How is a story about families using FaceTime to share during Christmas political?

[Apple_Robert]

Apple Saw Record Number of FaceTime Calls On Christmas

As people stayed away from travel and celebrated the holidays from their homes this December, Apple saw the highest volume of FaceTime calls ever on Christmas. Apple CEO Tim Cook shared the tidbit during today's earnings call covering the first fiscal quarter of 2021, but he did not give...

forums.macrumors.com

This isn't the first time a story that was not political was put in the political news section. All that does is encourage off topic posts about politics.

In my opinion, there is no reason this article should have been labeled for political news.

 

[arn]

It’s moved out of politics.

 

[SuperMatt]

This isn't the first time a story that was not political was put in the political news section. All that does is encourage off topic posts about politics.

I couldn’t agree with you more. I look at the list of “political news” items and I think they are assuming people will come in and MAKE them political. Based on past threads, they are probably right, but still... stinks that stories about Apple adjusting its supply chain (an operations issue) is in politics, as well as discussion of a system update that gives exposure notifications. Why is a health crisis automatically political? I mean, I don’t consider disease prevention to be political. They are pandering to the people that MAKE such things into political discussions instead of just kicking them off the threads.

In the end, unless you have permission to discuss political items on this site, you can’t discuss FaceTime or iOS updates or the Apple supply chain or upcoming movies on Apple TV+, or even Product(RED) phones because I guess AIDS is political?

Making every thread “political” proactively allows those who want to make everything political dominate the forums.

TL;DR - kick the people off non-political threads when they make them into political threads instead of moving the thread to politics-land.

 

[I7guy]

After reading through some recent toxic PRSI threads, in my own mind, I think PRSI should be shut down. Bickering, discussing the poster instead of the post, passive/aggressive insults, the eventual devolvement into off-topic conversation that wouldn't be tolerated in other forums etc...just shut it down already and stop the bleeding. While there are some interesting and worthwhile threads that are great to participate in, sadly the majority aren't.

Keep the Political News section open though.

My $.02.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

After reading through some recent toxic PRSI threads, in my own mind, I think PRSI should be shut down. Bickering, discussing the poster instead of the post, passive/aggressive insults, the eventual devolvement into off-topic conversation that wouldn't be tolerated in other forums etc...just shut it down already and stop the bleeding. While there are some interesting and worthwhile threads that are great to participate in, sadly the majority aren't.

Keep the Political News section open though.

My $.02.

I'm afraid that I must disagree.

However, I do think that with some sensible guidelines in PRSI, it should be possible to have a political forum where informed and engaged political discussion takes place.

 

[Td1970]

Funny how people want places shut down because of hurt feelings. Lol

 

[annk]

However, I do think that with some sensible guidelines in PRSI, it should be possible to have a political forum where informed and engaged political discussion takes place.

The Rules for Appropriate Debate (RAD) are sensible - they describe civil debate. That's only one part of the equation, however. The other is of course the users who participate in discussions; if users don't use the RAD as a framework, there's no common ground of civility on which informed and engaged political discussion can take place.

Here's a quote from the RAD:

These rules and guidelines describe the acceptable and unacceptable ways to participate in a discussion in a MacRumors forum thread. These rules augment and clarify the general Forum Rules. Guidelines indicate the spirit of the rules. The Rules for Appropriate Debate are especially applicable to threads where there are strong or conflicting opinions, such as certain types of news and rumors discussions and debates in the Politics, Religion, Social Issues and Political News forums.

Respect

Guidelines: Show respect for your fellow posters. Expect and accept that other users may have strongly held opinions that differ from yours. In other words, basic human courtesy.

Rules:

1. Name-calling. Name-calling falls into the category of insults and will be treated as such according to the forum rules, your own opinion about another member notwithstanding. You can't call a bigot a bigot, a troll a troll, or a fanboy a fanboy, any more than you can call an idiot an idiot. You can disagree with the content of another member's statement or give your evidence or opinion to dispute their claims, but you may not make a negative personal characterization about that member.
2. Hate speech and group slurs. We prohibit discrimination, abuse, threats or prejudice against a particular group, for example based on race, gender, religion or sexual orientation, in a way that a reasonable person would find offensive.
3. Taunting. Mocking or taunting another forum member is not acceptable. Posts that ridicule another member or obviously exaggerate or misstate their views (including purposely mis-quoting them) may be removed.

Debate

Guidelines: Be willing to engage in fact-based, constructive debate. Look for ways to inform and learn from others.

Rules:

1. Sources. If you claim that something's a fact, back it up with a source. If you can't produce evidence when someone asks you to cite your sources, we may remove your posts. If you started the thread, then we may remove or close the thread.
2. Repetition. If you repeat the same claims without adding new information, we might remove your posts. Again, if you started the thread, then we may remove or close the thread.
3. Trolling. Posts that appear to be designed to cause argument or irritate rather than contribute to a constructive discussion are considered trolling and will be treated as such.
4. Duplicate discussions. If a new thread repeats a topic that has been previously discussed or debated, without basis for a separate discussion, the thread may be closed, removed, or merged into an earlier thread on the same topic. A news report on a previously discussed issue doesn't automatically deserve a new thread.

Moderation

Guidelines: Stay within the forum rules to preserve your membership privileges.

Rules:

1. Reporting. Members should report posts to call the moderators' attention to troublesome posts/posters.
2. Responsibility. You're responsible for your own behavior. "I was goaded into breaking the rules" is not an excuse. If you think a post is inappropriate, report it, ignore it, and/or respond without breaking the rules.
3. Suspensions. Forum members whose posts are removed for violating these rules may be subject to temporary or permanent account suspension (bans), particularly for repeated or serious rules violations.

Be sure to read our 2011, 2017 and 2019 announcements about moderation of the Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum.

 

[ericwn]

Funny how people want places shut down because of hurt feelings. Lol

Funny how people try to downplay feedback. It was a well made point.