Hoax rule is not being enforced

[icanhazmac]

If there will be censorship based on rules, which you and everybody else agreed to when we signed up here, then I believe those rules should be enforced.

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.

Ok, so when you feel something violates the hoax rule but the MR team feels it does not then what? What I hear in a lot of posts here is that MR is wrong, not you. Perhaps the problem does not lie with the MR mods or community but with your personal view of where the hoax or rule bar should be set? Again, if you don't like the way MR is moderated or run then find yourself a new home, there are lots to choose from, or start your own with your own set of rules! My guess is that 30 seconds after you open your forums someone will complain that you are not enforcing your rules properly.

Edit: By suggesting that someone "find a new home" that is unhappy with the way MR is run or moderated I want to clarify that I do not mean that in a dismissive way with regards to your suggestions or viewpoints. You should have a forum to make suggestions or express opinions but if you are repeatedly finding that your suggestions and viewpoints are not gaining traction then perhaps it is time to move on versus repeatedly complaining that you are not getting your way and find that you are not enjoying your time here, life is too short.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

There are a lot of "rules" here that are not being enforced. Big surprise.

And there are some that are, with a perfervid enthusiasm.

 

[MacUser2525]

Ok, so when you feel something violates the hoax rule but the MR team feels it does not then what? What I hear in a lot of posts here is that MR is wrong, not you. Perhaps the problem does not lie with the MR mods or community but with your personal view of where the hoax or rule bar should be set?

I tend to set it at information that will KILL people. This false equivalency BS I see way to often to justify this lack of action.

 

[svanstrom]

Today I've come to the conclusion that the best way to get a cleaner MR-experience is this:

1. Ignore a certain subforum.
2. Write a few posts that are anti-Trump (and throw in a few anti-China just for good measure).
3. Ignore those disliking said posts.
4. Enjoy the calm and silence that only a head thoroughly buried in the sand can give.

😆

 

[I7guy]

I certainly appreciate your opinion on this.

Ditto, and thank you for engaging in a debate about this topic.

The rule on hoaxes already exists. The question is: should they keep it? I think the current situation of the rule being there but mods saying they will not enforce it is untenable.

As @ThemePro posted above: "The rule as posted is, Hoaxes. Purposely misleading other members to their detriment. Giving advice you know to be incorrect or harmful. Sensationalism."

So what is to their detriment? Does a person have to think critically for themselves? Should MacRumors be the "dumbed down" police and moderate according the lowest level? No system is perfect, laws aren't perfect. There will always some discretion.

And as for censorship... this forum is already heavily censored. Don’t believe me? Go on a thread and start calling people names and/or usimg vulgar language.

If there will be censorship based on rules, which you and everybody else agreed to when we signed up here, then I believe those rules should be enforced.

We already know there are boundaries that we must adhere to when we post on MR. If it is to be viewed as censorship rather than civil discourse, so be it. As I mentioned above there is always discretion because that is the way rules and regulations work. A cop can pull you over for speeding and you get a warning...I would think having some discretion at least in this instance would be welcome. That same discretion would/should be welcome here as well, even if not every MR member is on-board with it.

 

[I7guy]

I tend to set it at information that will KILL people. This false equivalency BS I see way to often to justify this lack of action.

This is in your opinion, based on your thinking of some future event that potentially could happen. A post that would directly result in harm to an individual or others, should be reported and I'm sure will be dealt with appropriately.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Today I've come to the conclusion that the best way to get a cleaner MR-experience is this:

1. Ignore a certain subforum.
2. Write a few posts that are anti-Trump (and throw in a few anti-China just for good measure).
3. Ignore those disliking said posts.
4. Enjoy the calm and silence that only a head thoroughly buried in the sand can give.

😆

That raised a smile.

Shoot me a PM/DM if you get a chance.

 

[SuperMatt]

I tend to set it at information that will KILL people. This false equivalency BS I see way to often to justify this lack of action.

Thanks, this is exactly what I advocated for in the OP. There is dangerous false info on these forums right now that, when spread upon other (yes, much larger) platforms, led to deaths.

 

[MacUser2525]

This is in your opinion, based on your thinking of some future event that potentially could happen. A post that would directly result in harm to an individual or others, should be reported and I'm sure will be dealt with appropriately.

Another perfect example of the problem, it is a direct assault on people, these idiots who spread this garbage in the hope of KILLING people, pathetic ....

 

[icanhazmac]

Today I've come to the conclusion that the best way to get a cleaner MR-experience is this:

1. Ignore a certain subforum.
2. Write a few posts that are anti-Trump (and throw in a few anti-China just for good measure).
3. Ignore those disliking said posts.
4. Enjoy the calm and silence that only a head thoroughly buried in the sand can give.

😆

If that is what you feel you need to do but its kinda sad.

Before I filtered out PRSI I had some heated, though civil, discussions with MR members that I could not be on a more polar opposite from in politics BUT I have had great interactions with those same people about Apple products. I don't know about you but the main reason I am here is for info and discussion on Apple products, sometimes those articles delve into PRSI but for the most part I just avoid that because, as others have stated, there are plenty of other places to discuss politics.

Point is, be careful who you ignore, they might have a tidbit of Apple info that you will find useful.

 

[laptech]

Ok, so when you feel something violates the hoax rule but the MR team feels it does not then what? What I hear in a lot of posts here is that MR is wrong, not you. Perhaps the problem does not lie with the MR mods or community but with your personal view of where the hoax or rule bar should be set? Again, if you don't like the way MR is moderated or run then find yourself a new home, there are lots to choose from, or start your own with your own set of rules! My guess is that 30 seconds after you open your forums someone will complain that you are not enforcing your rules properly.

Edit: By suggesting that someone "find a new home" that is unhappy with the way MR is run or moderated I want to clarify that I do not mean that in a dismissive way with regards to your suggestions or viewpoints. You should have a forum to make suggestions or express opinions but if you are repeatedly finding that your suggestions and viewpoints are not gaining traction then perhaps it is time to move on versus repeatedly complaining that you are not getting your way and find that you are not enjoying your time here, life is too short.

Is that how is it??? If person engages in a debate making constructive criticism and YOU don't like it, that person has to leave.

Editing your post does no absolve you from what you originally typed.

 

[icanhazmac]

Is that how is it??? If person engages in a debate making constructive criticism and YOU don't like it, that person has to leave.

Editing your post does no absolve you from what you originally typed.

Yup, certainly editing my post to more clearly define and refine my intentions was wrong of me, I should have left an incomplete thought incomplete.

/SMH

Edit: I also never said that anyone "HAS" to leave, I merely and clearly suggested that if an individual finds they are not enjoying their time at MR the magic of the internet is that there are usually multiple places for you to explore any given topic. As stated, if you have an issue please offer your thoughts and opinions but if they are repeatedly rejected by the powers that be it might be time for you to move on, for your own happiness, unless you just like to publicly complain.

 

[MacUser2525]

Thanks, this is exactly what I advocated for in the OP. There is dangerous false info on these forums right now that, when spread upon other (yes, much larger) platforms, led to deaths.

You are welcome and as you see there is an amazingly high percentage of people who are more than willing to let it, if not encourage it, to continue to happen. This last year has done nothing to raise my opinion of humanity seeing such large masses of people willing to do so.

 

[I7guy]

Another perfect example of the problem, it is a direct assault on people, these idiots who spread this garbage in the hope of KILLING people, pathetic ....

What problem? Intolerance for another opinion? Care to be specific for a concrete example of cause and effect? Something that was posted on MR that causes direct detriment to another? Because that is what this conversation is about.

 

[Apple_Robert]

I do not agree with the notion that it is the place of MacRumors to determine what is truth and what isn't in said forum. Those that travel to the PRSI forum are adults and capable of doing their own research to determine what to believe and what not to believe. If people are too lazy to do their own research, then they become their own stumbling block, not MacRumors. It is not the place of MacRumors to protect you from seeing something you disagree with.

Asking Arn and the staff to become the sole arbiters of what people should be protected from seeing is a dangerous and slippery slope. And it is one that I will strongly fight against creating.


As Arn said, the rule as written, was not meant to be applied as the OP (and a few others) is seeking it to be. All Arn needs to do is amend the rule to specifically state that it is about Apple products only and is not written for, nor will it be applied to political and social topics.

If someone states the moon is made of cheese or that there was never a moon landing, so what. If someone wants to be stuck on stupid, there is no need to pull up a chair and argue the obvious. Doing that would be a waste of time. If others want waste their time, as if often the case here, let them and then go about your business in another part of the forum where cogent responses are welcome.

While I disagree with a lot of what people say in said forum and how they treat one another, I don't think it is in the best interest of MacRumors to treat said forum as it were social media, and act in the same manner that Twitter, Facebook and other social media outlets have. If MacRumors starts doing that, I will not continue being a member much less a Contributor to the forum.

 

[annk]

I'm not speaking for the site, but rather sharing my personal opinions as an admin.

I don't think that the issue is the hoax rule - we're barking up the wrong tree. The purpose of the hoax rule has been explained by the site owner, and it doesn't have anything to do with the sort of misinformation, disinformation, or fake news that is what is really being discussed here. I found some good definitions on a university library site:

1. Misinformation is false information that is spread, regardless of whether there is intent to mislead.
2. Disinformation is deliberately misleading or biased information; manipulated narrative or facts; propaganda.
3. Fake news is purposefully crafted, sensational, emotionally charged, misleading or totally fabricated information that mimics the form of mainstream news.

None of these should be covered by a hoax rule designed to deal with tech issues.

As a point of departure, I personally agree with @icanhazmac, who said, "Canceling, banning and deleting are the worst possible ways to deal with misinformation or bad ideas, only in the public light of debate can you hope to educate both yourself and others."

@ThemePro said it well: "Now perhaps there should be a rule concerning misinformation but it's a slippery slope. How would mininformation be arbitrated and what constitutes detriment?"

If the site should become overrun with people trying to use it as a platform for malicious purposes, and it was no longer possible to deal with it through discussion and moderation on the basis of the forum rules, that would be another issue and would require action of some sort.

If MR is to run such discussions, they have some responsibility to ensure some degree of truth, or that a distinction is drawn between what is true, and what is false on their site.

Otherwise, they run the risk of losing credibility, of being seen as a credible source, not merely on politics, but - also on scientific, and on tech matters.

This is incorrect. Controlling the truth in users' posts is not the function of a discussion platform. MacRumors has never claimed or aspired to be a credible political source. Whether or not it's a credible tech source is another matter, based on other criteria.

It's important to remember that MacRumors does not have the same function, purpose, size, or global reach of Twitter or Facebook. The staff are not fact checkers. Users can refute false information with their own sources in discussion.

I am very sure that any 2 members of MR can site 5 references to support any topic they feel strongly about and both sides will claim the other is "fake news". Now some look to the host or platform to settle the score, support their side and cancel the other, this is where I have a problem. The platform should NOT be trying to vet competing sources of "facts" and determining a winner. Personally I do not want MR spending all its resources vetting individual PRSI posts. Let everyone have their voice and let the community at large debate the ideas presented. I guarantee that you will not like some of the voices from the other team(s) but that does not mean they should be canceled.

Echo chambers of blind support are the real danger.

I agree. Again, fact checking is not our job.

As I was about to hit Reply, @Apple_Robert posted what I'm trying to say in a much more concise way!

 

[I7guy]

Whatever pull your foolishness elsewhere, congrads on joining the banned list. To answer your BS attempt before doing that you know perfectly well the don't wear a mask, anti-vaccination garbage that goes on among others of the same intent, if you don't your an uneducated fool. There is no opinion on scientific facts, so spew your garbage defence of this junk at somone who will humor your argument pretending it has merit, I am not one of those.

You totally missed the point. Misinformation of any variety can be discussed and debunked. Of course we are taking about the confines of the rules of MacRumors, who is allowing to us to do that.

There are some in here, including me that are of the opinion moderating misinformation, without the ability to present the facts only fuels the fire, while information helps put the fire out.

You are welcome to your opinion, but putting me on the ignore list isn't going to change the conversation at hand.

 

[icanhazmac]

I tend to set it at information that will KILL people. This false equivalency BS I see way to often to justify this lack of action.

So try this one out....

In the not so distant past dietary cholesterol and saturated fat was painted as the death of us all causing heart disease. The decades long result of this was don't eat fats / cholesterol / meat / eggs but instead eat low-fat diets of grains/carbs and foods replacing fats with refined sugars. We only find out now (lately) that these studies were funded my the sugar industry in the 60's.

How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat (Published 2016)

Newly discovered documents show that the sugar industry paid scientists in the 1960s to shape the debate around heart disease, sugar and fat.

www.nytimes.com

In the 60s through the 90s anyone trying to challenge the idea that fat/cholesterol was the #1 reason for heart disease, obesity etc was shamed and labeled as someone who would cause the death of millions!

Here we stand approximately 60 years later and we find out that it was all a scam! How many millions have died as a result of being fed low-fat, high-sugar/carb diets over this time? PS - Look to see how much sugar is added to foods labeled low-fat.

My point is, some of you in this thread would have labeled anyone who spoke out against these findings in the 60s-90s as a conspiracy theorist and dangerous as trying to dispute these ideas would cause the death of many. Now we find out that it was indeed a conspiracy and it is indeed refinded sugar and over processed foods that are at the heart of poor health, obesity and diabetes.... not eggs.

Be careful who you believe as an absolute source of information, anyone can be paid to say anything, pay enough people to say the same thing and it becomes "fact". What you believe is fact today can become absolute rubbish tomorrow.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I'm not speaking for the site, but rather sharing my personal opinions as an admin.

I don't think that the issue is the hoax rule - we're barking up the wrong tree. The purpose of the hoax rule has been explained by the site owner, and it doesn't have anything to do with the sort of misinformation, disinformation, or fake news that is what is really being discussed here. I found some good definitions on a university library site:

1. Misinformation is false information that is spread, regardless of whether there is intent to mislead.
2. Disinformation is deliberately misleading or biased information; manipulated narrative or facts; propaganda.
3. Fake news is purposefully crafted, sensational, emotionally charged, misleading or totally fabricated information that mimics the form of mainstream news.

None of these should be covered by a hoax rule designed to deal with tech issues.

As a point of departure, I personally agree with @icanhazmac, who said, "Canceling, banning and deleting are the worst possible ways to deal with misinformation or bad ideas, only in the public light of debate can you hope to educate both yourself and others."

@ThemePro said it well: "Now perhaps there should be a rule concerning misinformation but it's a slippery slope. How would mininformation be arbitrated and what constitutes detriment?"

If the site should become overrun with people trying to use it as a platform for malicious purposes, and it was no longer possible to deal with it through discussion and moderation on the basis of the forum rules, that would be another issue and would require action of some sort.




This is incorrect. Controlling the truth in users' posts is not the function of a discussion platform. MacRumors has never claimed or aspired to be a credible political source. Whether or not it's a credible tech source is another matter, based on other criteria.

It's important to remember that MacRumors does not have the same function, purpose, size, or global reach of Twitter or Facebook. The staff are not fact checkers. Users can refute false information with their own sources in discussion.



I agree. Again, fact checking is not our job.

As I was about to hit Reply, @Apple_Robert posted what I'm trying to say in a much more concise way!

Fact checking may not be your job, but - I submit - that there is a difference betwen the sort of demonstrably false stuff posted (on masks, on the conduct and outcome of the election) - which, the passage of time, consequences, and evidence - had all shown to be false, and the more usual mistakes.

Nobody is asking you to fact check everything; but a standard where stuff that has been shown to be false is allowed to remain online - without the slightest appearance that truth matters - is a standard far below what much of the other (terrestrial) media is obliged to adhere to.

Moreover, the hoaxes, or misinformation, or misdirection that @SuperMatt, @ericgtr12 & I have referred to does not require globe resources to address. These are egregious errors - because they are false - but, more importantly, they are not simply false, but they carry possibly costly consequences.

It was perfect possible to advance - as an opinion - several months ago - the thought that masks don't work, or that the incumbent won the election. Not now.

And, I think it rich that companies seek to coast as free-riders on the strengths of the commercial and tech environment enabled and facilitated by rule of law based, western democracies (protected by the rule of law, enjoying the advantages of the free market) without recognising that rights sometimes come complete with responsibilities to draw a distinction between what is true and what is false, especially when the costs and consequences of failing to do so, as a civic actor, not merely a commerial company, can come so high.

 

[SuperMatt]

I'm not speaking for the site, but rather sharing my personal opinions as an admin.

I don't think that the issue is the hoax rule - we're barking up the wrong tree. The purpose of the hoax rule has been explained by the site owner, and it doesn't have anything to do with the sort of misinformation, disinformation, or fake news that is what is really being discussed here. I found some good definitions on a university library site:

1. Misinformation is false information that is spread, regardless of whether there is intent to mislead.
2. Disinformation is deliberately misleading or biased information; manipulated narrative or facts; propaganda.
3. Fake news is purposefully crafted, sensational, emotionally charged, misleading or totally fabricated information that mimics the form of mainstream news.

None of these should be covered by a hoax rule designed to deal with tech issues.

As a point of departure, I personally agree with @icanhazmac, who said, "Canceling, banning and deleting are the worst possible ways to deal with misinformation or bad ideas, only in the public light of debate can you hope to educate both yourself and others."

@ThemePro said it well: "Now perhaps there should be a rule concerning misinformation but it's a slippery slope. How would mininformation be arbitrated and what constitutes detriment?"

If the site should become overrun with people trying to use it as a platform for malicious purposes, and it was no longer possible to deal with it through discussion and moderation on the basis of the forum rules, that would be another issue and would require action of some sort.




This is incorrect. Controlling the truth in users' posts is not the function of a discussion platform. MacRumors has never claimed or aspired to be a credible political source. Whether or not it's a credible tech source is another matter, based on other criteria.

It's important to remember that MacRumors does not have the same function, purpose, size, or global reach of Twitter or Facebook. The staff are not fact checkers. Users can refute false information with their own sources in discussion.



I agree. Again, fact checking is not our job.

As I was about to hit Reply, @Apple_Robert posted what I'm trying to say in a much more concise way!

I totally understand your opinion. The rule, as it is written, is not consistent with this method of moderation. I understand that arn originally intended the hoax rule to apply only to Mac rumors before PRSI was created... but we have a PRSI section now, so I agree the rule needs to be fixed/changed/clarified/deleted...

Hopefully, the result of this thread will be a fix of the discrepancy, either with a “fact checking” role for dangerous misinformation, or the rule changed, clarified, or deleted to reflect the actual policy of not policing hoaxes at all in PRSI.

 

[Eraserhead]

As a point of departure, I personally agree with @icanhazmac, who said, "Canceling, banning and deleting are the worst possible ways to deal with misinformation or bad ideas, only in the public light of debate can you hope to educate both yourself and others."

I think that’s highly debatable. The problems with have with people believing absurd conspiracy theories like 5G causing COVID are down to exposure to knowingly false ideas to drive traffic.

 

[I7guy]

[...] but, more importantly, they are not simply false, but they carry possibly costly consequences.

[...]

The point that is being advanced is MacRumors is not trying to protect us from ourselves. Using the mask example, if someone believe masks do not offer any protection against covid-19 and posts that, should that post be deleted because someone else may believe it? I argue no. The best way to handle it is to post the facts as they are currently and someone can either believe them or not. But deleting the post does nothing to help others see something differently that might happen if the post was discussed.

Now it's a secondary matter altogether if the "hoax" rules were amended to say it refers to tech only and in PRSI, one is responsible for verifying their own information.

 

[arn]

It was perfect possible to advance - as an opinion - several months ago - the thought that masks don't work, or that the incumbent won the election. Not now.

So there was a point where you considered saying "masks don't work" as an acceptable POV but beyond that point it is not acceptable? When was that point? How did you determine that point?

 

[MacUser2525]

So try this one out....

In the not so distant past dietary cholesterol and saturated fat was painted as the death of us all causing heart disease. The decades long result of this was don't eat fats / cholesterol / meat / eggs but instead eat low-fat diets of grains/carbs and foods replacing fats with refined sugars. We only find out now (lately) that these studies were funded my the sugar industry in the 60's.

How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat (Published 2016)

Newly discovered documents show that the sugar industry paid scientists in the 1960s to shape the debate around heart disease, sugar and fat.

www.nytimes.com

In the 60s through the 90s anyone trying to challenge the idea that fat/cholesterol was the #1 reason for heart disease, obesity etc was shamed and labeled as someone who would cause the death of millions!

Here we stand approximately 60 years later and we find out that it was all a scam! How many millions have died as a result of being fed low-fat, high-sugar/carb diets over this time? PS - Look to see how much sugar is added to foods labeled low-fat.

My point is, some of you in this thread would have labeled anyone who spoke out against these findings in the 60s-90s as a conspiracy theorist and dangerous as trying to dispute these ideas would cause the death of many. Now we find out that it was indeed a conspiracy and it is indeed refinded sugar and over processed foods that are at the heart of poor health, obesity and diabetes.... not eggs.

Be careful who you believe as an absolute source of information, anyone can be paid to say anything, pay enough people to say the same thing and it becomes "fact". What you believe is fact today can become absolute rubbish tomorrow.

I will go with proven science none of that junk funded by the interested parties, the fox guarding the hen house way of thinking. Those studies were never validated buy any objective source, I am not sure if it was in this thread I mentioned the follow the money and control freaks to find it out where it lies for any of this. That is what I think about that stuff I am never believing it by default once you show me the method of determination of your claim is sound and proven so by others then I will accept it as a fact. That is how all of this should be handled this false equality BS is beyond the pale. Most of these people knowingly do this, it is their objective to cause harm to their fellow humans and deny them their humanity.

 

[annk]

Fact checking may not be your job, but - I submit - that there is a difference betwen the sort of demonstrably false stuff posted (on masks, on the conduct and outcome of the election) - which, the passage of time, consequences, and evidence - had all shown to be false, and the more usual mistakes.

These aren't contradictory, though your use of the word "but" seems to imply that they are. Fact checking is not our job, and there is certainly a difference between various types of incorrect and purposely false information.

Nobody is asking you to fact check everything; but a standard where stuff that has been shown to be false is allowed to remain online - without the slightest appearance that truth matters - is a standard far below what much of the other (terrestrial) media is obliged to adhere to.

Whether or not anyone is asking us to fact check anything or everything is not the point - it's not our job. That doesn't mean that truth doesn't matter.

I don't think you can compare a tech forum to the vague and large category of "media."

Moreover, the hoaxes, or misinformation, or misdirection that @SuperMatt, @ericgtr12 & I have referred to does not require globe resources to address. These are egregious errors - because they are false - but, more importantly, they are not simply false, but they carry possibly costly consequences.

@I7guy answered this well above.

It was perfect possible to advance - as an opinion - several months ago - the thought that masks don't work, or that the incumbent won the election. Not now.

I can't see a way to determine a cut-off point or to implement it in a way that would be satisfactory to a large enough percentage of users.

I think that’s highly debatable. The problems with have with people believing absurd conspiracy theories like 5G causing COVID are down to exposure to knowingly false ideas to drive traffic.

I think your quote of my post lacks some context. My intention was that the following three short paragraphs should be read together - I only separated them for the sake of readability:

As a point of departure, I personally agree with @icanhazmac, who said, "Canceling, banning and deleting are the worst possible ways to deal with misinformation or bad ideas, only in the public light of debate can you hope to educate both yourself and others."

@ThemePro said it well: "Now perhaps there should be a rule concerning misinformation but it's a slippery slope. How would mininformation be arbitrated and what constitutes detriment?"

If the site should become overrun with people trying to use it as a platform for malicious purposes, and it was no longer possible to deal with it through discussion and moderation on the basis of the forum rules, that would be another issue and would require action of some sort.