Hoax rule is not being enforced

[Scepticalscribe]

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?

Come on.

I would turn this around, and invite you to ask yourself: At what stage - at what number of deaths - does it no longer become acceptable to host stuff that is plainly and clearly and manifestly false?


However, to answer your question, today, with a mortality rate of approaching 400,000 from Covid-19 in the US alone in a time period of a little over ten months will do just fine.

 

[icanhazmac]

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.

You do realize that there was a time when the accepted science was that:

The earth was flat
The earth was the center of the universe
That dinosaurs died because of a volcano, now widely suspected as an impact
Pluto was a planet, then it wasn't, then it was, etc
Ulcers are caused by stress
The universe is static
Etc...

To deny that the accepted science of the 60s - early 2000s didn't read that fats/meats/etc were the root cause of heart disease and obesity over sugar and carbs is laughable.

Point is that things that are scientific "fact" today can be proven wildly false tomorrow so be very careful who or what you want to cancel today.

 

[I7guy]

Come on.

I would turn this around, and invite you to ask yourself: At what stage - at what number of deaths - does it no longer become acceptable to host stuff that is plainly and clearly and manifestly false?

However, to answer your question, today, with a mortality rate of approaching 400,000 from Covid-19 in the US alone in a time period of a little over ten months will do just fine.

You are "arguing" the downside of not deleting misinformation/disinformation. And by extension what I believe you are saying is lives would be saved if this information weren't available on MacRumors.

I'm "arguing" the upside of discussion. That is how many more lives can be saved by not deleting the offending post and discussing the facts around it.

 

[SuperMatt]

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?

I think this one is pretty easy to answer. When the effect of a mask was unknown, one could say anything because we just didn’t know. Once the effect of masks was known, spreading a hoax that they don’t work would be spreading clearly harmful misinformation.

I understand the fact-checking thing puts you and the mods in a potentially difficult spot. However, if the team wanted to prevent harmful hoaxes while keeping over 99% of content untouched regardless of its validity, a shortlist of dangerous hoaxes that is available on the site with debunking could be a great start. It could be linked within the forum rules.

That way, people know what is or is not considered a hoax by the MR moderators before they post. If they don’t agree, they could post in another community... just like with any other rule they might not want to adhere to.

Again, you don’t want to make the mods fact-check everything, and you don’t want to censor people unnecessarily. But you also don’t want dangerous disinformation spreading on your platform, I assume. My idea is one possible way to handle that.

 

[arn]

Come on.

I wasn’t asking to be facetious.

I was trying to raise the question of how that would work as a scalable policy.

arn

 

[Apple_Robert]

If we, as adults, are supposed to be responsible for our own actions, (and I contend we are responsible) what is the purpose of removing personal responsibility from the communication equation? Is it because you (plural use) can't be bothered to look up facts ahead of time and prefer MacRumors take on your personal responsibility, or is it because you (plural use) don't like what some other people say and are afraid that the gullible and lazy will be easily taken in and start adhering to that which you (plural use) perceive or know to be a lie?

If your answer is the latter, the question becomes who made you (plural use) arbiter of what another adult should or should not believe and discuss? I posit that attempting to be arbiter in such a manner does not fall under your personal responsibility and purview. Your personal responsibility should not attempt to use MacRumors as a weapon of force against fellow forum members under the guise of protecting the nameless group called "others" from themselves. In doing so, you (plural use) are in effect taking upon yourself a role that you (plural use) are not qualified to make, in determining what is safe for another person to see, read, accept, or deny.

That action, at it's core, would remove personal responsibility and freedom from those person(s) whom the 'fact checkers' believe they have a right to make judgment upon and deem unable to make the same kind of determinations that the fact checkers have placed upon themselves through the use of personal responsibility. If that were to happen to this forum, the forum would no longer be about having communication and debate, as those things require minds that are willing to express and exchange views that may be uncomfortable and possibly contradictory to viewpoints one may have held for many, many years. The forum would become nothing more than a place filled with people affirming the status quo. There is no room for expression or growth in keeping with the status quo. There is only acceptance. As people who spend a lot of time here expressing various thoughts with one another each day, I think we should always aspire to be above mere acceptance.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I wasn’t asking to be facetious.

I was trying to raise the question of how that would work as a scalable policy.

arn

Is 400,000 dead not enough?

Perhaps, a round figure of half a million - for maybe that sounds better.

And, no, I am not being facetious either.

At what stage do you think you owe a responsibility to the society, economy and polity where you ply your trade?

And to argue - as @annk does (and I want to return to that post, thank you for your reply) that truth matters (why does truth matter if this is the position you are prepared to hold?) but that it is not the task of the forum to fact check (even on issues which may pertain to political instability or close to half a million deaths) is an abrogation of responsibility, and - with respect - somewhat precious, as a result.

How many dead would it take before you decide that to host such opinions - that which is false and dangerous in its wilful ignorace - may be worthy of at least a sort of "verified" or "unverified" tick, or notation which may let the reader know that this is - at the very least - unverified, and undeserving of the sort of studied neutrality found elsewhere?

To my mind, one cannot expect to be a free rider, or coast as a free loader, and enjoy the benefits of a law based, democratic society, and the free market, one which is protected by the rule of law, without some sort of reciprocal responsibility where a distinction is drawn between truth and non-truth, that what is false, especially when not challenging that which is false may be dangerous and damaging to the foundations of that selfsame society.

 

[NT1440]

We’re going to start “how dare you sir”-I guess Arn now.

I have to reiterate, I think some people are being so hyperbolic and urgent here because this is one place they can have their voice heard, rather than the crazy world we live in. MR’s take on PRSI moderation has *nothing* to do with the 400,000 dead of COVID. Cracking down on a website isn’t going to fix the failed state we live in. MR’s is not supposed to be the target over your fears of your anxieties. Cracking down on the internet is the most “close your eyes and plug your ears” solution to the countries problems I can think of.

 

[DaveFromCampbelltown]

It seems that one of the problems is that some Hoaxes turn out to be Not Hoaxes, and that some Not Hoaxes turn out to be Hoaxes

Hoaxes that turned out to be Not Hoaxes

• Wegener and Continental Drift
• Platypus
• Drop Bears and Yowies (see elsewhere on MacRumors)

Not Hoaxes that turned out to be Hoaxes

• Piltdown Man
• Cold Fusion
• Homoeopathy

This can make it difficult for a non-expert in the field to make an accurate judgement whether something is a hoax or not. For example you have to be knowledgeable in Experimental Techniques and Sympathetic Magic to be able to make a judgement on Homoeopathy.

All one can do is examine the known facts around another's statement and make a judgement call from there, all the while considering that you might be wrong.

 

[ckoerner]

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 hear you and in a fair and equitable space I think having a discussion over the misinformation - a collegial back and forth - would be important. Forums like these are a reflection of society and are not equitable. The site owners and those who chose to participate here can do better.

As for my feeling about debate in the internet? So much nuiance is lost in text. Subtlety and sussing out details are work. Not everyone has the time or energy to debate out every argument, much less hoaxes. It’s like Brandolini's law says, “The amount of energy needed to refute BS is an order of magnitude larger than to produce it.”

I stumble across posts like we’re discussing and instead of charging head first into the marketplace of ideas I just give a heavy sigh and turn away. As I imagine most folks do who come to shared spaces in their downtime.

Edit: My expectations therefore are that the rules, and actions when reporting things should reflect the culture of the group. Are we comfortable with the current culture? “The culture of an organization is shaped by the worst behavior the leader is willing to tolerate”

 

[Savage]

I just read through the whole thread. Here’s what I gather:

• OP has a valid argument but has referred to the hoax rule incorrectly
• Hoax rule has been explained and is no longer relevant to this discussion
• No one knows where the line should be drawn regarding hoax/misinformation etc.
• “Masks do work” is the obvious example of a fact. Saying otherwise, even on a niche site like MR, is potentially dangerous to the public
• But not everything in PRSI is that easy. How could you truly moderate fact vs fiction in other debates
• PRSI is private to unregistered visitors as well as those that never reach 100 posts. Therefore, potential misinformation is not necessarily being spread to the public. The small fraction of MR visitors that choose to use PRSI probably don’t think masks don’t work because they read so in PRSI. They probably went into PRSI already thinking they don’t work due to the misinformation they got elsewhere
• To reiterate, people are probably not “learning” anything in PRSI; they’re only debating what they already believe, and their opinions are not being changed after using PRSI. They probably came into PRSI with an arsenal of “facts” from the usual TV, Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, etc.
• Staff responses in this thread (and over the years) make it pretty obvious that PRSI isn’t going anywhere or changing
• Staff do not wish to enforce a “hoax” rule. OP and those agreeing with him make good points as to why they should. But a lot of other users have good counter arguments
• You can opt out of viewing that forum but that might not be good enough
• At this point I think a compromise should be made

At the beginning I was with OP and the users supporting that side. As I got to the end of the thread I became indifferent.

It is weird to see a forum allow political debate in the first place. That was the first mistake. But that ship sailed years ago and PRSI is likely here to stay. And even though it generally seems out of place and nothing good can come out of having a section like that, I also understand why it’s still there and why people want it to stay.

A good compromise would be having it as an opt-in section. But it already is. My next suggestion is to clean up the 3 sticky threads that each mention something about the rules. Have it as one sticky thread and have your (MR staff) rules and expectations in one spot, clearer to understand (clear up the hoax rule confusion), and have a disclaimer that you are not the judge of misinformation.

The current rules mention sourcing and that users should be posting facts or their posts may be removed. Reading through this thread feels more like MR are not fact checkers. So the rule about sourcing should probably be replaced with a disclaimer about fact checking not being the job of MR (enter at your own risk, essentially).

On that note, maybe you could add a thread prefix that says “potentially misleading” and add it to threads that are specifically created to spread news, good or bad, regardless of opinions (e.g. A thread with a title “masks are not as effective as you think” would get the potentially misleading tag).

Here’s my disclaimers: I don’t post in PRSI but I lurk sometimes and found this thread interesting. I feel sorry for anti-maskers and their other brainwashed opinions. However, reading a thread that masks don’t work on a small section of MR isn’t going to change my mind on anything and I think this is true for most people, like OP, that are already making decisions based off actual facts out in the real world. We all already know who believes the ridiculous stuff and I don’t think a small part of MR is contributing to that side in the real world.

 

[arn]

I think that's a reasonable summary.

MacRumors community is a reflection of the world at large, and unfortunately, the world at large is filled with misinformation and a large percentage of the population seems to believe in much of it. Twitter and Apple drew a line recently, and that line was when that information crossed over into physical violence. That, of course, is a hard rule for most platforms, including this one. It also took out influential disseminators of that information. As @Savage stated, we are not a primary disseminator of this information and I believe we would treat things differently if we were.

But there are still practical considerations in trying to combat widespread misinformation when it's held by a large percentage of the population. These conversations are taking place on every comment board and social media platform on the entire internet. It is not unique to us. Taking the role of political and scientific fact checkers for all comments is simply not within the scope of our expertise/ability. Commenters are, of course, welcome to play that role within the rules.

I do think removing comment threads from Political News posts may be the least-worst way to combat it, and is something we'll be experimenting with. It's not an ideal choice, but politics has become so contentious, it may be the best option, at least for the short term.

Other possibilities include removing PRSI entirely or further restricting it to fewer users, but I'm not entirely sure what problem that will solve.

arn

 

[svanstrom]

When the effect of a mask was unknown, one could say anything because we just didn’t know.

Masks weren't recently invented, people knew everything about them; the "we" that you're talking about here were simply the wilfully ignorant masses going into this pandemic thinking that their made up "opinions" were as valid as the facts that scientists were sharing.

So, in the context of this subject, if you are wilfully ignorant you should get your ass kicked out before you get the other morons to follow you as their saviour.

If at a later date new science comes to light, well, you might have accidentally been correct, but odds are you were still (acting like) a moron; and thoughts and prayers to your banned account.

(Or, as might be the case for someone with my friendly personality, sometimes you just get kicked out because you trigger the wrong admin before they'd had their morning coffee. 😂)

HOWEVER… being serious here… As someone that's fairly recently decided to be active here I'm finding myself thinking that moderation is happening with a certain level of arbitrariness; with a "good people on both sides"-approach that I'm a bit uncomfortable with.

Some of the posts left standing, in a clearly moderated thread, really give that vibe of moderation happening more based on form than facts; meaning that as long as you generalise your insults (rather than directing them at a specific poster) then anything goes, no matter if obvious lies or propaganda.

That's a style of moderation that is either naively idealistic, or straight up meant to be in favour of the alt-nuts. 🙍

Who knows, after a couple of more weeks here I might again hibernate my account for a couple of decades; but for now I think I'd like to be at least a semi-passive observer of this process, because people bringing up problems with the rules hopefully will result in some sort of official reevaluation of them. Perhaps with a doubling down on them, or perhaps with some changes made.

Overall I'm just very surprised by what's been going on in this Mac forum, beyond the actual news articles.

 

[svanstrom]

Here’s my disclaimers: I don’t post in PRSI but I lurk sometimes and found this thread interesting. I feel sorry for anti-maskers and their other brainwashed opinions. However, reading a thread that masks don’t work on a small section of MR isn’t going to change my mind on anything and I think this is true for most people, like OP, that are already making decisions based off actual facts out in the real world. We all already know who believes the ridiculous stuff and I don’t think a small part of MR is contributing to that side in the real world.

The problem is that these people live in an information bubble (just like we all do, to a certain extent); and when they are outside of that bubble just talking about Apple in a webforum they, at 100 posts, find that bubble catching up with them. Which is making what's in that bubble more mainstream, more normalised.

And that sets a mindset for the whole of MR.

What goes on in the seediest darkest corners of MR doesn't stay in that corner, it sort of flavours the whole site; as well as keeping a person on the border of that particular bubble firmly inside the bubble. They won't get to neutrally see that MLK-story if the comments remind them about the stuff their crazy family says, and so.

From an owner point of view it's very hard to properly run a site like this if not every moderator is a hired professional; because without that kind of support it's very hard to have completely different sets of rules for how to moderate the general areas, and how to moderate that more "open" dark corners.

There are some real practical problems there.

My person opinion would be to cut off the infected areas before they spread too badly; or at least to quarantine them a bit better.

For instance, at 100 posts a person could get a message allowing them to opt-in to a subforum; and when doing that giving them a simple "I agree to…"-list to read through, and in which it is listed that that area has a separate set of rules.

My final thought on this whole subject: Someone earlier in this thread joked about screen capping some of the threads on MR and sharing them to media; and if something like that actually could end up being bad for business, then (for more than one reason) it might be a good time to questions if maybe the situation slowly has gotten out of hand.

 

[44267547]

Arn,

I’ll say it again because I can, and I know you already know how certain others feel about this, but why won’t shut down PRSI is beyond me. You don’t need this toxic venue on your site, and you even stated that you don’t generate that much revenue based off PRSI from past threads. It’s nothing but a problematic forum that creates more problems than the moderators need to have, let alone the tweaked rules that you had to continue to manufacture because it was getting out of hand about two years back.

You’ve had multiple moderators on this site over the years who have said that it would be so much easier without PRSI (And a few who have dropped the moderator role because of it), on a tech site. I realize it was implemented with Xeno-foro, but at one point are you going to let these types of threads keeps surfacing that you know has been a problem. It’s unnecessary, where other members can leave to spread their toxicity elsewhere.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

@Savage - who posted above - makes some very good points especially re the possible contradiction in the requirement to cite sources when posting but also the clear (and marked) staff preference not to have to fact check or truth check.

The current rules mention sourcing and that users should be posting facts or their posts may be removed. Reading through this thread feels more like MR are not fact checkers. So the rule about sourcing should probably be replaced with a disclaimer about fact checking not being the job of MR (enter at your own risk, essentially).

On that note, maybe you could add a thread prefix that says “potentially misleading” and add it to threads that are specifically created to spread news, good or bad, regardless of opinions (e.g. A thread with a title “masks are not as effective as you think” would get the potentially misleading tag).

Actually, I would agree with this: If the staff do not see it as their function to truth check, or fact check posts or threads (a position with which I disagree, as my posts on this thread have made clear, - I'm an historian by training, and I have a possibly unnusual and unnatural respect for facts - but it is not my forum, and I don't get to make or enforce the rules), then, I would concur - at the very least, in the interests of internal consistency, with @Savage's suggestion - replace the requirement that sourcing be required in PRSI with an observation - a disclaimer - that it is not the task of the mods to check facts, or confirm truth, (otherwise posters will seek the support of mods as referees) and that those who post there do so, in essence, at their own risk.

For, it is a contradiction - and possibly, an unnecessary complication - to expect posters to support statements with sources, citations, proof, when the mods make it abundantly clear that fact checking and truth checking or confirmation is not a part of their brief.

Likewise, I think that the idea of a possible prefix ("alleged", or "potentially misleading") for threads an excellent one.

 

[I7guy]

One is already supposed to provide a citation for a "fact" based post. The problem with this misinformation and disinformation is the echo chamber effect when citing sources and the veracity of the authoritative source.

[...]

My final thought on this whole subject: Someone earlier in this thread joked about screen capping some of the threads on MR and sharing them to media; and if something like that actually could end up being bad for business, then (for more than one reason) it might be a good time to questions if maybe the situation slowly has gotten out of hand.

MacRumors is a well known site. You don't think the media isn't plugged into PRSI and all corners of the website. I believe most would find PRSI uninteresting as a lot of it is an echo chamber. By it's design, profound, earth shattering revelations do not come from PRSI, which is why it isn't in the limelight.

The discussion/vitriol in PRSI is tame compared to the rest of the internet, because it's fairly under control. And as this discussion proves, maybe some tweaks are needed here and there to better provider user support.

 

[laptech]

One of the issues that keeps on getting brought up is fact checking and how it is not conviently possible to apply it to threads in the PRSI section. An appendum to this is that the PRSI section is claimed to be somewhat insignifigant due to the content that is within it and thus it cannot be expected for a resonable person to believe what they are reading which in turn means there is no point in moderating that section.

The problem with the above is that there are many threads in this forum that have been written by MR and other members where the content is taken as factual. Therefore, it stands to reason that people viewing this forum will have an air of expection that if many threads in the forum are fact based, then the majority of what is in the forum is fact based, even stuff written in PRSI. You cannot dismiss the content of PRSI just because it is considered to be a cesspool of rubbish.

saying 'well, the member reading should have known the information was a load of hogwash' is not the right stance to take. When a thread is made, the responsibility of what is right or wrong with the information lies with the thread maker. If the information is a hoax, wrong, fake, false or misleading then it is the responsibility of the forum admins and moderators to deal with the thread. Those who are responsible for running and maintainging the forum cannot abject their repsonsibilty just because they find the task too cumbersome or time consuming.

 

[Savage]

See, this is why I’m indifferent. I agree with most of the stuff in the replies after my post. Everyone is making a good argument from both sides. It’s interesting for sure.

 

[svanstrom]

See, this is why I’m indifferent. I agree with most of the stuff in the replies after my post. Everyone is making a good argument from both sides. It’s interesting for sure.

Whenever I can't chose between A or B I look at the potential consequences of me picking A or B, and then go with the one less severe.

For instance, I always pick the healthy sallad if the other option is oily; something locally produced instead of something with lots of travel time; and peace and quiet before an option that in the worse case scenario causes another holocaust and WW3.

You know, if it doesn't really matter to me I might as well just have a sallad and fight neonazists. 😉

 

[Savage]

Whenever I can't chose between A or B I look at the potential consequences of me picking A or B, and then go with the one less severe.

For instance, I always pick the healthy sallad if the other option is oily; something locally produced instead of something with lots of travel time; and peace and quiet before an option that in the worse case scenario causes another holocaust and WW3.

You know, if it doesn't really matter to me I might as well just have a sallad and fight neonazists. 😉

If I go by that, PRSI shouldn’t be here. This is a tech forum so it’s not really the place. MR is smarter than MAGA and you’d think it wouldn’t cater to their BS. Nothing good can come from having it on a forum for Apple products.

However, the staff seem to be settled on keeping it. It’s arn’s site so he’s going to have the final say. And that’s why I was kind of going toward a plan B, some kind of compromise.

I guess I just feel like both sides made their points clear and we’re due for the final verdict. Everyone said what they had to say pretty well already, so now what? What is going to come of this thread? I’m ready for an answer, lol.

 

[SuperMatt]

@Savage - who posted above - makes some very good points especially re the possible contradiction in the requirement to cite sources when posting but also the clear (and marked) staff preference not to have to fact check or truth check.




Actually, I would agree with this: If the staff do not see it as their function to truth check, or fact check posts or threads (a position with which I disagree, as my posts on this thread have made clear, - I'm an historian by training, and I have a possibly unnusual and unnatural respect for facts - but it is not my forum, and I don't get to make or enforce the rules), then, I would concur - at the very least, in the interests of internal consistency, with @Savage's suggestion - replace the requirement that sourcing be required in PRSI with an observation - a disclaimer - that it is not the task of the mods to check facts, or confirm truth, (otherwise posters will seek the support of mods as referees) and that those who post there do so, in essence, at their own risk.

For, it is a contradiction - and possibly, an unnecessary complication - to expect posters to support statements with sources, citations, proof, when the mods make it abundantly clear that fact checking and truth checking or confirmation is not a part of their brief.

Likewise, I think that the idea of a possible prefix ("alleged", or "potentially misleading") for threads an excellent one.

I agree with this. Hoaxes are banned, yet the mods will not "fact-check." This is a straight-up contradiction.

Same for sources: without "fact-checking,” that rule is impossible to enforce.

A poster could say “Steve Jobs is still alive and lives in the mountains of Peru” and then start their own blog, make a post there that says the same thing, and use it as a “source” for their claim. The mods said they will not be “arbiters of truth” (whatever that means... the truth is the truth regardless of anybody’s opinion). So they need to accept that “source” and let the person carry on.

If truth doesn’t exist in the eyes of the mods, or they don’t want to take a stance on what is or isn’t true, any rule on the books that requires such judgment needs to be removed.

 

[laptech]

Another thing I keep on hearing is that it is not a good idea to remove PRSI section from the forum. why not? could it be that PRSI is one of the most active and popularly used sections of the forum and MR is worried if they remove PRSI that the forum membship would decrease in large numbers?

 

[annk]

For, it is a contradiction - and possibly, an unnecessary complication - to expect posters to support statements with sources, citations, proof, when the mods make it abundantly clear that fact checking and truth checking or confirmation is not a part of their brief.

I don't see a contradiction. I'll explain.

Requiring a user to provide a source when another user asks him/her to do so, has to do with preventing users from presenting opinion as fact.

Sources are not necessarily proof of truth. They're documentation of where the user got the information the post is based on. Once sources are presented, their relative trustworthiness can be challenged by thread participants. Discussion ensues.

Having staff fact-check and intervene in users' discussions as truth police is something else. If staff intervenes in this way, users don't have the opportunity to discuss and point out fallacies. Discussion is quashed.

@laptech wrote:

The problem with the above is that there are many threads in this forum that have been written by MR and other members where the content is taken as factual. Therefore, it stands to reason that people viewing this forum will have an air of expection that if many threads in the forum are fact based, then the majority of what is in the forum is fact based, even stuff written in PRSI.

You're making an assumption that everyone who reads anything on this site expects that the majority of the content here is fact based. I don't think that's solid logic. We have two types of content:

• News/rumors articles written by editors who are professional journalists.
• Posts written by random people who sign up for a discussion forum.

The user-generated content is created by people with no qualifications other than agreeing to the rules. Therefore, there's no reason to believe it's accurate.

My personal assumption is that people see the difference.

 

[Euroamerican]

I think the OP's outrage that something in a non-mainline chat section might not be completely, 100-percent factual is a means to the end he/she really wants: Outright Cancellation(tm) of speech he/she does not like or agree with.

So something gets said that you don't like in a forum section you don't read? Advice to everyone: Get Over It! Read the sections you want to read and move on.