Um. Nothing I said was controversial or hidden, or should have required any “confirmation”.
I think us classifying covid stories in political news should have been the tip off.
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.
Is Science now considered PRSI?
- Thread starter dukebound85
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
I think us classifying covid stories in political news should have been the tip off.
I disagree wholeheartedly.
Again, your entire argument rests on this one extremely rare exception. That’s not much to build a case on. And even this exception is far from confirmed. Nobody knows for sure if it was naturally occurring or an accidental leak from a lab... and the leak from a lab could have been just an existing virus they were testing that leaked out... not a genetically-engineered virus intentionally leaked to infect the planet, as one hoax went.
I think the moderators have made it very clear that they will allow unlimited false information to be posted here. They’ve said publicly they will not fact check anything (source below). That’s their right - it’s their forum after all. The one “control” on such information is the citation rule, so there is that.
The trouble with signatures
The only way to know that is by checking facts. They could be facts about vaccines or facts about Alex Jones, but either way the moderators aren't in charge of investigating the claim by hunting down information outside the forums. If there are people who believe those claims then not everyone...
forums.macrumors.com
I believe some misinformation is harmful and should be moderated. The rules here do prohibit hoaxes. We are all humans, we all make mistakes. Attempting to stop the spread of false information that could cause people harm is a worthy pursuit, IMHO. If something that was once thought to be true was later proven false with new information, then the site can adjust to the new reality. If somebody was suspended for posting, they can be reinstated and their record wiped.
Your stance seems to be that there is neither truth nor falsehood in the world. An interesting philosophy to be sure, but not a useful one when it comes to moderating a website.
Last edited:
This site can moderate as it wishes. People are not forced to read anything on this site. I agree with some decisions and disagree with others. If one is so opposed and aggravated by how it operates, don't visit. The way some folks get upset is worrying. The number of people who read and may be influenced by what they read here is a mere pimple on the left toe of a massive elephant. It means nothing in the bigger picture.
Focus your anger and energy (particularly those in the US) on organisations and media outlets that actually matter and have influence on more people.
I agree with you that they can moderate however they want. I disagree about it (not) mattering - MR forums have about a million users. That’s a pretty large amount of people that can be influenced.
Arn has stated that the number who read the non tech forums is very low. There are bigger and much more important battles to fight
It also is a pretty large amount of people than can be swayed by more accurate information given the opportunity to debate the issue at hand.
My argument is that one needs to be very careful who they entrust with the censor hammer. The incorrect censoring of the Lab Leak Theory for months and the demonizing of the theory as a "right wing conspiracy" has lasting effects. While you are correct that the matter is not settled the point is the theories should never have been silenced in the first place and it may yet prove to have been dangerous to have done so. If these theories prove true and we could have applied more pressure on the CCP could COVID deaths have been prevented? I'm happy to try and build a case on that.
GOOD! I say this because I don't think any single entity, even those as large as Facebook or Twitter, have the expertise to correctly fact check every single topic. If you are not an expert in X field of study you might be swayed by big words or the host of the information or study, or worst of all your own biases.
On some level I agree with you but I also recognize the flip side of your coin, the censoring of valid information can have equally harmful effects. What is better? Censor heavily and hope you don't get something REALLY wrong or censor lightly, minimizing the chance that you make a huge mistake. I simply err on the side of less censorship.
You can also try to stop the spread of misinformation by providing what you feel is competing information. Driving unpopular thought underground by censoring it just breeds echo chambers. Fight bad ideas with better ones.
Yes, you can try to backtrack and minimize the damage done but how many people still think that saturated fats are the cause of obesity and heart disease when only recently do we find that this was a huge misinformation campaign funded by the sugar industry.
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.
This campaign of misinformation went on for almost 50 years and trying to undo the damage is proving difficult. Say something enough times and it can become "fact".
Last edited:
Humans are complex beings who can act on and care about multiple things simultaneously. The "there are more important battles to fight" argument is only used to silence and speak over opinions one doesn't like. I can care about moderation here and also recognize larger injustices in society; the world doesn't run in black and white. We aren't discussing world hunger or apartheid or whatever other "important battle" you want to derail the conversation with, we're discussing moderation in a forum designed specifically for that.
Last edited:
You’ve proved my point. Misinformation can be quite harmful; if somebody knew what the sugar industry was doing and exposed it, what a benefit that would have been. That’s all the more reason to seek out misinformation and warn others of it. Think how many people needlessly died of coronavirus because of misinformation from the world’s largest bully pulpit.Yes, you can try to backtrack and minimize the damage done but how many people still think that saturated fats are the cause of obesity and heart disease when only recently do we find that this was a huge misinformation campaign funded by the sugar industry.
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
This campaign of misinformation went on for almost 50 years and trying to undo the damage is proving difficult. Say something enough times and it can become "fact".
Not so fast...
Many tried to challenge the status quo over that time and they were labeled the "misinformation" and canceled or shamed, it took almost 50 years for the truth to come out.
Ex: The general consensus about the Adkins diet when it first came out through mid 90s was that it was everything from a stupid fad to downright dangerous. Now low carb diets are far more accepted by the establishment.
Any yup... how many people may have needlessly died from the coronavirus because the "left" didn't want to follow a "right wing conspiracy" and truly learn the origin of the virus? If it was a lab leak or purposefully let loose by the CCP that would have been valuable information in the early days.
Last edited:
Once those who "trust the Science(tm)" started demonizing anyone who disagrees with the party line as being (just) politically against science itself, they lost the moral high ground about critiques of Joe Average actually following consensus on what was really going on with the epidemic.
By turning The Science into their religion, they quickly alienated a lot of people who just disagree with them.
Strident insistence on censorship/banning/virtual book burning at every level, in every forum. The Science Jihadis will brook no dissent!
By turning The Science into their religion, they quickly alienated a lot of people who just disagree with them.
Strident insistence on censorship/banning/virtual book burning at every level, in every forum. The Science Jihadis will brook no dissent!
I agree. Someone stating "drinking bleach cures covid" is an example of misinformation that should be moderated and would probably fall under the hoax rule. Some stating "vaccines don't work...look at the Yankees" is a tangled web of misinformation, but one that imo, should be debated and not moderated. Another one: "masks don't work"...at this point with many places in the US back in full swing does it really matter if someone posts that? Having a debate on the subject may sway those who believe otherwise.
You seem to have a specific list of items you would like moderated...what are they?
Zero, because that is a completely false argument. The genome of the virus was published publicly in January by the Chinese. The spike protein that ended up being used in many vaccines was found within an hour.
The origin doesn’t matter when creating the vaccine: it is the genome. Work began on the vaccine right then and was done in less than a year. The previous record was 4 years.
The story behind the blistering speed of COVID-19 vaccine development | CBC News
Before COVID-19, the fastest a vaccine had ever been developed was four years. In her latest Apocalypse Then column, Ainsley Hawthorn looks at how a past pandemic provided a huge head start for researchers.
There is no way that would have been sped up by knowing if the virus came from grandma’s cooking or from the planet Mars. It literally doesn’t matter - the genome does.
Information matters because somehow misinformation has led you to conclude that knowing the origin of the virus would have made a difference. The facts clearly show otherwise. Please note: we still don’t know the origin of the virus for sure, but we have vaccinated hundreds of millions of people and cases are dropping precipitously. Even if we never find the origin, we beat the disease in record time. I only wish more people had taken precautions with masks and social distancing before we got the vaccine tested and approved.
I don’t have a specific list. If I were a moderator, I’d probably monitor things, and as hoaxes popped up, if they were dangerous, I’d add them to a list for other moderators to look out for. And I’d be somewhat lenient on suspensions with the moderation of them, as many people might not even know they are spreading lies; the idea being to remove the content and let the person know “this is misinformation”. But of course if they had a pattern of doing it or kept posting it after being told not to, that would be different.
It further proves the poor state of not just PRSI, but the rest of the forum in general.
This forum isn't perfect. It is run by imperfect people just like us members. Overall, I think it is one of the best places on the internet as far as tech information goes, not to mention the information shared between members is what makes this place really shine. The staff does a very good job given the amount of traffic on the site.It further proves the poor state of not just PRSI, but the rest of the forum in general.
The problem is that with so many members with varying backgrounds and beliefs, it is impossible for the staff to please every person every time a decision is made.
It seems that this same topic keeps coming up time and time again and often times by many of the same people, who are continue to levy serious charges against the staff. And in spite of the ugly charges made against Arn and the staff, many of these same people continue to use the site, which seems rather odd to me, if one had such serious problems as many have voiced time and time again about the site.
I think it is great that this forum exists where people can voice their opinion as many have here to the contrary.
This is a Apple tech site. I don't think Arn and the staff are here to be fact checkers on the hot button topics that several here continue to bring up on numerous occasions, much less attempt to craft or perpetuate whatever socially accepted philosophy is being called for on any particular day.
At some point, people need to take responsibility for their own life and actions and not keep expecting a Apple tech site to be the societal mouthpiece of what is true or not true etc. In my opinion, that task falls on the shoulder of each adult member who is mentally capable of making decisions that impact said members life.
If some here are that unhappy with how this site is being run, especially after raising many of the same ugly claims time and time again, it might be time to take a step back and realize that as well meaning as many here are, (including Arn and the staff) there are objections about policy that aren't going to be agreed upon. And when that happens over and over, as some here feel it has, I think it is behooves said people to determine in themselves if their points of contention are conviction based or preference based.
Last edited:
I appreciate the alternate view; thank you.
I will say that most criticisms of the moderators are not ugly. Repetitive, perhaps, but overall not ugly.
I agree that it’s a good site overall. If it was complete trash, the complainers (yes I suppose I fit that description) wouldn’t even bother complaining. But, I learned lots of things here, like how to get a 2006 Mac Pro running El Capitan or running 10-4-Fox on an old Pismo PowerBook. I made friends through some non-tech discussions too.
I complain because I hate to see bigotry and misinformation spreading in a community I’ve (mostly) enjoyed for nearly 20 years. I have also always tried to make suggestions for improvements tied to my complaints instead of just complaining.
Well, but look at the participants. Crap. Now I'm here, too.
My take on this based on my experience of posting here for more than 8 years is science will always be a contentious issue when the discussion includes religious people. Mac Rumours has a lot of very religious individuals who participate in the political threads, more than any other forum I have ever been part of and unfortunately science is often treated as a threat to ones beliefs. Not sure if that is because this site is US based, but a lot of the science and vaccine debates are rife with very polarising views, some which many of us would never encounter in daily life. Sad but true and the reason I no longer read political threads here as this forum has a growing reputation for being quite off the grid. Still a great place for tech discussion though 
Science is political by its very nature because it needs funding -- among many other reasons. It is not just because of "religious" people. That comment is totally unfair I think. It only becomes non-political when the science becomes settled and established, which can take a very long time.My take on this based on my experience of posting here for more than 8 years is science will always be a contentious issue when the discussion includes religious people. Mac Rumours has a lot of very religious individuals who participate in the political threads, more than any other forum I have ever been part of and unfortunately science is often treated as a threat to ones beliefs. Not sure if that is because this site is US based, but a lot of the science and vaccine debates are rife with very polarising views, some which many of us would never encounter in daily life. Sad but true and the reason I no longer read political threads here as this forum has a growing reputation for being quite off the grid. Still a great place for tech discussion though
As for vaccines, everybody is entitled to make their own decision and have an opinion. I do not think that notion is very controversial in a free society. I run into very misinformed and ignorant people often so these kind of views are not surprising to me. It does not mean I or anyone else has the right to silence other people. The better approach is to allow debate and let the truth emerge through reason and persuasion. As Justice Brandeis wrote, "sunshine is the best disinfectant."
Personally, I applaud MacRumors for having a Politics section and believe that they should allow any established member to enter that forum (say after 100 posts or one year of membership, etc.) and after signing a electronic warning notice form that says all speech will be allowed except prohibited speech -- like hate speech in all it forms whether direct or insinuated. This part of the site should be non-public and mostly not moderated at all. You will learn a lot about what these members really think. It would be great.
I believe you have this backwards. Science is not political by its nature. Its definition:
It is politicians who have always attempted to make science political. They impose arbitrary conditions of funding upon it, and attempt to decide what will be studied by giving or withholding money.
One can go back to the times of Galileo and see that science sometimes reveals truths that the politicians (who at that time were the religious establishment) don’t like, so they try and silence it.
Politics, by its nature, attempts to control science in case a revealed truth threatens the current rulers, or perhaps they feel studying a certain field (like Nazis and eugenics) will make the rulers stronger. Just because something requires funding doesn’t make it political by nature. Every person, every pursuit, even every hobby requires funding. They are not all political by nature simply because of that fact.
—————
As for PRSI, I like your suggestion. Remove a lot of the rules that lead to people getting banned for petty squabbles. I’ve found on other forums without aggressive policing of small things, such minor arguments tend to fizzle out on their own. The (unintended?) consequence of moderators stepping in for tiny infractions is that some people intentionally troll members by skirting the edge of other rules and then when they anger somebody, the mods remove the person that was angered by the troller. It’s a pattern that repeats all the time here… I like to call it weaponizing the mods. The people that do it are quite good at it. Dozens of very nice, intelligent people are banned because they got caught by such people who weaponize the moderation to their benefit.
Last edited:
What rule(s) would you like removed?
-trolling
-citation
-hate speech
-profanity
- others?
The removal of such rules would increase the quality of discussions in PRSI? I feel it sound turn into a free for all.
By getting hung up with my phrase "by its nature" you are missing the point of my argument. Yes, science is not politics. You are correct -- they are obviously very different. The point is that they are often very much intertwined. You see evidence of that everwhere today. As for the PRSI, I am glad you agree. I think it would be interesting to interact with people of differing views without having to worry about sensitivities or personal proclivities of a moderator who feels it necessary to interject over the slightest reason.
- Status