Hoax rule is not being enforced

[SuperMatt]

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.

The moderators of these forums regularly censor all sorts of content, per the rules. This thread is meant to discuss why one of those rules isn’t being enforced. Please note, I think some rules are helpful. If the rule regarding hoaxes IS a helpful rule, then it should be enforced. If not, it should be removed from the instantly bannable offenses list.

I’ve enjoyed the discussion so far on whether this particular rule is useful, how far it should go, possible ways to enforce it if it is kept around, etc.

 

[ericgtr12]

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.

Of course, whatever religion one follows is their own business and their own discussion. Same goes for a president. Both should be freely discussed if that's the goal of the site, it's when one of those turns dangerous against either math or known science that a closer look should be taken. Is it allowing for discussion/debate or is it misinforming people during a riot or a pandemic? Two very different things IMO.

 

[I7guy]

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.

Well the fact of who won the election is immutable at this point. That someone's opinion might be the existing president won the election is a bad opinion, but they might believe it. In the spirit of the the thread does that make it a hoax?

This was discussed in another thread somewhere, but I can't find it. Hoaxes and misinformation run the gamut from the "moon is made of cheese" to "the earth is flat" to "masks don't do anything to help spread covid-19" to "drinking xxx will cure covid-19". Where does one draw the line between outright not seeing reality and the attempt to deceive? I can't think of the argument of the moon is made of cheese being anywhere on the side of anybody caring. But drinking xxx to cure covid-19 (as discussed in the previous thread) is dangerous misinformation (I believe arn used that example).

If someone believes and espouses some opinion of the election that doesn't reflect reality is it a hoax, misinformation or a genuine belief? Hard to tell the thought process behind the post at times.

Where is the line in the sand that MR staff moderate bad opinions is the question at hand? One could easily ignore such posts or as a more draconian measure ignore the political forums including PRSI.

 

[ckoerner]

The cesspool is going to keep being a cesspool.

This seems like a poor defense for the site owners to keep a cesspool around as part of their business strategy. if it’s going to be a cesspool, maybe get rid of the cesspool? Unless, of course, having a cesspool is a feature not a bug.

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.

Yes. Deplatforming works. You let one Nazi into your bar and now you have a Nazi bar.

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.

I joined Macrumors fourteen and a half years ago. I have rarely posted and only recently started to frequent the forums again after divorcing myself from large scale social media. I wanted to try and find some of that old, small web here, with all the lessons we’ve learned over the last twenty some odd years. At least, I hoped they were lessons learned.

 

[arn]

I joined Macrumors fourteen and a half years ago. I have rarely posted and only recently started to frequent the forums again after divorcing myself from large scale social media. I wanted to try and find some of that old, small web here, with all the lessons we’ve learned over the last twenty some odd years. At least, I hoped they were lessons learned.

Hi ckoerner,

Glad to see you still here.

There is a common refrain that we keep politics around as a feature, not a bug. But we've taken steps to limit politics to specific areas. In fact, as a user with 47 posts, you actually don't have access to our non-news politics forum, which is limited to those with > 100 posts. They are also not browsable by guests.

As for the news stories. That remains up for debate, as evidenced by this thread. We did recently test turning comments off completely from a news story.

CBS This Morning: Apple to Make 'Big Announcement' Tomorrow Morning

CBS This Morning today shared a short clip of an upcoming interview with Apple CEO Tim Cook in which addressing last week's events at the U.S....

www.macrumors.com

We are still trying that out.

 

[svanstrom]

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 you could call a "legacy hoax", one that can be grandfathered into modern discussions simply because people mostly have a shared, mature, and mutual, understanding to not discuss it in a setting shared with people of a strong different belief.

And if someone came to MR and found a section with people fighting over who's god is/isn't real, and what interventions in society should be attributed to which one of them, they would probably slowly back away; and never return to this particular rabbit hole again.

In that light I would say that allowing certain "politics" makes even less sense; not because it's politics, but because certain "politics" isn't discussed in a mature way.

Right now I only see what's sort of leaks/screencaps its way out of that part of MR, though; so it'll be interesting to find out what my views about this rabbit hole will be when my account become a real boy with regular access.

Edit: I'm just going to assume that I'm probably the oldest currently active account without access to that. 😂

 

[Eraserhead]

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.

This has caused me to disengage from it as well. It’s good to hear different viewpoints. But the level of debate never really goes up and stays discussing Obama’s tanned suit and other false controversies.

 

[DaveFromCampbelltown]

...

Edit: I'm just going to assume that I'm probably the oldest currently active account without access to that. 😂

One more post, mate, and you're in. You get the secret handshake and the digital keys (256-bit, of course) to the great unknown.

 

[Falhófnir]

In the past few months, some forum members have been posting dangerous hoaxes, which is an “instantly bannable” offense according to the Forum Rules.

The posts have been reported, but the message from the moderators has been clear. They will not enforce this rule because they supposedly do not have the resources to “fact-check” posts.

As a result, the MacRumors forums are now home to many instances of dangerous misinformation. I cannot discuss specific posts per forum rules, but the most worrisome categories are: misinformation about a deadly virus, and misinformation about election results in America. These posts have been condemned and removed from major social media sites because they led to uncontrolled spreading of a pandemic in the former case and mob violence in the latter case.

TL;DR: It’s impossible to enforce a rule about hoaxes if one refuses to decide what is or isn’t the truth. I believe the rule should either be enforced or removed.

The mod team is mostly voluntary, it's got to be trying on them to constantly be making calls like that; perhaps if you see something you think is outright 'fake news' you should cite a reputable factchecking source in your report to help them with it?

 

[laptech]

The mod team is mostly voluntary, it's got to be trying on them to constantly be making calls like that; perhaps if you see something you think is outright 'fake news' you should cite a reputable factchecking source in your report to help them with it?

And if the mod disagrees with the fact checking source and thus responds with 'no moderation required', then what because admins will 99.9% back the moderators decison.

 

[Falhófnir]

And if the mod disagrees with the fact checking source and thus responds with 'no moderation required', then what because admins will 99.9% back the moderators decison.

In 99.9% of cases I would expect mods to act accordingly if presented with strong evidence that a post is deliberately spreading misinformation. No system will ever be perfect, there's always going to be stuff that slips through the net or is grey enough to escape (particularly where personal opinion is blended in). The Internet is and probably always will be a bit of a wild west.

 

[svanstrom]

One more post, mate, and you're in. You get the secret handshake and the digital keys (256-bit, of course) to the great unknown.

I saw the "Apple censoring conservative speech - according to Parlor CEO" thread; and slowly backed out of there.

There's just no way I could get into a discussion where armed wannabe revolutionaries are hiding behind just being "conservatives" without my account getting instantly banned for my opinions, thoughts, and prayers, shared about some people and their questionable ancestry. 😉

Depending on how the social distancing progresses I might at a later day find me a suitable hill there, though; but it would be a shame losing a ~19yo account.

 

[svanstrom]

And if the mod disagrees with the fact checking source and thus responds with 'no moderation required', then what because admins will 99.9% back the moderators decison.

Maybe a hoaxometer?

Something in the like-scale that indicates factual incorrectness; and the more of that you get yourself, the less value your flagging someone else has.

From a moderator view posts by people could then be color-shifted/flagged, so that greater scrutiny can be directed towards flagged posts by accounts often getting flagged.

It's a tricky thing to get right, because it can't be something that 100% is expected to cause a reaction by a moderator; and at the same time it can't be an automated system that people can game just to get rid of someone they dislike.

Personally I think that it could be part of the like-scale, with maybe a 🚫-alternative that brings up a list of rules you can chose from and say that that post/person has broken. And the stats from that is only visible to the moderators.

 

[laptech]

In 99.9% of cases I would expect mods to act accordingly if presented with strong evidence that a post is deliberately spreading misinformation. No system will ever be perfect, there's always going to be stuff that slips through the net or is grey enough to escape (particularly where personal opinion is blended in). The Internet is and probably always will be a bit of a wild west.

To be honest, it would be a lot easier to just to give the media info from the PRSI section an say 'look media, this is the type of person that buys Apple products, does Apple really want to sell to such people?' and then let the fall out begin.

 

[IowaLynn]

The "Big Lie" - https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2019/05/europe/finland-fake-news-intl/

How Finland starts its fight against fake news in primary schools

Country on frontline of information war teaches everyone from school pupils to politicians how to spot slippery information

www.theguardian.com

 

[ruka.snow]

Hi ckoerner,

Glad to see you still here.

There is a common refrain that we keep politics around as a feature, not a bug. But we've taken steps to limit politics to specific areas. In fact, as a user with 47 posts, you actually don't have access to our non-news politics forum, which is limited to those with > 100 posts. They are also not browsable by guests.

As for the news stories. That remains up for debate, as evidenced by this thread. We did recently test turning comments off completely from a news story.

CBS This Morning: Apple to Make 'Big Announcement' Tomorrow Morning

CBS This Morning today shared a short clip of an upcoming interview with Apple CEO Tim Cook in which addressing last week's events at the U.S....

www.macrumors.com

We are still trying that out.

The comments off, made it a far more enjoyable experience. Just enjoying the news for what it was rather than the cesspool of hate and vile.

 

[ckoerner]

In fact, as a user with 47 posts, you actually don't have access to our non-news politics forum, which is limited to those with > 100 posts. They are also not browsable by guests.

Thanks arn for engaging here. I should have been more clear that my experiences as of late are not that great from reading the discussions that are quarantined in the political news section.

 

[ipponrg]

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 have always felt the PRSI forum here was a safe haven for certain people who desired heavier regulations. Whether that lends to real dialogue is subjective. One thing that I dislike about those threads is there is usually a mob mentality from a few posters as they pat each other’s backs. It feels less about having a conversation and more about the “I am right” attitude which is not much different than other political forums

 

[AutomaticApple]

A member here created another political site and we have a MacRumors “refugees” section. We post examples of inconsistent moderation, how mods don’t apply the rules evenly, how something doesn’t violate the rules written in the forum rules but someone gets a suspension. Likewise we have examples of things that either violate the rules or are on the edge but “no action is required” after they were reported. So many screenshots and email exchanges showing inconsistencies with Arn’s moderator team.

Can I join?

 

[I7guy]

In the past few months, some forum members have been posting dangerous hoaxes, which is an “instantly bannable” offense according to the Forum Rules.[...]

Dangerous physically, ideologically or politically? Maybe whether or not the hoax rule is enforced is based on the definition of the word "dangerous". I would hope at the minimum hoaxes that are dangerous to the physical well being of a person are being appropriately addressed.

 

[SuperMatt]

The mod team is mostly voluntary, it's got to be trying on them to constantly be making calls like that; perhaps if you see something you think is outright 'fake news' you should cite a reputable factchecking source in your report to help them with it?

This is exactly the type of thing I’m advocating for!

 

[SuperMatt]

Dangerous physically, ideologically or politically? Maybe whether or not the hoax rule is enforced is based on the definition of the word "dangerous". I would hope at the minimum hoaxes that are dangerous to the physical well being of a person are being appropriately addressed.

In the OP, I laid out 2 categories of examples of hoaxes that led to physical harm of people: misinformation on a deadly pandemic, and misinformation that led to deadly mob violence. If there is a hoax rule, these are the bare minimum, IMHO, that need to be policed.

 

[I7guy]

Many other sites and forums I frequent have a strict no politics rule. You talk about the topics that the forum is intended for and that’s it. Anytime someone brings up something political, it gets removed.

That's not what MacRumors does. They allow political talk in two forums.

If Arn is going to have rules, they better be enforced or you don’t have a country forum anymore. Rules are made up as we go along here it seems. The mods interpret things depending on how much sleep they’ve had or how they are feeling that day. A member here created another political site and we have a MacRumors “refugees” section. We post examples of inconsistent moderation, how mods don’t apply the rules evenly, how something doesn’t violate the rules written in the forum rules but someone gets a suspension. Likewise we have examples of things that either violate the rules or are on the edge but “no action is required” after they were reported. So many screenshots and email exchanges showing inconsistencies with Arn’s moderator team.

It's real easy to be a Monday morning quarterback on this topic.

With over a million member and thousands of posts in a day they rulebook will never be enforced where all parties are satisfied 100%. The rules on the books are the baseline expectation of what's expected of MR members posting here.

Paying the staff, increasing the staff count, running posts through ML algorithms will not solve the issue that some of what occurs behind the scenes is labor intensive and requires human review. Additionally why a suspension was given has more factors to it than just a single post (as explained by the staff in past threads).

And the easy solution to those who don't like PRSI, which is for MR to ditch the forum, is not happening.

If mods are going to leave up a post comparing Kamala Harris to a monkey because they don’t think anything is wrong with it, but them remove it a few days later because it derailed the thread, that says a lot about the mods.

There is no rule on the books prohibiting insults of well known people in the spotlight (if there were, half of the posts in PRSI would be removed). But in the Political Forum a single post that derails a topic would/could be moderated.

 

[SuperMatt]

Maybe a hoaxometer?

Something in the like-scale that indicates factual incorrectness; and the more of that you get yourself, the less value your flagging someone else has.

From a moderator view posts by people could then be color-shifted/flagged, so that greater scrutiny can be directed towards flagged posts by accounts often getting flagged.

It's a tricky thing to get right, because it can't be something that 100% is expected to cause a reaction by a moderator; and at the same time it can't be an automated system that people can game just to get rid of someone they dislike.

Personally I think that it could be part of the like-scale, with maybe a 🚫-alternative that brings up a list of rules you can chose from and say that that post/person has broken. And the stats from that is only visible to the moderators.

IMHO, a shortlist of dangerous hoaxes could be a good place to start, and then just flag the posts that violate them. And as I mentioned, this list could be linked from the forum rules. A designated fact-check site could be a fallback for new hoaxes.

Not all lies are supposed to be policed under the current rule:

Hoaxes. Purposely misleading other members to their detriment. Giving advice you know to be incorrect or harmful. Sensationalism.

There can’t be that many hoaxes that are: 1. common enough to make this forum 2. harmful.

I’m not asking the mods to “Fact-check” everything. Just keep the harmful hoaxes off of this platform.

 

[SuperMatt]

And if the mod disagrees with the fact checking source and thus responds with 'no moderation required', then what because admins will 99.9% back the moderators decison.

This is a great argument for either having a list of hoaxes that are considered dangerous, and/or for having a designated fact-check site that a reporter must link to if they see something they think is a hoax. The mods don’t have all the time in the world. If we want the protections of this rule, let’s make it as efficient as possible for the mods.

Unfortunately, as it stands now, we’ve been told to no longer report hoaxes at all.