in the corners of the internet that caters to a *very* niche market and interest group.

This all seems like a tempest in a teapot, and projecting insecurities of what’s going on in the real world into a fun website most of here check in on every day.

 

[arn]

One's opinion that the mask doesn't work is false. One's opinion that existing president won the election is false. Both are misleading and misinformation that only serves to further spread it. If MR is to allow such discussion, they have some responsibility to ensure some degree of truth on their site, or simply let it run rampant and lose credibility such as Parler or other radicalized platforms.

Just for sake of argument, what about religion? Certainly even if you believe in a religion you might not believe in someone else’s religion. And some might be dismissive of religion in entirety.

 

[SuperMatt]

I don’t believe a person’s post ought to be approved by some ministry of truth. If someone wants to post about the moon landing was faked or the world is flat we should not be the arbiters of what is truthfulness.

we easily can be get into deep weeds if we disallow posts because there is a question about its validity.

There are many such topics existing in the prsi specifically related to the election and recent social issues and even the pandemic. I think those people have a right to their opinion. And strictly speaking those are not hoaxes and the hoax rule does not apply

I certainly respect your opinion, but the rule regarding hoaxes should be enforced if one is a moderator and has agreed to enforce the rules as written. The forum members are expected to follow the rules, so it seems to me moderators should be expected to enforce them as written, not simply pick and choose based on their personal opinions.

The post I made above lays out 2 clear solutions to getting deep into the weeds. People absolutely have the right to believe that gravity is a lie or that cats have 7 legs. But if they spread harmful false beliefs on a forum where such behavior is ”instantly bannable,” then they should be instantly banned.

The rule can be removed, but if not, then it should be enforced.

 

[ouimetnick]

The very notion that MR could ever be in league with those sites is absolutely absurd.

Coming from someone who is here daily... I think you guys need to take a step back and realize that *nobody* besides Apple enthusiasts, tech nerds (myself included), and some tech beat reporters have any clue what MR is. This site has literally no impact on the zeitgeist. To project that it’s on the slippery slope to being Parlor is to vastly overstate MR’s importance or significance in the real world. I mean that with all due respect Arn, but this is in the corners of the internet that caters to a *very* niche market and interest group.

This all seems like a tempest in a teapot, and projecting insecurities of what’s going on in the real world into a fun website most of here check in on every day.

If MacRumors’s PRSI is filled with misinformation and false conspiracy theories and nothing is done, it becomes just like Parler. Nothing absurd about that. Just reality.

Just for sake of argument, what about religion? Certainly even if you believe in a religion you might not believe in someone else’s religion. And some might be dismissive of religion in entirety.

Religion is a tricky topic. As someone who questions religion, my personal opinion is that if there is no actual evidence, it’s fake. You mean to tell be a human being can come back to life after being nailed to a cross and dying? Lol. 🤣

But since these possible fictional stories happened hundreds of years ago, it’s not worth my wasting my time debating someone for it.

I’m more concerned about the conspiracy theories regarding modern day/more recent issues. I don’t know of any damage that can be done by believing the moon landing was a hoax created by the radical left Chinese democrats to sell more moons. But plenty of damage can (and has been) be done by claiming the election was stolen or massive fraud occurred (with out providing real evidence) As far as who determines if the evidence is real or factual, that’s what the courts do. So far they have thrown it out. (Referring the the widespread election fraud here)

 

[SuperMatt]

Just for sake of argument, what about religion? Certainly even if you believe in a religion you might not believe in someone else’s religion. And some might be dismissive of religion in entirety.

If one doesn’t believe there are some things that are true and some things that are false in this world, one should not have a policy of banning people that post false information.

That being said, a rule that bans dangerous hoaxes could be a positive thing, if it is transparent and there is a given source for deciding what is or isn’t a hoax. If somebody doesn’t like that, at least they know up front how the hoax rule is going to be enforced and can plan accordingly.

 

[NT1440]

If MacRumors’s PRSI is filled with misinformation and false conspiracy theories and nothing is done, it becomes just like Parler. Nothing absurd about that. Just reality.

Filled? Really? Most of these threads and posts are chocked full of the overwhelming majority of posters mocking the notion that the election was stolen. How is that a problem?

Parler was funded by dark money right wing groups with the explicit intention of it being exactly what it is.

To compare MR’s to that is not only hyperbolic, it’s insulting to Arn and the entire team that keeps this site running.

 

[ouimetnick]

Filled? Really? Most of these threads and posts are chocked full of the overwhelming majority of posters mocking the notion that the election was stolen. How is that a problem?

Parler was funded by dark money right wing groups with the explicit intention of it being exactly what it is.

To compare MR’s to that is not only hyperbolic, it’s insulting to Arn and the entire team that keeps this site running.

I’m not referring to the entire site and the rest of the forum. Just PRSI. I still check it often but not as frequently as I used to.

Not trying be come across as insulting. Just pointing out how I perceive it.

 

[NT1440]

I’m not referring to the entire site and the rest of the forum. Just PRSI. I still check it often but not as frequently as I used to.

Not trying be come across as insulting. Just pointing out how I perceive it.

This is what I don’t understand about this entire thread. Those calling for a clampdown or outright removal of PRSI are explicitly telling us that they’ve already disengaged entirely from it or have cut way down voluntarily.

I don’t understand why then those of us who find value in it have to wonder whether this vocal outcry will remove one of my favorite places on the internet to be. I don’t engage in social media at all because THAT level of discourse is the real problem. PRSI is where I can have conversations that I literally cannot have anywhere else. The forum medium lends itself to real dialogue (obviously that’s not always the case) because there ARE plenty of high quality posters who take the time to consider their words mixed in with lesser quality responses.

I just don’t want to see Arn being pestered into dropping a part of this site I love because people who openly admit to not participating are constantly complaining about it.

 

[ouimetnick]

This is what I don’t understand about this entire thread. Those calling for a clampdown or outright removal of PRSI are explicitly telling us that they’ve already disengaged entirely from it or have cut way down voluntarily.

I don’t understand why then those of us who find value in it have to wonder whether this vocal outcry will remove one of my favorite places on the internet to be. I don’t engage in social media at all because THAT level of discourse is the real problem. PRSI is where I can have conversations that I literally cannot have anywhere else. The forum medium lends itself to real dialogue (obviously that’s not always the case) because there ARE plenty of high quality posters who take the time to consider their words mixed in with lesser quality responses.

I just don’t want to see Arn being pestered into dropping a part of this site I love because people who openly admit to not participating are constantly complaining about it.

I’d like to take part in it if the rules were evenly enforced. My argument is simple. Either enforce the rules consistently or don’t have rules (or close PRSI down)

Because it’s gotten worse overtime I’ve limited my activity. Had the mods done their jobs and enforced the rules, I’d participate more frequently.

 

[Strelok]

Tell them they are wrong and why, then move on. People will believe whatever they want, all you can do is give them the correct information. I'm a bit surprised by how quickly everyone is on board with censoring those who don't hold the same viewpoints, however misguided they may be.

I've set PRSI on ignore, a feature that was added a while ago. There is nothing of value in that section for me personally.