A perfect summary
Shutting down comments to avoid moderation of toxic voices is simply not the answer.
This isn't even some random political topic -- the watch bands are Apple products!
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.
MacRumors LGBT+ article policy - disabling/deleting comments
- Thread starter chumps52
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
A perfect summary
Shutting down comments to avoid moderation of toxic voices is simply not the answer.
This isn't even some random political topic -- the watch bands are Apple products!
If I was in charge of setting moderation policy here, I would base rules and decisions on these principles:
This all leads me to think that given the lesser-of-two-evils choice of either disabling comments on certain subjects in anticipation of off-topic, toxic comments or having to make moderation decisions after people have been provoked and tempers have flared, MR's current policy is imperfect but acceptable.
----------
For anybody interested, here's a look at the psychology of why discussions over narrow issues often turn into fights over "free speech" or "religious liberty":
Kellogg Insight-Northwestern University
- MR is a website focused on Apple, Apple products, and the Apple eco-system.
- MR's main purpose is not to be a debate site, a political news site, a conspiracy theory propagation or debunking site, or an activism site.
- Users who engage in on-topic respectful discussions in good faith should be moderated as little as possible.
This all leads me to think that given the lesser-of-two-evils choice of either disabling comments on certain subjects in anticipation of off-topic, toxic comments or having to make moderation decisions after people have been provoked and tempers have flared, MR's current policy is imperfect but acceptable.
----------
For anybody interested, here's a look at the psychology of why discussions over narrow issues often turn into fights over "free speech" or "religious liberty":
Kellogg Insight-Northwestern University
Last edited:
You do not have any inherent right on this forum to say whatever you want about the topic in question or any other topic. This site is a tech based business primarily centered around Apple products. There are plenty of other forums and sites online where people are free to openly discuss such topics. As a business owner, Arn has the right to try and make sure his business site does not become one constantly mired in posts that put undue burden on the staff or cast a dark shadow on the site itself, by allowing people to say whatever pops into their internet minds.
I don't know why so many here feel that they have a right to do what they want in someone else's business, just because of topic x. People don't.
This forum was not created so that everyone on the internet can make sure that their voice and particular slant on any given subject matter is given complete freedom, nor was this forum created to set any societal agenda, as several members seem to expect.
If people want complete freedom of speech let them create their own website to deal with all the burdens, problems and potential lawsuits.
MR wont do that because it has the potential to reduce the size of the userbase and sites like this use the size of the userbase to get sponsors and advertisers.
Free speech has to do with the government's ability to interfere with an individual's right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint. It doesn't apply to a private online forum where users agree to comply with a registration agreement as part of the process of creating a user account.
Requiring users to follow rules they themselves accept as part of the registration agreement is not censorship.
You are flat out wrong with this assumption. In the entire time I have been a moderator here, I have not once been told or even had it hinted at that we (mods) should consider member counts or ad revenue when making moderation decisions. It just is not considered at all by moderators.
Then let the owner of the site prove it then. Open up the threads with closed comments and ban the trolls, the racists, the homophobes, the islamapobes when they appear.
If the size of the memberbase is not an issue then the owner should have no worries in opening up threads that are closed to comments.
That does not resolve the issue of moderator resources/workload.
Also, threads like that don't have a large amount of posts that are outright homophobic for example. Those types of threads seem to result in people with strong opinions engaging in heated debate that often devolves into personal insults. Then insults get thrown back, then both insulting posts get quoted repeatedly, and you have a lot of moderator time sucked up dealing with it.
MacRumors.com is a privately owned website with its own rules that you agree to upon registering for a forum account.
If you do not agree to the rules, you are not obligated to use the website.
Just thinking out loud here, but doesn't that eventually get resolved through the moderation action though?
i.e.
If one keeps violating rules, they get expunged (gone - problem solved), or they get moderated a bit and behavior gets modified and they end up as good contributors on the forums in wider ranges of topics.
Other than initial moderator time (which I acknowledge is an issue), I just don't see how trying to sweep bad behavior away by disabling comments solves anything. It seems like it just defers problems and likely hides an even bigger issue of the user base swelling in ranks with perhaps some pretty unsavory folks.
For example -- anyone spouting "outright homophobic" commentary really should be dealt with swiftly so they are either gone or they quickly modify their behavior. Letting that hang around the forum and just not be seen too often by disabling comments on things they will react to -- seems like an odd route to take that just lets an issue fester and grow under the surface.
This is not my area of expertise (moderation), so I apologize if this seems off base.
I'm just sort of thinking about it and this is what's coming to mind.
Is any of that a fair observation and at least a partial concern?
Exactly. The result of this policy (which @Joe Rossignol said on the first page of this thread is applied inconsistently) is that the lowest common denominator of commenters are setting the community standards for all of us. Their apparent inability to comment in a civil or mature manner on threads here is defining what all of us can comment on. That goes for any supposed "controversial" topic, including stories that touch on race, women, LGBTQ+ people, religious minorities, etc.
Yes, MR sets rules for comments on their threads. Nothing wrong with that, this is their site and they have every right. And I appreciate the work that the mods are doing. But rather than shutting down all conversation on a topic such as Pride watch bands, perhaps the answer is to actually hold commenters to those rules, instead of punishing all of us for the possible future sins of the few.
The current policy is simply making some of us invisible in some discussions of stories that relate to our lives and identities.
Yes... if someone is regularly tossing out insults, for example, they will eventually be banned. I touched on it in my previous post, but some of these controversial topics seem to bring out the worst in people. I see somewhat long time forum members with very little moderation history all of a sudden tossing out insults in these threads. They eventually get bounced if they keep it up, but it can be a lot of work dealing with it.
The blatantly homophobic comments are pretty rare in those threads, and they are dealt with swiftly. If a new member shows up in a thread like that making homophobic comments, they are going to get banned straight away.
It is the more subtle, less serious rule violations in controversial threads that cause a lot of the mod work.
Completely fair observations and the feedback is appreciated.
There is one thing members could do to help, and that is hit that report button when you see a problem rather than engage the offender in the thread. A lot of the time all the cleanup required as a result of members calling out the bad behavior creates more work than the original offensive comment.
The point remains that MacRumors moderation policy - specifically the bit where they never even open an article up for comments, instead going straight to "comments disabled"... MacRumors moderation policy effectively cedes control of the conversation to the haters, effectively silencing the voices the haters wanted silenced. You, the MacRumors admins/mods, let them dictate what articles/topics can be discussed and what can't.
In the current case, it's literally an article about the color of a ****ing watchband. I would have been happy to say, "oh, the colors look nice this year, the black/Nike band appeals to me more, simply because it has colored stripes all the way around, rather than having the stripes broken up by the wording". You know, actually talking about the watchbands themselves (I've collected a lot of Apple Watch bands over the years). But, because the admins/mods know that they will undoubtedly get an influx of haters coming in to make veiled (or not so veiled) comments expressing their hatred of gay people, they preemptively shut down the entire conversation.
Whether the admins/mods mean to or not (I don't expect it's intentional), they are effectively silencing one group of people in favor of another. They are letting the haters control what gets discussed. They're putting out the message, "If you don't want a topic discussed, make the comment thread on related topics into a huge **** storm, and we won't permanently ban you, we'll just prevent anyone from discussing that topic in the future", so... "mission accomplished".
And lest anyone question my use of the word "hater"... I don't recall ever seeing unbidden comments in such threads saying, "STRAIGHT PEOPLE SUCK!". I haven't seen any arguments in the forums start that way, with hatred thrown towards straight people. The genesis of the trouble is coming from one side, the intolerant side. It's the people who don't like anything related to LGBTQ+ who come in and try to rain on the parade, who have to drag the thread off-topic, away from the watch band itself into veiled (or not so veiled) insults.
I see similar things (in perhaps a more toned down and more easily discussable way) happen on a lot of threads that mention most any current musical artist doing something or other on Apple Music (releasing an album in some new way, or setting a record for sales, or offering an exclusive, or whatever) - the direct topic is how this relates to Apple and Apple Music - it's interesting that they're debuting something exclusively on Apple Music for a time, say, and how that relates to the current position of Apple Music in the industry. But, invariably, you get a bunch of people who feel compelled to give harsh, superficial, reviews of the music itself - often not even the specific song in question, but instead they go after the artist or the entire genre, or just the vintage of the music - often of the form "all music now is crap, not like in the <decade where commenter was in high-school/college>'s"...
And the thing is, their opinion of the music in question has precisely zero to do with the content of the article - this is not even remotely a music review site, and most (all?) people here do not care whether user X hates all music produced after 2000 (or whatever year), and yet these (Apple Music story) forum threads often devolve into a collecting place for angry/vengeful "this isn't my kind of music and therefore sucks" music reviews (or just insults against the artist - often against the appearance of female artists), rather than any discussion of the actual connection to Apple.
(Personally, I like music from a lot of different decades - my nieces introduced me to Taylor Swift and Ariana Grande, and I introduced them to the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Bowie, the Ramones, Nirvana, and Lady Gaga - but life is too short to spend time running into crowds in order to yell "I hate this music", I'd rather just go listen to music I do like - or, you know, seek out new/interesting music I haven't heard before. I don't feel so insecure about my musical tastes that I need to rain on other people's musical parade, in the hope that my favorites will "win" - music is not a zero sum game.)
The situation in music threads is a very minor echo of what happens in any thread that touches on LGBTQ+ topics - what could be a very easygoing thread of people saying, "oh, that's cool" or "it's interesting (or bad) to see Apple Music getting more exclusives", instead gets overrun with people with some sort of grudge against the artist mentioned (or their genre, or how they look), and the thread becomes a bit toxic. Though these (music-related) threads usually don't get shut down. And I don't recall seeing one ever end up preemptively shut down with the dreaded "comments disabled".
These days, with many articles relating in any way to LGBTQ+, this happens in a much more heavy handed way. The admins/mods block any conversation preemptively, because they know the haters will come in and make an awful mess. And the haters learn that they can control what topics can be discussed, just by stirring up **** on past threads. And all of this sucks.
Serious question–I'm not trying to troll you– if you are willing to answer: why are you a paying subscriber to MR if you have deeply felt objections to how the site is operated?
I've been a registered member here for 18 years. I've been a paying subscriber for the last year or two (I want to support them and running the site without an ad blocker used to literally spin up the fans on my old MBP because of all the ad/tracking javascript). I find the site to be a great resource for keeping up to date on Apple related news, and, historically, have found the comments (often just the most-upvoted ones that make it onto the front page under an article) to often be a good "finger on the pulse" of the Mac community (as in, "the headline says X but the responses say Y", which sometimes provides interesting/insightful counterpoints). I have gotten a great deal of interesting information, helpful insight, and occasional laughs, out of this site (and interactions on the forum) over the years, and I value that.
This whole subforum ("Site and Forum Feedback") is for understanding and hashing out how the site works. Posts and comments here can, and have, had an impact on how the site works in the past. The mods keep pointing out, "if you see bad behavior, report it". That's kind of what I'm doing for the site, in this thread. Pointing out what looks to me like bad behavior (intentional or not). I do not think it's intentional bad behavior by the admins/mods. But I think that it does hurt the site and this community. And I want them to understand that. And I want to see what they have to say about it in response.
If you had an 18 year long relationship, and you sensed a problem, would you just walk away? Or would you try to address the problem head on and maybe try to talk through the issues to see if they could be resolved?
(And if it's the direction you were thinking in, I don't think having me as one person cancel my paid membership as an act of protest over this current issue is really going to move the bottom line for MacRumors enough to affect their decisions - and even if it did, I'd rather have them do the right thing because it's the right thing to do, and not for financial reasons.)
I have to admit, I don't really know the gravity of the situation on many threads that seem to get pretty controversial.
I'm a very proud heavy user of the ignore list to ensure the unsavories don't disrupt my enjoyment of the otherwise great threads and forum. I do actually revisit that from time to time by way of "showing ignored posts" and more than a few times, folks who somehow ended up on my "ignore" radar have come back off of it.
My main point being, forum behavior can change for folks.
Sometimes more time or perspective is needed. Maybe some moderation helped them at some point?
As it relates to this topic -- I just think shutting off comments also shuts down any chance for folks to show that great conversations can happen on/around topic...and that people can change.
The bad seeds should be moderated, not the topics themselves (by shutting of comments)
To @CarlJ 's point -- that's actually just accomplishing what some of these folks want
(to get rid of anything LGBT+ here or anywhere)
I'm a very proud heavy user of the ignore list to ensure the unsavories don't disrupt my enjoyment of the otherwise great threads and forum. I do actually revisit that from time to time by way of "showing ignored posts" and more than a few times, folks who somehow ended up on my "ignore" radar have come back off of it.
My main point being, forum behavior can change for folks.
Sometimes more time or perspective is needed. Maybe some moderation helped them at some point?
As it relates to this topic -- I just think shutting off comments also shuts down any chance for folks to show that great conversations can happen on/around topic...and that people can change.
The bad seeds should be moderated, not the topics themselves (by shutting of comments)
To @CarlJ 's point -- that's actually just accomplishing what some of these folks want
(to get rid of anything LGBT+ here or anywhere)
Thanks for taking my question seriously.
Personally, I am unlikely, no matter the length of a business relationship, to pay for products or services from companies that act in opposition to my core values. For example, I had no objections to eating at a certain chain restaurant for many years. But one day I happened to look at the bottom of one of their paper beverage cups and found a printed message that made it very clear the chain supports views I strongly oppose. So I stopped giving them my business cold turkey.
Or, as an example of a stickier, more consequential business relationship, I would not hesitate to move my portfolio away from my brokerage company if I found out it or its senior managers were backing causes I consider heinous or refusing clients based on illegitimate factors.
In any case, I acknowledge, of course, that what feels right for me may not feel right for others.
----------
ETA: another business I consciously avoid is Reddit. I do not read or post anything there. Why? Because I do not support how its management and investors run the company. There are so many other alternatives to Reddit for online discussion that I don't feel I'm missing anything.
Last edited:
I'll jump in here mostly in response to @CarlJ but also a couple of others and in regards to why the mods get over-worked by certain topics.
What I have seen in regards to "social" topics are some members over-reacting to inane comments. While it is not overly constructive to comment on articles with "that is the ugliest watchband ever" it is a legitimate comment, just as legitimate as "wow, I really like how that watch band looks". The first comment, just because it is a negative impression of a watchband meant to show support for a specific community is not necessarily a comment about that community itself but simply a comment on the appearance of the watchband itself.
An example I witnessed personally on this site in regards to a thread about Lebron James: some members sang his praises, some stated they can't stand him. The members who commented negatively were branded with an -ist title, is it not possible to dislike Lebron James as a person or as a professional athlete without being labeled an -ist?.
Another example I experienced personally on this site in regards to music. Why do all comments need to be in the positive? Cannot one dislike a particular artist, genre, etc without being labeled an -ist? Personally I cannot stand the Rap / Hip-hop genre but really enjoy old blues. Both genres deeply rooted in the African-American community but does one need to scream positive support for both to not be labeled an -ist? I hope not.
I know truly vile comments show up from time to time but they seem to be mostly from new accounts that are mod'd quickly. Do some members veil deeper hate in simple negative comments? I don't know but I am willing to take most member's comments at face value versus claiming every negative comment is a "dog whistle". If you don't like a song/artist/genre it doesn't mean you hate an entire race, does that make sense?
One thing a person who is not an -ist or -phob doesn't appreciate is being wrongly accused of being one. People can have a negative impression of certain things that represent a specific community without having a negative feeling about that community but once the -ist or -phob name calling starts the thread is derailed.
What I have seen in regards to "social" topics are some members over-reacting to inane comments. While it is not overly constructive to comment on articles with "that is the ugliest watchband ever" it is a legitimate comment, just as legitimate as "wow, I really like how that watch band looks". The first comment, just because it is a negative impression of a watchband meant to show support for a specific community is not necessarily a comment about that community itself but simply a comment on the appearance of the watchband itself.
An example I witnessed personally on this site in regards to a thread about Lebron James: some members sang his praises, some stated they can't stand him. The members who commented negatively were branded with an -ist title, is it not possible to dislike Lebron James as a person or as a professional athlete without being labeled an -ist?.
Another example I experienced personally on this site in regards to music. Why do all comments need to be in the positive? Cannot one dislike a particular artist, genre, etc without being labeled an -ist? Personally I cannot stand the Rap / Hip-hop genre but really enjoy old blues. Both genres deeply rooted in the African-American community but does one need to scream positive support for both to not be labeled an -ist? I hope not.
I know truly vile comments show up from time to time but they seem to be mostly from new accounts that are mod'd quickly. Do some members veil deeper hate in simple negative comments? I don't know but I am willing to take most member's comments at face value versus claiming every negative comment is a "dog whistle". If you don't like a song/artist/genre it doesn't mean you hate an entire race, does that make sense?
One thing a person who is not an -ist or -phob doesn't appreciate is being wrongly accused of being one. People can have a negative impression of certain things that represent a specific community without having a negative feeling about that community but once the -ist or -phob name calling starts the thread is derailed.
Last edited:
Agreed.
But something to consider is that when one is a member of the community that is being talked about, one probably has a lifetime of experience listening for signs that someone is talking about the larger group, and not just an individual, a style of music, etc.
This is not oversensitivity or defensiveness. What I'm saying is members of some communities, having heard disparaging remarks for years or decades or a lifetime, often have a better ear for what is being said between the lines than those who are not members of those groups. It can only help if we listen to them as we conduct our public communication.
I'm a moderator on another forum, and while it's not as busy as MR, it still has a healthy user base. I think a lot of folks here are grossly underestimating how much work it takes to clean up the mess when a thread spins into political bickering. And unfortunately in today's world (especially in the US), even a topic that should have no connection to political ideology can turn into a dumpster fire in short order if any component of it is connected to some other divisive topic. For example on the board where I moderate, anything that even mentions California (or to a lesser extent New York) will likely have posts deleted and the thread locked within a few hours.
It sucks. I'm not happy about it either, and the dozen or so mods on my board would love to be able to leave all the threads open indefinitely and clean things up as the bad actors come and go, but we're volunteers and we simply don't have the manpower to stay on top of it all the time, so sometimes the only solution is to shut the whole thread down, even if the thread isn't directly political or against the board rules. And of course, just like here, folks then scream with entitlement about freedom of speech and accuse us of having some sort of agenda.
It's terrible that only a few idiots can ruin an otherwise great space for everyone else, but that's simply the reality of the internet today. We can ban folks all we want, but with VPNs and everyone now changing IPs with every connection there's no longer any way to keep them from coming back (and keep the board anonymous at least).
So anyway, that's my take. The moderation here *is* heavier than other boards I've been to - including where I moderate - but it's their home, their rules, and I understand. If you're pissed about how MR handles things, go volunteer to be a moderator at any good sized message board and I guarantee that in six months, you'll understand too.
It sucks. I'm not happy about it either, and the dozen or so mods on my board would love to be able to leave all the threads open indefinitely and clean things up as the bad actors come and go, but we're volunteers and we simply don't have the manpower to stay on top of it all the time, so sometimes the only solution is to shut the whole thread down, even if the thread isn't directly political or against the board rules. And of course, just like here, folks then scream with entitlement about freedom of speech and accuse us of having some sort of agenda.
It's terrible that only a few idiots can ruin an otherwise great space for everyone else, but that's simply the reality of the internet today. We can ban folks all we want, but with VPNs and everyone now changing IPs with every connection there's no longer any way to keep them from coming back (and keep the board anonymous at least).
So anyway, that's my take. The moderation here *is* heavier than other boards I've been to - including where I moderate - but it's their home, their rules, and I understand. If you're pissed about how MR handles things, go volunteer to be a moderator at any good sized message board and I guarantee that in six months, you'll understand too.
To be very clear, like you, there are a number of companies that I won't do business with, because they espouse or support positions that I find odious. But I don't believe that is the case here.
I have been fairly careful in my choice of words in this thread, to try to make sure that my stand on that is clear. I don't have any indication that the mods intentionally favor one side or the other in threads. I start off by giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming that they're basically neutral. I do know that there can be substantial differences between what is intended by one's actions, and the way they are perceived, and the unintended consequences they may have. I believe there are actions that the admins/mods here have taken in good faith that have had bad effects (like effectively silencing a contingent of the community, as well as particular topics), and I want them to understand the gravity of those effects, beyond just, "well, but otherwise it'd be more work for mods" (if that were the only factor to take into consideration, it'd be much easier to just shut down the forums entirely).
(And, personally, I'd like to see @arn take a good look through this thread and see what he has to say.)
A really excellent point
"More work for moderators", on its own, isn't really enough justification for any action or inaction. As you said, if that's the only concern, just disband the forum and make it a bulletin board with Apple news releases.
(of course I'm not being serious -- the whole point of a forum at all is for the discussion)
Thoughtful response but I respectfully disagree.
Regardless of your background or membership in any community, claiming that you "hear dog whistles" or know what an anonymous forum member "actually" means in a comment is a fruitless venture, just take them at their typed word or better yet, if you feel someone is veiling some hate ask them what they mean by their comment either publicly or in a private message. I do acknowledge that some people's life experience might make this difficult but anyone who claims to know what another is "really saying" is probably wrong. Isn't falsely labeling someone an -ist or -phobe just as bad as being called a derogatory name yourself?
As an example, one should not have to post a comment like "That watchband is ugly" with the disclaimer of "but I'm not homophobic". One should be taken at their typed word, they don't like one watchband, nothing more implied or intended.
Last edited: