Is Science now considered PRSI?

[Huntn]

Is there a subtle suggestion that those who go against scientific facts are pegged as a certain political party or leaning?

There is an obvious awareness that some significant conservative political forces/factions (but not all) tend to deny things like global warming*, evolution, effectiveness of vaccinations, while insisting upon Devine rules from the Man in the sky. 🤔

*For example, resistance to the idea of global warming started as flat out denial from the Right Wing based on the fear of the expense of dealing with it. But then it morphed into a variety of rationalizations, such as it is not our fault, it’s uncontrollable (inherently untrue), or we don’t need to worry about it now which approaches an incredible level of malfeasance and is an abdication of our position as the so called most intelligent species on the planet.

One thing I readily admit that some science is/can become political because we have a segment of society at least in the US who resists dealing with subjects that require sacrifice or changes in the way we do business to fix, and if MacRumors, continues to decide that PRSI is the place for touchy subjects, that all adult members be given access until it is shown without doubt that an individual’s agenda is to troll or generally cause trouble, which can happen in any forum, not just PRSI.

And I would hope as a tech site, moderation would lean towards the facts, defend the facts as they are understood by the scientific community, and not give equal time to conspiracy theory nonsense and the like. Yes, fact checking when it comes to social media has an important role, but may require more work by the mod team. Maybe an “inaccurate“ label with a brief description/link, would be better than a deleted thread, I can’t make a definitive statement about this.

Btw, this is not an argument that faith based arguments should be shut down. R stands for religion, and I’m always up for a good discussion On the topic.

 

[Huntn]

Perhaps we can step back a bit and look at the core issue: What was the reason or goal or purpose of creating forums on this tech site where non-tech issues could be discussed? Up to what year did that decision present few or no problems?

It seems that times have changed since then in numerous ways and having these non tech issues discussed is problematic. So it raises the basic question as to why does a tech site called Macrumors have forums for non tech issues?

Most of my discussion at MRs is in the social corner, PRSI, Community, and gaming. This is a tech site, but tech does not exist in a vacuum. Sites like this depend on traffic, and I venture to speculate social discussions make up a significant portion of the traffic. My participation here would drop off by 85% or more if I was left to discuss only my iPhone, IPad, etc.

 

[ThisBougieLife]

Perhaps we can step back a bit and look at the core issue: What was the reason or goal or purpose of creating forums on this tech site where non-tech issues could be discussed? Up to what year did that decision present few or no problems?

It seems that times have changed since then in numerous ways and having these non tech issues discussed is problematic. So it raises the basic question as to why does a tech site called Macrumors have forums for non tech issues?

Many forums create an "off topic" space for users to discuss topics not related to the forum's topic of focus. These "off topic" spaces often attract long-time users who have maybe drifted away from talking about the main topic over the years (or not) but have otherwise gotten to know users personally and wish to talk about things other than the main topic. Most forums I'm a member of have such an "off topic" section, but these sections specifically prohibit discussion of politics and religion (this is the case for three forums I'm a member of: a classical music forum, an audiophile forum, and another tech forum. Each of these sites has an "off topic" section but discussion of politics and religion is forbidden). It's the equivalent of the "Community Discussion" sub-forum here, in other words (excluding PRSI, that is). On these forums, when a topic gets political, it gets locked and further commenting is prohibited.

Now, even if MacRumors decided to get rid of PRSI and Community Discussion, you have the problem of "political news". This site posts a variety of news stories related to Apple and the fact is that Apple and Tim Cook frequently do get involved in politics. So to eliminate politics entirely MacRumors would simply have to stop publishing stories that are in any way political and focus only on tech, but even then, as others have pointed out, something that is not specifically political can become political if it's tangentially related. In that case then, maybe the mods would have to do what they do on the other forums I'm a member of and simply close the discussion to further comment once the comments get off-topic and political.

 

[SnacksGU]

Pride masked by humili

You are being disingenuous to suggest that we have unilaterally determined climate change to be a political topic.

Are you suggesting it’s not a political topic? Not that it shouldn’t be — which I agree with — but that it is currently not a political topic?

Boom. Thanks @arn

 

[Expos of 1969]

This site relies upon volunteer moderators and it has been stated more than once that there are too few of them. Even if there were a sufficient number, moderation is not an exact science (can I say that word ) and it is very subjective and influenced by the personal biases of the mods. That cannot be remedied and will not change.

So, is moderation really necessary? I don't really care if some people post that masks work or don't work, that vaccines are a conspiracy, that Obama was not born in the US etc. I have my own opinions, I research topics as required, I read a variety of news sources and come up with my own conclusions.

Macrumors is not a public service site or a government operation. It is not under any legal obligation to my knowledge to provide the public with accurate information on any issue. If someone reading Macrumors believes that eating 23 pork chops a day will prevent Covid because poster Suzie said so, so be it.

 

[JagRunner]

You’ve discovered the right wing bias on this site

Racist posters can post all sorts of ugly things about Black History month or whine about Apple having too many minorities in their ads without punishment. Just don’t call them racist or you’ll be the one to get suspended while the poster who said the original comment gets nothing.

 

[arn]

Most of my discussion at MRs is in the social corner, PRSI, Community, and gaming. This is a tech site, but tech does not exist in a vacuum. Sites like this depend on traffic, and I venture to speculate social discussions make up a significant portion of the traffic. My participation here would drop off by 85% or more if I was left to discuss only my iPhone, IPad, etc.

The community portion of the site is a very small minority of the traffic. However, the reason it’s here is for the community/social aspect of it. Letting regulars discuss topics outside of Apple.

That’s why I’ve defended it in the past since it is a big part of some core people’s experiences here.

I suppose we could hire “professional” moderators (whatever that is) to moderate political forums, but i don’t believe that would actually solve anything.

The loudest complainers wouldn’t be appeased since there seems to be a disagreement on what topics should be allowed vs not allowed.

arn

 

[I7guy]

[…]. Just don’t call them racist or you’ll be the one to get suspended while the poster who said the original comment gets nothing.

everybody should know they are responsible for their own conduct. Two wrongs don’t make a right and that sort of thing. But that not the way some operate and then the complaints about unfair moderation surface here.

 

[Blue Velvet]

So, is moderation really necessary?

Yes.

Firstly, putting the comprehensive rules for this forum and the issue of brand integrity to one side, even the First Amendment has considerable exceptions including obscenity, child pornography, inciting crime etc.

Secondly, having spent a lot of time moderating here in the past, you'd be surprised by the degree of feuding in all its forms that can take place, degrading the environment for all and taking time to untangle and resolve.

Finally, who is going to manage the forums without mods? Who is going to organise those stickies? Who is providing informed internal feedback to admins on policy or forum changes? Who will be implementing these changes? Who is going to lock problematic threads or shepherd main page threads to stay on topic? Who is going to ban or suspend abusive forum members? And who, exactly, is going to mop up the spam, one word posts and other incoming crud that degrades the experience?

 

[Scepticalscribe]

The community portion of the site is a very small minority of the traffic. However, the reason it’s here is for the community/social aspect of it. Letting regulars discuss topics outside of Apple.

That’s why I’ve defended it in the past since it is a big part of some core people’s experiences here.

I suppose we could hire “professional” moderators (whatever that is) to moderate political forums, but i don’t believe that would actually solve anything.

The loudest complainers wouldn’t be appeased since there seems to be a disagreement on what topics should be allowed vs not allowed.

arn

I cannot speak for others, but, for what it is worth, that is not my real concern.

And discussing topics - and debating which topics can be discussed, - is one thing, but, rather, how they are discussed, is, I submit, more what this discussion, debate, argument and disagreement is all about.

First, - an issue of tone and vocabulary: Describing those who raise issues here (in the SFF forum) as "complainers" suggests, or presupposes, a negative reception to whatever their complaints or concerns are.

For what it is worth, I would recommend a less defensive approach, as many who have raised concerns or made complaints are long-standing memers of this site who have done so in good faith, and to dismiss them as "complainers" may be to miss that some of them have - or have raised - valid complaints.

Returning to the issue under discussion, rather my concern is that social media platforms - and MR is one - have failed to adapt to a changing socio-cultural-political landscape, whereby social media has altered - indeed, transformed - how we communicate with one another online.

And, specifically, in the case of MR, my concern is that some of the rules concerning moderation may need to be revised, as they, either don't work as applied at present, or, they are not applied consistently.

That may come down to the fact that the mods are volunteers (and yes, this is something that can be both time consuming and thankless work) and that there may be a lack of diversity among their ranks (one suspects a preponderance of white, cis, middle class males).

Part of this problem, I suspect, is that the rules were designed for an online world that no longer exists, - more and more, people seem to be siloed into their own online ghettos.

However, it goes deeper than that.

For, from what I can see, another part of it is that MR does not really know how it wants to deal with this changed, utterly transformed, world, not least, as it hasn't yet worked out how to deal with - or, whether it even wishes to want to deal with - matters relating to hoaxes, fake news, lies, misinformation, disinformation on the one hand, and respect for facts (scientific, historical, political, economic), the truth, citations, and basic matters relating to accuracy.

And that is leaving aside the more depressing matter of substituting insult for debate, which has become more prevalent in online spaces.

 

[ipponrg]

For what it is worth, I would recommend a less defensive approach, as many who have raised concerns or made complaints are long-standing memers of this site who have done so in good faith, and to dismiss them as "complainers" may be to miss that some of them have - or have raised - valid complaints.

This is just my perspective, but it seems to be the same personas that keep bringing up these issues. These people IMO are very opinionated such that it becomes very abrasive, and some as a result are participating in an offsite forum collectively. However, they often come back to raise up the issues again when there is more fuel.

I know some people won’t like this, but if you approach some of these topics as if you were at work, you will be more content interacting with each other. Based on the moderation here, I don’t think MR is the ideal platform for those conversations without “work” guard rails.

Yeah it’s a little sad this forum can’t be everything, but I think it serves its purpose for the Apple tech interests.

 

[ericgtr12]

This is just my perspective, but it seems to be the same personas that keep bringing up these issues. These people IMO are very opinionated such that it becomes very abrasive, and some as a result are participating in an offsite forum collectively. However, they often come back to raise up the issues again when there is more fuel.

I know some people won’t like this, but if you approach some of these topics as if you were at work, you will be more content interacting with each other. Based on the moderation here, I don’t think MR is the ideal platform for those conversations without “work” guard rails.

Yeah it’s a little sad this forum can’t be everything, but I think it serves its purpose for the Apple tech interests.

I can say that in all my years at work that nobody knows my politics and as a result I get along with everyone. However, most of us frequent message boards/social media, etc. to give our personal opinions on things behind anonymous usernames and that's a very different thing where you're dealing with personalities, differences and so on. You raise good points here, just not sure that it's the same type of playing field.

 

[I7guy]

[...]
And, specifically, in the case of MR, my concern is that some of the rules concerning moderation may need to be revised, as they, either don't work as applied at present, or, they are not applied consistently.

What would be your concrete suggestion as to the changes to the "rules for appropriate debate?" Be specific, because these are the guidelines and can't be subject to interpretation or else the complaints about unfair moderation will still be present, when judgement has to be applied to posts of questionable quality.

That may come down to the fact that the mods are volunteers (and yes, this is something that can be both time consuming and thankless work) and that there may be a lack of diversity among their ranks (one suspects a preponderance of white, cis, middle class males).

Seems like quite the insult to the moderation team to suggest a group of people who "may" share the same color and "may" have similiar body parts, but yet come from multiple walks of life and geographies and experiences can't get out of the way of their own biases to do an effective job moderating the forums.

[...]

 

[icanhazmac]

This is just my perspective, but it seems to be the same personas that keep bringing up these issues. These people IMO are very opinionated such that it becomes very abrasive, and some as a result are participating in an offsite forum collectively. However, they often come back to raise up the issues again when there is more fuel.

Couldn't agree more! There are over 1 million registered members at MR and the same 6-10 members are the ones always complaining in SFF about moderation. This same group doesn't seem to be able to function within the forum rules for civilized discussion and use this type of example:

But MR already moderate based on a specific point of view, which is abundantly clear.

Let's say someone posts:
"if black people don't want to get pulled over, they should stay out of rich neighborhoods"

And another replies:
"You are racist"

Only the person calling out the first poster gets penalized, no matter how one looks at this it's moderating from a specific point of view.

First off, I don't believe that MR would allow the example post to stay, my guess is many people would report it, I would too. MR mod's tend to clear out such posts fairly quickly in my experience. If you report a post and "no action required" is the result then you need to accept that you don't own this site and don't make the rules.

Second, regardless of how inappropriate a post is members are not permitted to "call out" the author with pejorative terms. Simple fact, if you insult a member YOU will get mod'd. Why not just work within the clearly stated rules and just report the offending post? If you report a post and "no action required" is the result then you need to accept that you don't own this site and don't make the rules.

Third, sometimes you just need to accept that your personal political and social leanings don't mesh with greater percentage of the population. If you report a post and "no action required" is the result then you need to accept that you don't own this site and don't make the rules. You may of course ask for clarification or a second review but you are not entitled to anything else.

The above example does not, IMHO, provide a view of the mod teams political or social leanings, it is a very simple expression of the rules. Don't insult members, even if they deserve it and you won't have a problem.

 

[Huntn]

The community portion of the site is a very small minority of the traffic. However, the reason it’s here is for the community/social aspect of it. Letting regulars discuss topics outside of Apple.

That’s why I’ve defended it in the past since it is a big part of some core people’s experiences here.

I suppose we could hire “professional” moderators (whatever that is) to moderate political forums, but i don’t believe that would actually solve anything.

The loudest complainers wouldn’t be appeased since there seems to be a disagreement on what topics should be allowed vs not allowed.

arn

I don’t know who the loudest complainers are that argue against certain topics being allowed. For them the easiest solution is to avoid such topics. However, my opinion is that moderation here historically has been inconsistent, but I also realize it is a tough job to get it right and probably time consuming for volunteers to handle.

 

[I7guy]

I don’t know who the loudest complainers are that argue against certain topics being allowed. For them the easiest solution is to avoid such topics. However, my opinion is that moderation here historically has been inconsistent, but I also realize it is a tough job to get it right and probably time consuming for volunteers to handle.

With one million members and thousands of posts a day, I'm sure there is some inconsistency in moderation, although the staff has stated they strive to be consistent. They have said they do have a collaborative approach to moderation, so that would tend to minimize the inconsistencies. It's a tough battle as the staff as I see it, has to consider nuance, content, forum, detangle the conversations to get to the root,etc.

 

[KaliYoni]

hoaxes, fake news, lies, misinformation, disinformation

Well, the name of this site is MacRumors. So if MR is going to fulfill its stated purpose, there is going to be some amount of those things, no? In fact, I began posting here, as opposed to just reading stories published on the front page, in response to coverage of a product, TextBlade, that involved all of the above.

I agree, though, that propaganda, polemics, and conspiracy theories should be removed if not directly related to an Apple or Apple ecosystem product, service, or corporate action. Hate speech and personal attacks, of course, shouldn't ever be allowed to remain.

 

[I7guy]

[...]conspiracy theories [...]

Like Apple fosters planned obsolescence? That thought is a recurring theme in some threads.

 

[bpeeps]

This site relies upon volunteer moderators and it has been stated more than once that there are too few of them. Even if there were a sufficient number, moderation is not an exact science (can I say that word ) and it is very subjective and influenced by the personal biases of the mods. That cannot be remedied and will not change.

So, is moderation really necessary? I don't really care if some people post that masks work or don't work, that vaccines are a conspiracy, that Obama was not born in the US etc. I have my own opinions, I research topics as required, I read a variety of news sources and come up with my own conclusions.

Macrumors is not a public service site or a government operation. It is not under any legal obligation to my knowledge to provide the public with accurate information on any issue. If someone reading Macrumors believes that eating 23 pork chops a day will prevent Covid because poster Suzie said so, so be it.

Moderation is not an exact science and it will never be perfect, it just needs to be better. Moderator personal bias can be affected with more mods of different backgrounds to help facilitate their discussions. Right now, moderation is an echo chamber. It is very easy to see that many of them align culturally, politically, and socially despite however different they may be individually. Diversity would aid in bringing different viewpoints to light when they're making these decisions.

Yes, moderation is absolutely necessary. That's an extremely silly question to pose. It's great that you don't care when misinformation, conspiracies, and factually incorrect posts are allowed to flourish in the community. But many people do care. Many of us can look at the bigger picture and see how it threatens and propagates through our media, information, and culture. The U.S. spent four years with a president spreading misinformation that people were believing. That is largely one of the reasons Facebook and Twitter started tagging social media posts with sources to find correct information, so people don't think injecting hydroxychloroquine or common disinfectants is a viable solution to combatting covid.

Macrumors doesn't need to be a public service site or a government operation. Nor does it need to legally be obligated to do the right thing (MacRumors is most likely protected under Section 230) . This is one of the worst takes on this discussion I've seen. There is a reason social media sites are taking a stand against misinformation. And that's because it is absolutely necessary in the current socio-political climate to curb this growing phenomenon.

 

[tobefirst ⚽️]

Moderator personal bias can be affected with more mods of different backgrounds to help facilitate their discussions. Right now, moderation is an echo chamber. It is very easy to see that many of them align culturally, politically, and socially despite however different they may be individually. Diversity would aid in bringing different viewpoints to light when they're making these decisions.

After one of the recent threads here in SFF, I realized for myself that a lack of diversity is what I – an outsider – believe to be the largest problem. That and likely not enough moderators doing the work. In a forum this size, there have to be more people who would be willing to put in some work.

 

[icanhazmac]

There is a reason social media sites are taking a stand against misinformation.

And who determines what is “misinformation”? See my post #17 in this thread.

Social media censored this topic for months casting it as “right wing conspiracy” and they were wrong, evidently the topic merits investigation and discussion. It never should have been censored in the first place.

 

[AutomaticApple]

Social media censored this topic for months casting it as “right wing conspiracy” and they were wrong, evidently the topic merits investigation and discussion. It never should have been censored in the first place.

Evidently, propaganda seems to be a problem too...

 

[SuperMatt]

And who determines what is “misinformation”? See my post #17 in this thread.

Social media censored this topic for months casting it as “right wing conspiracy” and they were wrong, evidently the topic merits investigation and discussion. It never should have been censored in the first place.

What do you mean who determines it?

A definition of misinformation:

• n.
  Wrong information; false account or intelligence.
• n.
  Untrue or incorrect information.
• n.
  Information that is incorrect.

Using extremely rare exceptions as a reason to never police any misinformation is like refusing to ever arrest a criminal caught in the act because occasionally they will be acquitted.

 

[icanhazmac]

What do you mean who determines it?

A definition of misinformation:

Using extremely rare exceptions as a reason to never police any misinformation is like refusing to ever arrest a criminal caught in the act because occasionally they will be acquitted.

I meant exactly what I said, who determines what is misinformation? Evidently the staff of Facebook has that power.

Thanks for posting the definition as it furthers my point... some batch of idiots at Facebook determined that COVID Lab Leak posts were "misinformation" when they weren't. Facebook should not have the power to make that mistake and it wasn't only Facebook. As per your posted definition one cannot label something as "misinformation" until it can be unequivocally proven as such but evidently big social media can label things whatever they want, with no consequenses.

Rare exceptions are the very reason to err on the side of less censorship!

 

[theSeb]

Unfortunately, science and political topics don’t seem to be mutually exclusive. Like vaccines.

We try to limit discussion of these highly debated topics to certain sections, because it can get heated. Whether that’s good or bad, that’s where things stand.

Thank you for finally confirming what many have believed to be the ‘direction from the top’ for a while and certifying that I really don’t belong here.