Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Hoax rule is not being enforced
- Thread starter SuperMatt
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
If one were to read the forum rules, one would see there is one banning hoaxes. If one were to read the OP carefully, one might also notice that the issue is that the rule is not being enforced. This inconsistency calls into question all other rules on the forums too. What is or is not enforced?
Not once have I advocated for cancelling speech that I do not like or agree with. In fact, I suggested a possible solution of removing the rule entirely since it currently isn’t being enforced.
Since you have offered me some advice, might I suggest you follow your own “advice to everyone” in regards to this thread? Thanks.
In a theoretical setting without context that argument holds up very well.
It'd be ridiculous to demand that every post is fact-checked.
However.
If we as an extreme example take QAnon you don't have to have staff research and disprove every single idea that they might present; that can't even be done, because they'd only say that they are fighting a very secretive enemy. But you can still instantly kick that **** out of here.
Leaving posts like those up would be taking a certain stand.
Not necessarily an alt-winger stand, as it could also be a (IMHO too naïve/privileged) stand for a certain type of freedom of speech. But a stand nonetheless.
And from that extreme example with stuff from pizzeria's basements and whatnot, we can then denutify our example and slowly edge closer and closer to more normal subjects.
So, let's take a couple of real examples here:
- "Joe Biden’s Gun Control Agenda"
- "Is revolution in the air?"
- "Possible Coronavirus treatments, cures and medications"
- "TrumpSkum attacking a manatee"
Do any of you really believe that having a section for that here won't have an affect on the rest of the community?
That is, IMO, a stand for how the shape/tone of the whole community will be allowed to be.
Law has always been designed to benefit those who enforce the law. Most police officers could write someone up for a handful of infractions without even trying but most don't have to enforce everything unless they want to (law enforcement officers are given that discretionary power). I see the mods here as in that same boat. Because we're all different, you're going to get a little different treatment from one mod to the next.
The idea that people are too stupid to question what they read is interesting as well. Do we really need to fact check everything? History has taught us that controlling information can backfire as those in power change facts to suit their will. I mean... just look at some countries that control what is allowed and what isn't. This gets abused left and right...
Arn has stated the hoax rule and what it was created to address (tech rumors).
Does it bother me when people make fun of those who died from the virus? You bet. Does it bother me when I see churches gathering, laughing at wearing masks, and thinking they're being persecuted? Yes. Would I support fines for these people? Yes. Would I support silencing them? Definitely a grey area because people are dying. Within my own extended family - there are people at both ends.
Ever since Arn introduced PRSI ignore - my ability to enjoy this site has significantly improved. I don't understand people who want to constantly be outraged and frustrated. Most people don't change anyway. But not all people are like me either (and may enjoy the (often times heated) discussion).
The ignore PRSI feature seems to work really well - I don't even see it on New/Latest posts anymore.
I also have taken to ignoring the comment sections of political news posts because it seems a lot of people there just enjoy upsetting others. Creates a lot of work for the mods.
The idea that people are too stupid to question what they read is interesting as well. Do we really need to fact check everything? History has taught us that controlling information can backfire as those in power change facts to suit their will. I mean... just look at some countries that control what is allowed and what isn't. This gets abused left and right...
Arn has stated the hoax rule and what it was created to address (tech rumors).
Does it bother me when people make fun of those who died from the virus? You bet. Does it bother me when I see churches gathering, laughing at wearing masks, and thinking they're being persecuted? Yes. Would I support fines for these people? Yes. Would I support silencing them? Definitely a grey area because people are dying. Within my own extended family - there are people at both ends.
Ever since Arn introduced PRSI ignore - my ability to enjoy this site has significantly improved. I don't understand people who want to constantly be outraged and frustrated. Most people don't change anyway. But not all people are like me either (and may enjoy the (often times heated) discussion).
The ignore PRSI feature seems to work really well - I don't even see it on New/Latest posts anymore.
I also have taken to ignoring the comment sections of political news posts because it seems a lot of people there just enjoy upsetting others. Creates a lot of work for the mods.
Considering how many people have compromised their own health to the point of death in the past year, and how many committed mob violence due to misinformation, my personal assumption is that many people don’t see the difference. There’s a reason people use propaganda: it works.
I understand if MR forums cannot help with that situation. If that is the case, simply removing the rules on hoaxes and/or sources would let people know ahead of time that anything, regardless of its validity, can be posted here. It is a “rumors” site after all I guess.
HOWEVER, if I see a rule that hoaxes are not allowed, I might reasonably assume that there are no hoaxes here... and that the information is true. That is why the rule can’t sit there unenforced.
OP has stated many times in this thread that their concern is with MR having a no hoax rule and it not being enforced in PRSI. OP has repeatedly made it clear that their main argument is that this rule should either be enforced or removed. OP is one of the only ones in this thread that isn’t really arguing over PRSI staying or being removed as a whole. So, technically, we’ve all derailed OP’s original point into something bigger.
It has also been made clear by MR staff that the no hoax rule wasn’t intended for PRSI in the first place. Now, if anything, OP is asking for a new rule to be added and enforced in PRSI or for MR staff to make it clear in the PRSI rules that moderating misinformation is not the responsibity of MR staff. As it is written now, it kind of implies that it might be. But MR staff, in this thread, have clarified that it’s more of an enter/read/believe/trust sources at your own risk.
OP is asking for consistency with the site wide and PRSI rules in that regard.
Mr. or Ms. Savage,
Thank you for your eloquent summary. Based on responses from arn and annk so far, I am expecting something to change soon... I hope.
The entire site is built on this principle of use information contained at your own risk and nowhere else does it need to be explicitly declared that information contained within the various forums is used at your (plural) own discretion.
And then if the argument becomes misinformation can lead to a loss of life. Sure, can happen in the iphone section as well, for example, if wrong information is given that renders a phone inoperative that could interfere with summoning help at a critical time.
Misinformation is not always a hoax and that conversation has been addressed along the way in this thread as well.
I think OP understands that and is looking for that hoax rule to be removed or amended accordingly.
I agree with what @Savage writes immediately above, but the discussion has grown well beyond that.
But again, I can't be sure about this (and I don't think that you or anyone else can be sure about it right now, either).
This thread has some claims of equivalence that I just don't think are logical. For instance, I don't think that the number of people who have compromised their own health to the point of death in the last year (a huge number of people from all over the globe) is a reasonable yardstick for whether readers of MacRumors understand the difference between editorial content and user-generated content. Do you?
Remember, people have been compromising their own health to the point of death forever, just in less visible ways. It's not a yardstick for anything in this context.
My point was simply that staff policing the truth in a member discussion and rules requiring sources are two different things.
I'm not disagreeing with your sentiment, but if we look at real life - how would you identify them? Where do you draw the line? Be specific. Remember, as a staff member on a discussion forum you have to be consistent in both how you describe policy and how you follow it up, and you have to be able to explain when each of these kicked-out users complains. "I know them when I see them" or "We don't want you here" doesn't fly.
I believe it has a minimal effect on the community at large, though I can't even imagine how to proceed to check if I'm right. My reasoning is that the effect is minimal because we are so strict about where political discussions can take place and because I believe that most people come here for tech news and discussions and don't participate in or read PRSI.
But again, I can't be sure about this (and I don't think that you or anyone else can be sure about it right now, either).
Well, let's put it this way. I see the difference. Do you? Do you think most of the people participating in this thread do? You and I aren't special - we're probably pretty ordinary. So why shouldn't most people on the site understand that difference?
This thread has some claims of equivalence that I just don't think are logical. For instance, I don't think that the number of people who have compromised their own health to the point of death in the last year (a huge number of people from all over the globe) is a reasonable yardstick for whether readers of MacRumors understand the difference between editorial content and user-generated content. Do you?
Remember, people have been compromising their own health to the point of death forever, just in less visible ways. It's not a yardstick for anything in this context.
I am sorry, but no. The question you raise is an erroneous rhetorical argument. I am 100% pro mask, pro vaccine, and I take Covid seriously, but you can't point at the number of deaths and simply say that because of it a statement is true or an hoax. I can bring you, as a counter argument, that your UK had 90,000 covid deaths so far, that is 134/million and my former home country Italy had 82,000 deaths, or 135/million (I am using wiki simply for simplicity), while the US had 398,000 or 121/million. I could simply flip the argument and say: "UK and Italy had total, full lockdowns, and 100% mandatory masks with enforced rules. The lockdown in Italy was total, my family was deeply affected, and so the entire country. The US didn't do enough according to some pundits. Therefore, saying that masks and mandatory lockdowns will protect you more than not doing them is a hoax." (obviously, they're both fallacious arguments. masks are not magic amulets, however they certainly help).
You can't simply take one element and then decide what is true and what is not drawing an arbitrary line and then expecting to create rules and laws on that. @arn is completely right.
I'd rather shut down PRSI.
Last edited:
It sounds like the option of removing the hoax rule, or at least clarifying that it only refers to tech rumors is the option you prefer. I agree that most people can see through things, but not all. At least if the rule is removed, there’s no way one could reasonably assume that hoaxes are being removed from the forums.
And yet societies for centuries have drawn arbitrary lines and created laws. For some reason, it’s not possible on this forum?
There are many other rules that require judgment by the mods, and they are enforced. I might not think I’m insulting you, but you think I am. The mods step in and decide. I might not think I’m posting something racist; others think I am. The mods have to decide.
How is this different?
Most, if not all the rules are somewhat measurable. "Hoax" is not measurable, especially when things are still happening and are not 100% clear.
Honestly, a PRSI section that is limited the way is asked to be limited on this thread makes no sense to exist. Politics, Religion, and Social Issues are controversial by their nature and they do need some sort of pushing the envelope. This might make the discussion take two steps back or two steps forward. It's a risk that comes with the territory.
No, I'm not stating a preference. Just participating in the discussion.
A hoax is far more measurable than an insult. It is possible to a) determine the truth of a statement, and b) determine if the false information could be harmful. As for insults, they differ from culture to culture. One might find a certain word or statement insulting, while another would not.
A new member has to agree to the TOS during the registration process. Should a question arise after that moment, the new member (as well as any other member) has the ability to post in this forum as well as use the "Contact Us" option. On a regular basis this even occurs and is easily taken care of. Why can't you allow the staff to continue handling the hoax situation in the same manner? Arn has already addressed it. It seems to me you are wanting to micro-manage the management duties until you get the result you expect, regardless of what has already been stated.
You are trying to be the personal manager of every member and lurker who reads the forums. That isn't your burden.
This subject doesn't have to be as difficult as you and some others are trying make it.
How about give Arn and the staff time to digest what has been said, discuss the subject in the staff cave, and then make a decision as to the best format for MacRumors?
Sorry if I simplified your post too much, but I was cutting to the core here (and the quoting isn't always straightforward to work with).
Sometimes when it's hard to define one thing, you can find it easier if you define the opposite.
In this case it could be that you have a look at the "Lastest posts"-list and have a think about if what's there really is something that adds value to an Apple-centric news and forums site. Or take a step back and look at the list of forums, and the list of subjects within them.
I think that from that perspective that fuzzy description really is specific enough.
Like, is "Joe Biden’s Gun Control Agenda" really a thread that is a core, or even a needed, part of MR?
So you don't kick that out simply because of what it is, but because what it isn't; because it isn't something that brings joy to MR.
For me it really cuts to that core of what MR is supposed to be; whether or not it's supposed be a place for Apple-centric stuff, or if it's meant as a place where some people head to discuss whatever (including stuff that would get them kicked out of many other platforms).
Like don't get me wrong, I'm seriously quarantine bored here, and I could absolutely get into a bit of online fighting with all of them over there; but I feel that I would be at a serious disadvantage, because I don't want to lose my account, while many on "that side" don't mind just creating new anonymous accounts if they get kicked out.
Earlier today I even saw someone bow out of a thread by saying that it wasn't in politics; so he didn't run with the actually Apple-related core of the subject, he didn't try to steer things back to be on subject, he just saw where it was heading and got out by referencing that a certain other subforum exists here. And for me that's telling of the over all "degradation" of having a certain wild west allowed anywhere here.
I think that PRSI is having a different issue.
@arn - I used to be a prolific PRSI member; I had many good conversations with @Scepticalscribe, infinite sparring sessions with @ericgtr12 and @Huntn , and I've read as many posts as I could on PRSI. Then, I decided to leave PRSI, and after a while - and after a ban - I understood why.
Let's face it. When PRSI was born, the online world was different. Social media was at its beginnings (wasn't Myspace the big thing back then?), and politics was not "emotionally driven by social media" as Henry Kissinger says. It's 2021, the online discourse is different: everywhere, it's politics and not the good one. What PRSI was - a good refuge for civil discussion - is now under serious winds from other sources. If you notice, many (not all, but many) PRSI conversations are more similar to what you encounter on Facebook or Twitter. This is due to the fact that Facebook and Twitter are now HOW we converse about politics (recent events are just a physical demonstration of a way of talking, which is the expression of a way of thinking). In other words PRSI is not a small refuge anymore, but it has become the victim of typical way of doing online conversations. PRSI has lost its ability to be a different vehicle of conversation (granted, with some exception). I'll always read carefully each letter of @Scepticalscribe's posts) and I can go back and start posting primary sources and gov't sources again as I used to do, but it won't do any good. Heck I even tried to post a proposal for very strict rules a few months back, but at the end of the day it will become increasingly difficult to enforce rules that would drive to civil and informative conversations on PRSI.
It happens, there is nothing wrong with it. Things are born, then they get worse, then they die (we can sing Elton John's "the circle of life" here).
At this point, and with a sad heart because I used to respect that place, I must agree with the request: please close PRSI.
@arn - I used to be a prolific PRSI member; I had many good conversations with @Scepticalscribe, infinite sparring sessions with @ericgtr12 and @Huntn , and I've read as many posts as I could on PRSI. Then, I decided to leave PRSI, and after a while - and after a ban - I understood why.
Let's face it. When PRSI was born, the online world was different. Social media was at its beginnings (wasn't Myspace the big thing back then?), and politics was not "emotionally driven by social media" as Henry Kissinger says. It's 2021, the online discourse is different: everywhere, it's politics and not the good one. What PRSI was - a good refuge for civil discussion - is now under serious winds from other sources. If you notice, many (not all, but many) PRSI conversations are more similar to what you encounter on Facebook or Twitter. This is due to the fact that Facebook and Twitter are now HOW we converse about politics (recent events are just a physical demonstration of a way of talking, which is the expression of a way of thinking). In other words PRSI is not a small refuge anymore, but it has become the victim of typical way of doing online conversations. PRSI has lost its ability to be a different vehicle of conversation (granted, with some exception). I'll always read carefully each letter of @Scepticalscribe's posts) and I can go back and start posting primary sources and gov't sources again as I used to do, but it won't do any good. Heck I even tried to post a proposal for very strict rules a few months back, but at the end of the day it will become increasingly difficult to enforce rules that would drive to civil and informative conversations on PRSI.
It happens, there is nothing wrong with it. Things are born, then they get worse, then they die (we can sing Elton John's "the circle of life" here).
At this point, and with a sad heart because I used to respect that place, I must agree with the request: please close PRSI.
Last edited:
It certainly does make sense for the staff to take their time in making this decision; thanks.
Now you're talking utopia! Have you ever seen the comments after a keynote (mine included... 😛 .)brings joy to MR.
I to have a bit of fun word used that reference, and that's the whole thing for you, that's what you chose to interpret literally? 🤷
Ironically, this thread has turned into a decent debate that now belongs in PRSI itself and sets a good example of constructive and educated debate that PRSI is occasionally capable of creating, lol.
We are the PRSI now. 🙃
We are the PRSI now. 🙃
I, too, used to frequent PRSI and no longer do because I now find it toxic. However, I cannot agree that it should be closed, for two reasons. First, many find value in that forum, even if you and I no longer do. There are lots of thoughtful people there who share their opinions respectfully, even if there are many others who are don't meet that description. And second, keeping PRSI means there is a place in which those discussions can be cabined. Without that section, people are still going to want to discuss those issues, but they will spill more into the main forum, which would be bad.
- Status