MacRumors LGBT+ article policy - disabling/deleting comments

[skottichan]

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.

As a trans woman, I see the dog whistles popping up pretty commonly in queer-related stuff on this site and others. Also, as a member of the queer community for 30+ years, we're not seeing something like "Man, that watchband is just ugly. It's too bright/muddled/chaotic/etc" as homo/trans phobic.

I promise you.

What we see more often tho is things like "Oh why is Apple doing this/supporting f-slurs??" Or "Why can't we have straight/white/cis Pride Month", or my personal favorites, ad hominem like misgendering. There's also fun dogwhistles ranging from suicide rates to trans athletes, in forums not even discussing those things.

I've been involved in PSRI discussions here where people have made blatant anti-trans comments and at best they got a time out, before the end of the week they were back at it again.

All of this said, I just want to know why my existence as a person is so heavily regulated and politicized in my country (the US) and this site. There's no way I could make a queer artists of MR thread, to queer collectors of MR, and not have it either locked or moved to PSRI or both.

 

[laptech]

.....

All of this said, I just want to know why my existence as a person is so heavily regulated and politicized in my country (the US) and this site. There's no way I could make a queer artists of MR thread, to queer collectors of MR, and not have it either locked or moved to PSRI or both.

You could but MR staff consider it too much effort for their moderation team when the haters and the 'phobias come out of the woodwork to have their say.

Edit: update

Your post got me thinking more. Yes you could make such titled threads but why would you? We are all annoymous here, all different genders, ethnicity, religions but yet we do not go about purposely identifying who we are in here. Why do you feel that you need to identify yourself to everyone else in MR by using the word 'queer' in a title thread?.

And yes I can see that what i just said is exactly the kind of problems the MR staff are pointing out, the potential for something that is innocent to become very very toxic.

 

[profcutter]

Your post got me thinking more. Yes you could make such titled threads but why would you? We are all annoymous here, all different genders, ethnicity, religions but yet we do not go about purposely identifying who we are in here. Why do you feel that you need to identify yourself to everyone else in MR by using the word 'queer' in a title thread?.

Wait. I’m confused here. If I wanted to post a thread asking what would be a nice gift for my friend’s daughter, it’s not going in a special section, it’s going in one of the help me decide sections. If I post a thread with “Help me choose an apple-themed gift for my friend’s trans daughter” that has to go in a special political section just because the most toxic members of the forum can’t handle it?

 

[laptech]

Wait. I’m confused here. If I wanted to post a thread asking what would be a nice gift for my friend’s daughter, it’s not going in a special section, it’s going in one of the help me decide sections. If I post a thread with “Help me choose an apple-themed gift for my friend’s trans daughter” that has to go in a special political section just because the most toxic members of the forum can’t handle it?

Your post has nothing to do with mine so why quote it? Your post is all about certain named titles going into different sections of the forum. As for the last part, the members can handle toxicity, it is the moderation team who can't because it creates more work for them. Again, not related to my quoted post.

If you are going to quote a section of my post it would help if you would answer it properly rather than go off on a tangent and post something completely different.

 

[Jumpthesnark]

Why do you feel that you need to identify yourself to everyone else in MR by using the word 'queer' in a title thread?

I'm not speaking for @skottichan here, I'm sure they can speak for themselves. Speaking only for myself, I guess the question is, "why wouldn't we?" There are local Facebook groups such as job boards, community exchange for people who want to sell furniture or find a plumber, etc., and others. All of them have "queer" in the title. My place of work has DEI groups and discussions with "queer" and LGBTQ+ in the titles. It's not unusual to see that word to denote a community online. It helps to create context and inclusion for the discussion.

 

[profcutter]

Your post has nothing to do with mine so why quote it? Your post is all about certain named titles going into different sections of the forum. As for the last part, the members can handle toxicity, it is the moderation team who can't because it creates more work for them. Again, not related to my quoted post.

If you are going to quote a section of my post it would help if you would answer it properly rather than go off on a tangent and post something completely different.

I quoted you because you asked why anyone would need to identify themselves as queer in a subject header. Not that complicated.

 

[CarlJ]

There are local Facebook groups such as job boards, community exchange for people who want to sell furniture or find a plumber, etc., and others. All of them have "queer" in the title. My place of work has DEI groups and discussions with "queer" and LGBTQ+ in the titles. It's not unusual to see that word to denote a community online. It helps to create context and inclusion for the discussion.

And to further the point - if all these people (identifying as queer) were 100% welcomed into various groups by everyone else, it's entirely likely they wouldn't be making groups with "queer" in the title. It's precisely because a lot of people will go out of their way to make people who identify as queer feel unwelcome, that they make groups with that in the title, to let others know it's a safe and welcoming place to hang out.

Intolerant people drive people identifying as queer away from the "normal" groups, so they set up their own groups. Then the intolerant people complain about why do "they" have to put "queer" in the titles - that's "shoving it in their faces" and/or "we'd get in trouble if we put 'straight' in the title of our group" - yeah, well, congratulations, you effectively created that "queer" job board by your intolerance.

A straight guy worries that he might get called "gay" (or that his friends might believe it)... a gay or trans person worries about being beaten up, or beaten to death, by the straight guy. That makes having a place where you feel welcomed especially important. The stakes are much higher on one side.

(I've been mistaken for being gay a few times - I don't mean being called an f-slur, I mean gay people assuming I'm gay too - I always take it as a compliment - they're so much better dancers and their fashion sense is far better than mine - I can only aspire to that.)

Related to the point of forums/posts with "queer" in the title, there's a group on Reddit I visit occasionally, for women who are gamers. I try to be respectful and listen far more than I talk, and I've gotten a fair number of upvotes from things I've said there, so it seems like they don't mind me being there (the subreddit's rules specifically say that anyone is allowed as long as they're respectful).

The group exists as a separate place because a lot of guys are really awful to women who game - first off, they insist that women don't play "real" games (like, say, Call of Duty), and then, if they find out that there is a woman in the game (which can happen if the woman literally says anything in voice chat), they get invariably barraged with demands for sandwiches, obscenities, detailed graphic demands for sex, graphic rape threats, demands for nude pics, requests for their (assumed) OnlyFans sites, etc. When the women just want to play the game. And the (largely male only) online forums for games can be similarly toxic. And I learned from this group that there are actually a lot of women who enjoy playing hardcore FPS games, and many of them go to great lengths to not let on (in-game) that they're female, including not speaking in voice chat, choosing names that don't give away their gender (rather than the names they'd prefer to use) and such. They're basically having to hide who they are, in order to be allowed to play without getting hassled or threatened. (FWIW, I visit this reddit group because I want to understand their perspective, and because I want to see what issues my nieces are likely to face in a few years, and because they post pics of some of the most awesome gaming setups ever - all pink and rainbows and unicorns and anime - really fabulous.)

So I can totally see a bunch of legit reasons for groups with "queer" (or similar) in the title - the point generally isn't "you can't come in unless you're queer" but rather "this group welcomes the queer community and you're going to get driven out if you're intolerant of that".

 

[KaliYoni]

I think statements like "they're so much better dancers and their fashion sense is far better than mine" and, as I noted in an earlier post, "you speak English so well" can be seen as playing into stereotypes when used online. While I know the intent is to be humorous or to lighten the tone of a statement, I feel these kind of clichés should only be used when talking in person with people I know well.

 

[CarlJ]

I think statements like "they're so much better dancers and their fashion sense is far better than mine" and, as I noted in an earlier post, "you speak English so well" can be seen as playing into stereotypes when used online. While I know the intent is to be humorous or to lighten the tone of a statement, I feel these kind of clichés should only be used when talking in person with people I know well.

Fair point. And, yeah, intended partly to lighten a post that has some rather dark content. And when saying it, I was actually thinking of particular friends who really do fit those points, not so much of "all gays in general". But, point taken, I'll keep that in mind.

 

[bpeeps]

zazI chose to disable the comments on the Pride Band announcement story preemptively because a lot of the comments would have been toxic. It's as simple as that.

As for the lack of consistency on comments being disabled, the other Pride Band front page story was posted by a different writer who chose to allow comments at their discretion, and the other was a user-submitted forum thread that is overseen by the moderation team, not the editorial staff.

I hope that helps!

Mods and editorial staff did a bang up job exposing the inconsistency among them, the lack of communication between them, all while fostering a community of toxicity. Incredible. Your answer definitely helps!

 

[Madhatter32]

Mods and editorial staff did a bang up job exposing the inconsistency among them, the lack of communication between them, all while fostering a community of toxicity. Incredible. Your answer definitely helps!

I think this response could accurately be described as being misplaced projection. The toxicity in this community has absolutely nothing to do with the moderation or the editorial staff.

 

[laptech]

I quoted you because you asked why anyone would need to identify themselves as queer in a subject header. Not that complicated.

No you didn't, you quoted an example of using the word 'trans'. That is totally different to using the word 'queer'.

But even with that said, lets look at the example you gave, a gift for a trans daughter. Why the need to use the word trans? Why cannot it not just be 'a gift for my daughter'?

 

[laptech]

.......

Intolerant people drive people identifying as queer away from the "normal" groups, so they set up their own groups. Then the intolerant people complain about why do "they" have to put "queer" in the titles - that's "shoving it in their faces" and/or "we'd get in trouble if we put 'straight' in the title of our group" - yeah, well, congratulations, you effectively created that "queer" job board by your intolerance.

......

The part of your post I have quoted directly relates to the issue that is being discussed here which is intolerance is allowed to fester within MR because the moderation team don't want to work too hard in dealing with the amount of intolerant members this board has because it creates to much work for them. There should be absolutely no reason 'this group' to be made or 'that group' to be made because certain groups of people are made to feel unwanted. The only reason they are made to feel unwanted is because the people making them feel unwanted are not dealt with harshly enough or the person is allowed to hang around making vile comments and threats longer than they should be able to so because it is taking the moderation team too long to deal with them.

We rely on the moderation team to protect members of this forum from others and if they are unable to do so then their job role needs to be looked into. We are all equal in here and if people feel they are obligated to make groups denouncing who they are then it shows they are not being protected by a moderation team who are supposed to be doing just that.

 

[profcutter]

No you didn't, you quoted an example of using the word 'trans'. That is totally different to using the word 'queer'.

But even with that said, lets look at the example you gave, a gift for a trans daughter. Why the need to use the word trans? Why cannot it not just be 'a gift for my daughter'?

Because you don’t get to decide. If folks want to put queer or trans in the title, why should that get other posters so upset? Just the appearance of the term is enough to bring out hatred and vitriol? Time to ban those posters, not punish folks for using the term. Why is it so upsetting to you to see the words “queer” or “trans?”

Identity is complicated. Some folks identify as queer or as trans. It’s their choice how they want to be referred to. The point is, why is the term so triggering for folks outside that community?

 

[laptech]

Because you don’t get to decide. If folks want to put queer or trans in the title, why should that get other posters so upset? Just the appearance of the term is enough to bring out hatred and vitriol? Time to ban those posters, not punish folks for using the term. Why is it so upsetting to you to see the words “queer” or “trans?”

Identity is complicated. Some folks identify as queer or as trans. It’s their choice how they want to be referred to. The point is, why is the term so triggering for folks outside that community?

Those two words do not upset me but I am old enough and lived enough experience to understand why those two words might get others upset and it is to do with something that you touched on in one of your posts, people getting fed up of having those two words thrust down their throat. Members in here do not go around putting in their titles their gender, ethnicity or religion do they? It would be ridiculous to see titles of 'Male, Asian Muslim needing help with installing OSX' or 'ios has just been updated, female Mexican, does not like some of it's features'. We do not see such titles in here so why should the LGBTQ community feel they need to write those two words in thread titles? the answer is they don't.

If a MR member is a member of the LGBTQ community, good for them but there is no need for anyone to know they are LGBTQ, let us all be anonymous to each other unless there is a direct need to inform others of who we are.

As for my original question which you expertly avoided by replying with 'Because you don't get to decide', it is not about who get's to decide what, I asked why would a person need to put in a thread title 'gift for my trans daughter' instead of 'gift for my daughter'. Why is it important for everyone in MR to know the daughter is trans? My point is there is no need. This is not a forum dedicated to health, gender, sexual orientation, race or religion where one or another from that list would be relevant in a thread title, this is a forum about Apple and everything to do with apple. It's a tech forum.

If LGBTQ members feel ostracised that they need to create their own group in here then it shows that moderation of intolerant members has failed and thus needs to be addressed by the owner of this forum, and no, disabling comments is not the answer or solution.

 

[tgara]

But the end result is, quite literally, the haters win. Homophobes, transphobes, xenophobes, racists, misogynists, and other haters are handed control over the conversation, they get to dictate what is dicussed and to shut down the conversation whenever they want

Heckler's Veto. Happens to both sides from time to time.

 

[CarlJ]

But even with that said, lets look at the example you gave, a gift for a trans daughter. Why the need to use the word trans? Why cannot it not just be 'a gift for my daughter'?

Possibly because said daughter recently transitioned and is feeling particularly apprehensive about dealing with people, and the parent is looking to do something especially supportive, and is asking for help and using the word "trans" in hopes of getting suggestions from others who have gone through the same thing (either as a trans person or as a parent of a trans person).

Off the top of my head, that would be a reason for bringing it up. I'm sure there are others. It's not the same as saying, for instance, "I'm looking for a gift for my niece, who is white", where the added detail almost certainly has no real bearing on which gifts might be best (and, instead, says more about the person asking the question).

If the daughter in question is fully accepted by, and comfortable with, the people they see every day, then "trans" probably wouldn't have made it into the title in the first place. Unless, of course, it's coming from someone who is fairly clueless (the kind of person who might ask, "what's an appropriate anniversary gift for the 20th wedding anniversary for black people?" - uh, the same as for everybody else).

 

[CarlJ]

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.

Rereading this thread, I was taken with this bit. That first quote is something I said. There is utterly no ill will or malice in it - I have what I suspect is a more keen interest in the English language than most people have - I love a "well turned phrase" (and wordplay and puns and such), and I strive to express myself clearly when I write. (I used to get picked on, in school, a lot, for daring to use words that were outside basic 500 words that all the rest of the kids used.) I know that I have limited exposure to Rap and Hip-hop - that's a failing on my part. Some of what I've heard of it doesn't appeal to me, while other bits I absolutely love, and one aspect of that is how beautifully the words fall into place (in music, I also lean much more heavily on the music itself rather than the words - it takes some particularly well-crafted or stirring words for me to pay attention - for this reason, most ballads, and a lot of Country music, just kind of falls flat for me). My take on it has nothing whatsoever to do with "you speak English so well" (or what I'm guessing that means to you, anyway) - that's not what I was saying - I wasn't expressing any sort of surprise about the how the words flow in some of the songs, but rather absolute admiration. If you took any sort of offense to the sentence you quoted, I'd like to hear more about how and why. It could help me improve my ability to accurately convey what I mean in the future.

 

[CarlJ]

Those two words do not upset me but I am old enough and lived enough experience to understand why those two words might get others upset and it is to do with something that you touched on in one of your posts, people getting fed up of having those two words thrust down their throat. Members in here do not go around putting in their titles their gender, ethnicity or religion do they? It would be ridiculous to see titles of 'Male, Asian Muslim needing help with installing OSX' or 'ios has just been updated, female Mexican, does not like some of it's features'. We do not see such titles in here so why should the LGBTQ community feel they need to write those two words in thread titles? the answer is they don't.

It would, indeed, be ridiculous, to see those two titles you've mentioned. Because who those people are (perhaps beyond some allusion to their level of technical expertise, such as "newbie seeks help installing OSX") has no bearing on the question at hand. The example that was given, on the other hand, of a gift for a trans daughter, yes, there may very well be compelling reasons for adding the word "trans" in that case - I've touched on that elsewhere (and yeah, it could be they're looking for something particular, or it could be that they're clueless and don't understand that their daughter still loves science fiction).

In addition, any time there's a group that is marginalized by a larger group, it's common to see them establish safe havens of various sorts for members of their group, or to identify themselves more overtly (like putting "gay" or "trans" or "LGBTQ+" in titles of things) to let each other know they're not alone (and this doesn't just happen for LGBTQ+, despite what people may think - plenty of minority groups have done it over the years). There are a lot of folks in the LGBTQ+ community who have faced a lot of venomous hatred (and worse - much worse) from people just because of who they are. Not because of unreasonable things they personally did or said, but because someone hates (or, at minimum, is extremely uncomfortable with) the entire concept of gay people.

Daring to actually write the word "gay" or "trans" somewhere public is absolutely not "shoving (either the words or the concepts) down other people's throats". I've noticed a lot of homophobic people (whether that's a core part of their being, or casual homophobia that they don't really think about, or just unintended homophobia just because of lack of exposure / the community in which they were brought up), seem to bring up that image a lot (to be very clear, I'm not saying you brought it up for that reason, I'm saying it comes up a lot in discussions). And it comes up for pretty much any instance where, horror of horrors, they see the word "gay" or "trans" in public, or see a rainbow flag, or see a person they think might be gay - clearly that's an intentional affront to them. It seems as though what they want, what they're willing to allow, is, "okay, gay people can exist, but nothing the slightest bit related to gayness can appear anywhere in my sight, or that's a personal attack on me". And they somehow think that's them being very accommodating. They'd like to go back to, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", like, "if I can't see them then I can successfully pretend they don't exist".

Now, if the LGBTQ+ folks start treating straight people the way that gay people have been treated for the last, uh, several thousand years, well, then I'll call them out on that too. But in the meantime, if they want to fly Gay Pride flags, literally or figuratively, more power to them. That's not them being controversial, that's them being who they are.

 

[Tom Kilikidis]

How can you expect society to accept if they can't even engage in an open conversation? By blocking any comments at all is creating division before it even has happened. There has to be some level of trust in the community and how it has progressed?

 

[MadeTheSwitch]

I chose to disable the comments on the Pride Band announcement story preemptively because a lot of the comments would have been toxic. It's as simple as that.

As for the lack of consistency on comments being disabled, the other Pride Band front page story was posted by a different writer who chose to allow comments at their discretion, and the other was a user-submitted forum thread that is overseen by the moderation team, not the editorial staff.

I hope that helps!

It does help. But understand that from a user POV, it makes the policies of the site look disjointed and random when different authors are doing different things.

 

[KaliYoni]

If you took any sort of offense to the sentence you quoted, I'd like to hear more about how and why.

I appreciate your openness to discussing my post, as well as the other topics in this thread.

First, I think it's important for me to say that I was not offended. Why? Because your posts throughout this thread show that you–or at least the online you–are thoughtful and intentional about diversity.

Now, having said that, I can be offended or angered or hurt by those sorts of statements. To expand on what I wrote earlier, my mood, the situation, the context, and how many similar aggravations have occurred that day will affect my reaction.

How can these seemingly positive thoughts be perceived as negative? There's no universal answer, of course, but I'm personally sensitive about assumptions that I am an immigrant. I am also sensitive about quips and jokes that are based on (often dated) clichés or stereotypes.

accurately convey what I mean in the future.

My sensitivity to the types of statements we're discussing comes more from intent, rather than meaning. I think it can be difficult to convey emotional nuances, such as irony, sarcasm, or a humorous tone, in texts and online posts. In some cases emoticons and emoji help. In other situations, it's more of an internal review before posting something. If I'm trying to make a joke or create a conversational tone, I try to be mindful about using phrases that I habitually or reflexively use around friends and family.

----------
If you're interested, here's an article that is related to my views:
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/04/weekinreview/04clemetson.html

And a recent MR thread:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/being-ocd-about-things-on-these-forums-or-ocd-is-not-a-quirk.2344522/

 

[bpeeps]

It does help. But understand that from a user POV, it makes the policies of the site look disjointed and random when different authors are doing different things.

At this point, they don't care. Rules get implemented however they want and nothing is consistent. That's how this site is run.

 

[laptech]

It would, indeed, be ridiculous, to see those two titles you've mentioned. Because who those people are (perhaps beyond some allusion to their level of technical expertise, such as "newbie seeks help installing OSX") has no bearing on the question at hand. The example that was given, on the other hand, of a gift for a trans daughter, yes, there may very well be compelling reasons for adding the word "trans" in that case - I've touched on that elsewhere (and yeah, it could be they're looking for something particular, or it could be that they're clueless and don't understand that their daughter still loves science fiction).

In addition, any time there's a group that is marginalized by a larger group, it's common to see them establish safe havens of various sorts for members of their group, or to identify themselves more overtly (like putting "gay" or "trans" or "LGBTQ+" in titles of things) to let each other know they're not alone (and this doesn't just happen for LGBTQ+, despite what people may think - plenty of minority groups have done it over the years). There are a lot of folks in the LGBTQ+ community who have faced a lot of venomous hatred (and worse - much worse) from people just because of who they are. Not because of unreasonable things they personally did or said, but because someone hates (or, at minimum, is extremely uncomfortable with) the entire concept of gay people.

Daring to actually write the word "gay" or "trans" somewhere public is absolutely not "shoving (either the words or the concepts) down other people's throats". I've noticed a lot of homophobic people (whether that's a core part of their being, or casual homophobia that they don't really think about, or just unintended homophobia just because of lack of exposure / the community in which they were brought up), seem to bring up that image a lot (to be very clear, I'm not saying you brought it up for that reason, I'm saying it comes up a lot in discussions). And it comes up for pretty much any instance where, horror of horrors, they see the word "gay" or "trans" in public, or see a rainbow flag, or see a person they think might be gay - clearly that's an intentional affront to them. It seems as though what they want, what they're willing to allow, is, "okay, gay people can exist, but nothing the slightest bit related to gayness can appear anywhere in my sight, or that's a personal attack on me". And they somehow think that's them being very accommodating. They'd like to go back to, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", like, "if I can't see them then I can successfully pretend they don't exist".

Now, if the LGBTQ+ folks start treating straight people the way that gay people have been treated for the last, uh, several thousand years, well, then I'll call them out on that too. But in the meantime, if they want to fly Gay Pride flags, literally or figuratively, more power to them. That's not them being controversial, that's them being who they are.

Let's explore the 'trans daughter' example in a bit more detail because members are still not 'specifically' explaining their answer. So I put it to the members these two examples of a title thread:

'My trans daughter is into old mac tech, what can i get her'

'My daughter is into old mac tech, what can I get her'.

Now, the question that I have been trying to get a proper answer to is why would the person making the post need to put the word 'trans' in the thread title and not just have the thread title as in the second example?

This is a tech forum and thus there is no logical reason why the word 'trans' needs to be in the thread title. The only reason in my opinion for it being there is because the LGBTQ community WANT people to know someone is trans so they can push their agenda on to people. If my opinion is wrong then please explain why it is wrong in a logical and precise manner. If there is no hidden meaning, no hidden agenda, they why cannot it not be 'My daughter...' instead of 'My trans daughter...'.

The answer goes to the heart of the issue why comments get disabled.

 

[Gk200062YVR]

So I first noticed this yesterday with the articles about Apple's Pride month-related Apple Watch offerings.

An article with rumors about upcoming releases for this was fully unlocked for comments. A second article about the actual releases had comments disabled immediately - with no reasoning provided at all. Even "political"-related threads are allowed comments, and have a disclaimer at the bottom about users needing >= 100 previous posts/comments or something before being allowed to comment.

My first questions here are: why did this article have comments disabled, and why was there not even a little disclaimer/message at the bottom about it?

There is another thread, not related to an article, about these watch faces. I commented about how it would be nice to actually be able to comment on the front page article itself. I had a couple of direct replies to this comment, including one from @briko expressing how it was actually pretty much discriminatory to lock these LGBT+-related threads with no reasoning provided whatsoever. This was removed by a moderator - with, again, no (public, at least) explanation as to why. I @'ed the user to ask if they had deleted their response, and my comment was removed for "response to a moderated post". Even with these two removals, there was no comment from the moderation/staff team concerning the underlying discussion.

I then posted another response to that same thread:

And guess what? It was removed. I had a seemingly generic message from @NoBoMac stating it was removed for being off-topic. Fair enough in a way, I guess, but again no explanation at all. I couldn't even reply to their message.

All I want to know is

1. Why are these articles automatically locked/comments disabled? It is discriminatory, imo.
2. If you're going to do this anyway, why can't you just explain why? It's pathetic and power-tripping imo to just try and silence it all by silently removing comments. Even places like Reddit at least have "[Removed]" on moderated posts/comments, even if you can't easily see what was removed. MacRumors just silently does this, who knows how many times.

We need a clearer policy. Best of all - banning all bigots from this site.