MacRumors LGBT+ article policy - disabling/deleting comments

[CarlJ]

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.

I completely agree that comments do not have to be all-positive-all-the-time in order to be legit. One would generally expect that the people who go beyond the title, the picture, and the body of the article, and the comments under the article, to click into the forum and make a comment, will often be more likely to be those who are interested in the item at hand and may have something good to say about it, than those who don't care. Side note, I find it odd when people jump through all those hoops to get to the comments to then basically say, "this watchband doesn't appeal to me"... like, if you're not strongly moved by this watchband (in one direction or the other), then why are you wasting your time commenting? Eh, some people want to make sure everyone knows they don't care about something. Whatever (I try not to be the person who says, "thank you so much for telling us, we were all eagerly waiting to find out", but I generally laugh when someone else does). But, as you point out, those are legit comments.

I'm generally much more interested in hearing useful/interesting arguments for or against some item. If you can explain in an interesting way why you don't like a watchband, well, then, I might learn something (I have had people on this forum change my mind about various things, over the years, by offering persuasive arguments). If you're just chiming in to let the world know you don't like it, fine, that's your right, but it doesn't tell us much useful that we didn't already know. Now, if, hypothetically, your reason was, "I don't like it because it supports gays and gays are grooming children for abuse", then I'm going to point out that, statistically, the vast majority of child molesters are straight men. Not because I want to start an argument, but because your assertion is factually wrong - you are putting out bad data that could mislead others.

(Sigh, I had a friend a long time ago who would say things like, "I don't want to go to the park because it's cold and cloudy outside", and then would get upset if I countered with, "actually, I was just outside and the sun is shining and it's quite warm now" - they felt like I was arguing, while I felt like, look, if you don't want to go, you can totally say, "I don't feel like going to the park" - that's 100% valid - but if you present it with "because" and I know that data to be flawed, I'm going to point it out.)

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.

Agreed, again, they don't have to be positive, and disliking a song, or a person, doesn't make you a racist or other -ist. I have a strong dislike of Kanye West, regardless of his talents, for ****ing over someone on stage, in front of a huge crowd, who was getting one of their first big awards (Taylor Swift). It showed me who he was (because in the moment he thought doing that was a good idea)... and that's a complete jackass. And because of that, I have zero interest in listening to his music. But I don't hate all black people. I don't generalize from Kayne to any other black person. I just think that he is an enormous jerk. I would expect and hope that nobody would see that as racist.

For what it's worth, I like some Rap and Hip-hop (some of it is so clever and the words fit together so well - it's poetry), but I absolutely adore The Blues (and Blues-drenched Rock & Roll), from Robert Johnson on up. (Also a fan of older jazz - think Miles Davis, not "smooth jazz", for anyone keeping score.)

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 belong to a specific community without having a negative feeling about that community but once the -ist or -phob name calling starts the thread is derailed.

I've seen a few certifiably vile comments. I've reported them and the mods took care of them quickly (thank you, mods). And yeah, as above, completely agree that not liking a song/artist/genre cannot reasonably be extrapolated to being racist. I think there are some who are too quick to apply that label, and others who are overly defensive that they're going to have it applied to them, and both groups sometimes see malice where none exists.

And agreed that being tagged with any pejorative that isn't accurate can really sting. In an entirely different forum, in the past year, I actually got accused of being homophobic and a bigot, by someone who didn't understand the intent of a comment I'd made. I quickly realized that no amount of "no, wait, I'm on your side" was going to change their mind, because they had probably run into a bunch of people online who very much were both of those things, and they were rather quick to assume malice, so I just had to step away. But it hurt, both to be falsely accused, but also to know that I would not be given the chance to explain myself properly.

 

[Joe Rossignol]

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.

I appreciate the feedback.

I do think there is an opportunity for MacRumors to more strictly foster a positive community focused on discussing a shared interest in Apple. I can't speak on behalf of the entire staff, and I am rarely involved with forum moderation as a front page news writer, but I personally would love to see comments disabled on every front page news topic that relates to likely-controversial topics such as politics/religion/humanity/public health/etc. I very often see comments on Reddit and Twitter labeling the MacRumors comments section as toxic, when this site should be a fun place. However, until we adopt a stricter strategy that is agreed to by the management, editorial staff, and moderation staff, I stand by my personal decision to disable the comments section on the Pride band stories as a sign of respect to the LGBTQ+ community.

 

[icanhazmac]

I very often see comments on Reddit and Twitter labeling the MacRumors comments section as toxic, when this site should be a fun place.

While I find that sad I also find it amusing that Twitter and Reddit users would find this place toxic. MR is a lush garden in comparison. My guess is the majority of those that label this place as toxic were banned from here as they were the toxic ones that couldn't behave.

 

[KaliYoni]

I find it odd when people jump through all those hoops to get to the comments to then basically say, "this watchband doesn't appeal to me"... like, if you're not strongly moved by this watchband (in one direction or the other), then why are you wasting your time commenting?

For me, there are many drivers of this behavior. The primary ones come from current norms of online communication, others are specific to MR.

Widespread drivers

• Social media culture, especially with the popularity of space-limited or time-limited messaging, such as Twitter and TikTok.
• The ascendance of mobile devices and the decline of desktop computers.
• Online reviewing culture coupled with frequent requests for 1-star to 5-star feedback from businesses.
• Influencer culture.

MR-specific drivers

• A ranking system based on posting volume.
• Privileges, such as access to the Marketplace Forum, based on posting volume.
• Rapidly posting one of the first 25 comments on a Front Page MR story can result in a large number of emoticon reactions thus increasing rank.

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

An example from this thread is the statement "I like some Rap and Hip-hop (some of it is so clever and the words fit together so well - it's poetry)". A sensitivity of mine, due to my personal background, flares up when comments like "you speak English so well" are said to me by people I don't know or have just met. The implication I perceive is that it is impossible for me to be a native speaker of English because of the way I look. And a coupled "you're so smart and clever" can come off as condescending or, worse, prejudiced.

Now, I'm pretty sure the person who wrote the statement here does not think or feel those things! But in the absence of vocal and situational context, I might feel offended and post an aggressive response if I took a "dog whistle" approach to reading posts. So, I agree that it makes sense to take most MR posters at face value even if a couple of minor words make a statement potentially hateful or patronizing.

 

[CarlJ]

..., but I personally would love to see comments disabled on every front page news topic that relates to likely-controversial topics such as politics/religion/humanity/public health/etc. I very often see comments on Reddit and Twitter labeling the MacRumors comments section as toxic, when this site should be a fun place.

You're entitled to your view, of course, but disabling the comments on front page stories doesn't make the discussion less toxic, it makes it non-existent. It doesn't make this a fun place, it makes it a (strictly enforced) quiet place. And the only fair way to go about that - rather than having somebody making judgement calls as to which stories are controversial and which are okay, would be to disable comments on every front page story. Then there would be no dissent, no arguments, and we could all go have our discussions on Reddit.

 

[turbineseaplane]

However, until we adopt a stricter strategy that is agreed to by the management, editorial staff, and moderation staff, I stand by my personal decision to disable the comments section on the Pride band stories as a sign of respect to the LGBTQ+ community.

I keep reading this part in bold (my emphasis) over and over again…I just don’t understand how that is showing a sign of respect to that community

Moderating strictly in their defense would be showing respect (at least IMO)

I do understand what you said though, in that you don’t have control over all the aspects in play here.

 

[CarlJ]

For me, there are many drivers of this behavior. The primary ones come from current norms of online communication, others are specific to MR.

Huh. I've never found myself thinking "I should post a comment just to get recognition for posting a comment". I just post what I feel. If I don't have a strong feeling of some sort, I'm off to the next story already. I notice, once every long while, that my total reaction count is comfortably higher than my post count, which suggests people find at least some of my comments of interest, but beyond that I've never paid much attention to stats. I've never really considered "how do I rank as a poster on MR" (I don't see MR as a competitive sport). If I understand correctly, the titles attached to people (like your "macrumors 6502a") are entirely based on post count, not reaction score (mine says "Contributor" these days, though I'm informed I could change it to "macrumors demi-god" if I wanted - I've considered doing that, just because it's funny).

The only thing the post count gets you is entry into the Marketplace, and posting on slightly-controversial articles, and I passed those limits well over a decade ago. I've seen people occasionally complain about those limits but they seem entirely reasonable for their intended purpose, to keep newbies (or sock puppets) from making a mess.

 

[RedTomato]

Long-time member here. I understand what the mods mean about workload. I could not be a mod, I simply don't have the patience or regularity required. But I fully understand what members have said about their disappointment on being locked out of discussing Apple's LGBT+ support bands for fear of it becoming a toxic mess. I think it's MR giving in to the turdflingers.

MR has tools to increase the barriers / investment required to post here. I support reopening (or reposting) the LGBT+ watchbands post for commenting, and *increase* the postcount / membership length requirements to post in that thread. That should a) keep out the drive-by shooters, and b) gives account bans a greater impact.

The postcount / membership length requirement doesn't need to be fixed in stone. MR can experiment with various requirements - 50 postcount, 100 postcount, 1 month membership length, 6 months membership length; whatever strikes the right balance of accessibility & less toxic comments & less work for moderators.

MR can also put up a notice on each front-page article related to Apple's support for minorities / LGBT+ that it *may* be moderated much more strictly for hateful comments. This will help give mods cover for quicker decision-making and less brain-effort in borderline situations. Combined with the higher requirements this should help to weed out the worst commenters early on.

Google tells me the USA's first LGBT+ equality bill was introduced in 1975. That's nearly 50 years ago. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask MR to hold up a 50-year old legal concept. It should be possible to do this without creating an undue burden on MR's volunteer mods.

Apple went to the effort of making the Pride bands. They didn't have to. But they did it. Likewise, MR doesn't need to go to the effort of working out how to raise the entry requirements for certain threads to make them less toxic. But doing it would be *far* more of "a sign of respect to the LGBTQ+ community" than closing down these spaces and removing LGBTQ+ visibility from the MR community. This is a chance to learn and do the right thing.

 

[Lioness~]

Thank God, or something else, that this is not Twitter or a similar place.

When I have been moderated here, it might have hurt the 'ego' for a short moment.
But pretty soon I’ve been grateful that I have been pulled out of useless discussions.
I am just saying. Thanks guys. Moderators are doing a great job as it is here.
You are walking the lines amazingly well.
Thanks ??✨

 

[profcutter]

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?

I’m just going to say, yeah, I have to agree with the first part of your statement, that it can be challenging to know what people mean, especially on a forum post.

That said, I’m going to have to vehemently disagree with the last part. Calling someone a racist is nowhere near as hurtful as using a slur. I’m sorry, it’s just not. Racist, Homophobe, Misogynist, Islamophobe, those are not slurs, they’re describing actions that people take and the choices they make. Slurs are derogatory reminders to folks who don’t fit into the top ranking of a society that they are different, lesser, and will never be accepted.

If someone calls you an “-ist” or a “-phobe,” they’re explaining to you that something you said or did was hurtful. It’s just not the same thing, and the fact that people don’t realize this, and I’m really not singling you personally out here because that rhetoric is quite common, that folks who have been victimized by slurs are going to be looking out for themselves and perhaps attaching meaning to statements that the original poster thought were harmless.

I have to say, I’ve participated in plenty of forums, and I’ve even pointed out slurs that addressed me or addressed other folks, and aside from explicitly political forums, the usual response is to deflect, and to protect the feelings of the slur author. I fully understand moderation fatigue, but again, if folks approach this as a he said, she said problem, and not of one where folks are actively silencing participating members of the community by tolerating slurs or just shutting down forums, I worry what kind of message that sends to non-white, CISHET men folks who want to talk about phones, watch bands, or speculate on the latest Apple Silicon chip.

 

[Jim Lahey]

Hate and haters = things and people I disagree with. Welcome to the world post-2020, where anything distasteful to someone somewhere is censored. Covid is the finest example of “how very dare you speak counter to the prevailing winds.”

 

[Expos of 1969]

I appreciate the feedback.

I do think there is an opportunity for MacRumors to more strictly foster a positive community focused on discussing a shared interest in Apple. I can't speak on behalf of the entire staff, and I am rarely involved with forum moderation as a front page news writer, but I personally would love to see comments disabled on every front page news topic that relates to likely-controversial topics such as politics/religion/humanity/public health/etc. I very often see comments on Reddit and Twitter labeling the MacRumors comments section as toxic, when this site should be a fun place. However, until we adopt a stricter strategy that is agreed to by the management, editorial staff, and moderation staff, I stand by my personal decision to disable the comments section on the Pride band stories as a sign of respect to the LGBTQ+ community.

I find it very odd that the writer of a news story is able to decide whether the story will be open or closed to comments. The writer works for MR and it should be a site policy what to open and close. Giving individual writers this leeway is completely inconsistent and benefits no one.

 

[Jumpthesnark]

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.

It's a real shame. What I said is that a lifetime of experience hearing coded and not-so-coded comments gives one a good ear for hearing them when they come up, and that perhaps those who are not members of that group should give others the benefit of the doubt when they say they know what is being said.

Instead, your reply seems to say that lifetime of experience makes that person's opinion less valuable in the discussion. I could not disagree more. Those voices should be seen as resources for others, a way to add to the understanding of the discussion.

 

[Jumpthesnark]

I appreciate the feedback.

I do think there is an opportunity for MacRumors to more strictly foster a positive community focused on discussing a shared interest in Apple. I can't speak on behalf of the entire staff, and I am rarely involved with forum moderation as a front page news writer, but I personally would love to see comments disabled on every front page news topic that relates to likely-controversial topics such as politics/religion/humanity/public health/etc. I very often see comments on Reddit and Twitter labeling the MacRumors comments section as toxic, when this site should be a fun place. However, until we adopt a stricter strategy that is agreed to by the management, editorial staff, and moderation staff, I stand by my personal decision to disable the comments section on the Pride band stories as a sign of respect to the LGBTQ+ community.

Thank you for this insight into your process, Joe. I really appreciate it and I appreciate your reasoning, though I disagree with the result.

 

[Jumpthesnark]

While I find that sad I also find it amusing that Twitter and Reddit users would find this place toxic.

I laughed when I read that, just trying to imagine Reddit users clutching their pearls over the conversations here.

 

[KaliYoni]

If someone calls you an “-ist” or a “-phobe,” they’re explaining to you that something you said or did was hurtful. It’s just not the same thing

I draw a distinction between calling something a person has said or written as racist (or -phobic or -ist) and telling a person they are a racist. To me, the former is explaining a word, a phrase, a thought, or a concept is hurtful to me. The latter is a deeply personal attack that can be equivalent to a slur and, for me, should only be used in extreme circumstances.

 

[laptech]

Seeing the posts from MR staff it is abundantly clear that moderstion staffing levels is a key factor in their decison making as to whether or not a thread has it's comments disabled.

Now if the position of moderator is strictly a volunteer position then I see no reason why MR does not have 20-30 moderators, because it's a voluntary position.

But if the position is a paid one then MR has shown it self to be no different than anyone else, moderation done on the cheap.

 

[CarlJ]

I laughed when I read that, just trying to imagine Reddit users clutching their pearls over the conversations here.

The parts of Reddit I hang out on are quite civilized, actually, though I certainly haven’t been in every nook and corner, only a select few.

 

[profcutter]

I draw a distinction between calling something a person has said or written as racist (or -phobic or -ist) and telling a person they are a racist. To me, the former is explaining a word, a phrase, a thought, or a concept is hurtful to me. The latter is a deeply personal attack that can be equivalent to a slur and, for me, should only be used in extreme circumstances.

The problem is one of the actual meaning of the terms. A slur describes someone’s identity: something unchangeable about who they are. Calling someone an “-ist” may not always be productive, but it actually can be. There are folks who were klan members who left that organization and now do anti-racist organizing. While they were in the Klan, they were racists, and proud of it. That’s a behavior and a world outlook, not something handed to them by DNA.

In the case of antisemitism or Islamophobia, practicing a religion is a personal decision, it doesn’t affect folks outside of that decision, it’s the behavior of an individual that can be brought into criticism. But the phobia and the prejudice comes from judging an entire group by the behavior of its most anti-social members.

Folks need to realize that slurs are not just mean things to say to someone. They exist to support a particular social order. If we want a diverse community of commenters, then we have to make a community that is welcoming to folks outside of the “in group.” Tech is a white male dominated field, so much so that folks outside of those categories who have contributed so much to the field are often ignored and forgotten. Slurs in this context serve to explain to folks outside of that group that they are all unwelcome and will never be accepted.

It hurts to be called a racist, or to be told you’re engaging in racist behavior, because we all want to think of ourselves as nice people, and most of us don’t like to think of ourselves as racist, so that criticism offends our view of ourselves. If someone calls something or someone out as racist, it should be an opportunity to identify and change behavior. They’re saying that the behavior makes them feel unsafe, usually due to a long collective history of trauma. They’re asking if they are welcome in a group, or if the group wants to maintain exclusivity. Is the accusation always genuine? No, certainly not, but even when used inappropriately, it just doesn’t carry the same destructive power as a slur.

Maintaining a diverse forum community is not a zero-sum game. The basic premise here is that if I call someone a racist, 1) that may or may not be productive, but I’m reacting to something they’ve done (in the case of calling someone a racist, you’re saying that they’ve engaged consistently in racist behavior) and 2) it’s not telling all folks from the group the racist belongs to that they are all racists and there’s nothing they can do to change their status, that they can never belong to a community no matter what they do. A slur and a criticism just aren’t the same thing.

 

[icanhazmac]

It's a real shame. What I said is that a lifetime of experience hearing coded and not-so-coded comments gives one a good ear for hearing them when they come up, and that perhaps those who are not members of that group should give others the benefit of the doubt when they say they know what is being said.

Instead, your reply seems to say that lifetime of experience makes that person's opinion less valuable in the discussion. I could not disagree more. Those voices should be seen as resources for others, a way to add to the understanding of the discussion.

So I want to be very clear in my response to this and ensure that you realize that I was speaking in terms of the very specific instances I first mentioned in post #45.

I don't care what a persons past contains, they do not have special "spidey senses" that allow them to claim that an anonymous member of a tech forum is an -ist or a -phobe because they typed "That watchband is ugly" or "I hate rap" or "I hate Lebron James", that is simply not enough information to warrant the use of those labels.

Obviously we cannot hash out every last possible comment to determine if it was "coded" or not but my point is that while on an anonymous message board the consequences of being falsely labeled an -ist or -phobe are minimal but on social sites where real identities are being used the consequences could be significant so people should be really careful before ringing that bell because it cannot be un-rung.

 

[KaliYoni]

The basic premise here is that if I call someone a racist, 1) that may or may not be productive, but I’m reacting to something they’ve done

My personal position: I am not an activist nor a politician. So when I encounter -ist or -phobic actions and I want to attempt to change somebody's behavior, I try not to begin by making the person defensive from the get go. I think most people are more open to accepting feedback and, ideally, altering the way they view their actions if criticism is initially directed to specific offenses, not at somebody's personality or identity.

I might have a different view on this if I spent a lot of time on social media and op-ed discussion sites or if I was professionally involved in stirring up peoples' emotions. But I don't and I'm not so my stance on "calling people out" and how I prefer to do it is based on the fact that I do not engage with absolute strangers and anonymous online commenters very much.

on social sites where real identities are being used the consequences could be significant so people should be really careful before ringing that bell because it cannot be un-rung.

+100. Online mob behavior can cause horrible consequences: Sunil Tripathi-Wikipedia

 

[Jumpthesnark]

A slur and a criticism just aren’t the same thing.

Exactly. And comparing racist/homophobic/misogynist/etc. speech or behavior with criticizing such speech or behavior aren't even in the same ballpark. It's a false equivalency.

 

[profcutter]

Exactly. And comparing racist/homophobic/misogynist/etc. speech or behavior with criticizing such speech or behavior aren't even in the same ballpark. It's a false equivalency.

Right. It’s a false equivalency that people use to deflect the criticism, and to try to shut down the conversation. We all agree that 1st amendment rights don’t apply to private websites, but the overall purpose of rights, as such, is that my freedoms end when they injure another. Telling someone what they said or posted was homophobic, for example, doesn’t cause harm, it just feels uncomfortable. The original slur, however, does harm.

 

[balticgreen]

(And, personally, I'd like to see @arn take a good look through this thread and see what he has to say.)

I would like to know too.

Isn't falsely labeling someone an -ist or -phobe just as bad as being called a derogatory name yourself?

No. If someone falsely labels me as an -ist or -phobe, I will reconsider what led to that because maybe I wasn't clear or maybe I didn't realize that it could be taken in a way other than how I meant it. And I will do better next time in making my intention clear. But I know what my intention was and I know it didn't come from an -ist or -phobic place. On the other hand, I've heard "the other F word" plenty of times. They didn't say it to me because of something I said that might have been questionable or misunderstood. They said it because I'm gay. At best, they wanted to belittle me because of who I am, a characteristic I can't change. At worst, I had to get restraining orders against three people who used that word while threatening to kill me. 100% true story, it happened. So no, please don't tell me that being falsely accused of having intolerant beliefs is anywhere near as bad as being called slurs by people who hate you because of who you are.

I stand by my personal decision to disable the comments section on the Pride band stories as a sign of respect to the LGBTQ+ community.

@Joe Rossignol , I appreciate that you've responded and I do believe that it was not your intention to be disrespectful. As a member of that community being shut out of a discussion, though, I found it to be the exact opposite of what you intended and clearly I was not the only one.

You're entitled to your view, of course, but disabling the comments on front page stories doesn't make the discussion less toxic, it makes it non-existent. It doesn't make this a fun place, it makes it a (strictly enforced) quiet place. And the only fair way to go about that - rather than having somebody making judgement calls as to which stories are controversial and which are okay, would be to disable comments on every front page story. Then there would be no dissent, no arguments, and we could all go have our discussions on Reddit.

Agree 100%.

I keep reading this part in bold (my emphasis) over and over again…I just don’t understand how that is showing a sign of respect to that community

It's not. Not at all.

If you're having a party and one of your guests is a recovering alcoholic, do you not invite them because there will be alcohol at the party? No, you invite them, trust them to make their own decision that's best for them, and offer them club soda or Coke or whatever if they come. It's disrespectful to make the decision of their attendance for them because you think they can't handle it. Certainly it's even more disrespectful to not invite them because you think buying club soda is too much of an inconvenience (which is a similar message to "the moderation effort would be too great").

Apple went to the effort of making the Pride bands. They didn't have to. But they did it. Likewise, MR doesn't need to go to the effort of working out how to raise the entry requirements for certain threads to make them less toxic. But doing it would be *far* more of "a sign of respect to the LGBTQ+ community" than closing down these spaces and removing LGBTQ+ visibility from the MR community. This is a chance to learn and do the right thing.

I completely agree with this too.

I fully understand moderation fatigue, but again, if folks approach this as a he said, she said problem, and not of one where folks are actively silencing participating members of the community by tolerating slurs or just shutting down forums, I worry what kind of message that sends to non-white, CISHET men folks who want to talk about phones, watch bands, or speculate on the latest Apple Silicon chip.

The message it sends is that we're not really welcome here. Partially welcome, but not fully. Not to be our full selves. Again, unintentionally, but that's what it says.

 

[laptech]

It's not. Not at all.

If you're having a party and one of your guests is a recovering alcoholic, do you not invite them because there will be alcohol at the party? No, you invite them, trust them to make their own decision that's best for them, and offer them club soda or Coke or whatever if they come. It's disrespectful to make the decision of their attendance for them because you think they can't handle it. Certainly it's even more disrespectful to not invite them because you think buying club soda is too much of an inconvenience (which is a similar message to "the moderation effort would be too great").

This is a double edge sword as the saying goes. If the person is invited they may well blame the host for inviting them because they put temptation in their way knowing they possibly could not resist but if the person is not invited then they will complain as to why. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

It is the same for disabling comments, damned if you do, damned if you don't

The message it sends is that we're not really welcome here. Partially welcome, but not fully. Not to be our full selves. Again, unintentionally, but that's what it says.

That's an extremely overblown view in my opinion. Do members in here really think like that, if a topic has it's comments disabled it's taken that certain groups of members are not welcome and not wanted here? No wonder things get blown out of proportion if that is how some members in here think.