MacRumors LGBT+ article policy - disabling/deleting comments

[turbineseaplane]

We should also remember that users are not "required" to comment on every topic.

If folks are going out of their way to stir it up in certain threads, moderating them is the only real solution.

That's behavior that's just not ok, no matter what the particular topic happens to be.

 

[CarlJ]

Are you willing? It seems convenient how many people are willing to donate other people's time. THIS is why PRSI was shut down. Go to a site that caters to political discussion. It isn't like there aren't several tens of thousands of these.

Once again, the thing that started this thread was the preemptive shutting down of conversation about THE COLOR OF A ****ING WATCHBAND - a new product released by Apple. It's not inherently political. But *******s have such a strong track record of coming along and making the comment section a **** show that the staff figures it's just easier to cave to the desires of the *******s and shut down the whole conversation preemptively. The stated purpose of this website is reporting on, and discussing, Apple products. The watchband is an Apple product. And we have staff members who would rather block discussion entirely (thus failing one of the main goals of the website), instead of properly moderating the very people who would seek to turn the comments into a **** show.

There is an easy, and completely fair, solution if moderation is too hard - shut down the comments on all posted articles (nope, don't just have staff deciding willy-nilly which threads they think will be a problem - we've seen that causes all sorts of problems). Get rid of the forum. Make MacRumors an announce-only website. Then there's no moderation effort needed at all.

Alternatively, if you're going to argue that a watchband is too political - so political that it people cannot be trusted to even discuss it - then perhaps MacRumors should just not mention the damn thing in the first place, at all. Do the same with the rest of the news. Remove any mention of Apple's activities towards Pride month and similar things. Maybe photoshop or carefully select any stock photos used of Apple stores to ensure the employees and customers all look like straight white Christian males. Just to make super sure we don't trigger any anxieties or unwelcome thoughts for the ******* crowd. Why stop at just blocking discussion? Make the site 100% ******* friendly. And then the rest of us can go somewhere else.

 

[Gk200062YVR]

Once again, the thing that started this thread was the preemptive shutting down of conversation about THE COLOR OF A ****ING WATCHBAND - a new product released by Apple. It's not inherently political. But *******s have such a strong track record of coming along and making the comment section a **** show that the staff figures it's just easier to cave to the desires of the *******s and shut down the whole conversation preemptively. The stated purpose of this website is reporting on, and discussing, Apple products. The watchband is an Apple product. And we have staff members who would rather block discussion entirely (thus failing one of the main goals of the website), instead of properly moderating the very people who would seek to turn the comments into a **** show.

There is an easy, and completely fair, solution if moderation is too hard - shut down the comments on all posted articles (nope, don't just have staff deciding willy-nilly which threads they think will be a problem - we've seen that causes all sorts of problems). Get rid of the forum. Make MacRumors an announce-only website. Then there's no moderation effort needed at all.

Alternatively, if you're going to argue that a watchband is too political - so political that it people cannot be trusted to even discuss it - then perhaps MacRumors should just not mention the damn thing in the first place, at all. Do the same with the rest of the news. Remove any mention of Apple's activities towards Pride month and similar things. Maybe photoshop or carefully select any stock photos used of Apple stores to ensure the employees and customers all look like straight white Christian males. Just to make super sure we don't trigger any anxieties or unwelcome thoughts for the ******* crowd. Why stop at just blocking discussion? Make the site 100% ******* friendly. And then the rest of us can go somewhere else.

Just prevent any discussion on news and rumors that is politically and emotionally sensitive.

 

[Madhatter32]

Once again, the thing that started this thread was the preemptive shutting down of conversation about THE COLOR OF A ****ING WATCHBAND - a new product released by Apple. It's not inherently political. But *******s have such a strong track record of coming along and making the comment section a **** show that the staff figures it's just easier to cave to the desires of the *******s and shut down the whole conversation preemptively. The stated purpose of this website is reporting on, and discussing, Apple products. The watchband is an Apple product. And we have staff members who would rather block discussion entirely (thus failing one of the main goals of the website), instead of properly moderating the very people who would seek to turn the comments into a **** show.

There is an easy, and completely fair, solution if moderation is too hard - shut down the comments on all posted articles (nope, don't just have staff deciding willy-nilly which threads they think will be a problem - we've seen that causes all sorts of problems). Get rid of the forum. Make MacRumors an announce-only website. Then there's no moderation effort needed at all.

Alternatively, if you're going to argue that a watchband is too political - so political that it people cannot be trusted to even discuss it - then perhaps MacRumors should just not mention the damn thing in the first place, at all. Do the same with the rest of the news. Remove any mention of Apple's activities towards Pride month and similar things. Maybe photoshop or carefully select any stock photos used of Apple stores to ensure the employees and customers all look like straight white Christian males. Just to make super sure we don't trigger any anxieties or unwelcome thoughts for the ******* crowd. Why stop at just blocking discussion? Make the site 100% ******* friendly. And then the rest of us can go somewhere else.

Maybe draw out your argument to a conclusion. Allow discussions -- say on the topic of Pride bands. Let the people "debate" it even if you think it's not a political issue -- you know, free speech. Then, suddenly, you are going to encounter some viewpoints which you are not going to like at all. Uncomfortable ... offensive even -- but phrased in a way to comply with the rules. Then, you are going to want to moderate those comments BECAUSE YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH THE VIEWPOINT (perhaps justifiably).

The point is that moderators should not be placed in the difficult position of having to moderate unpopular viewpoints. They should moderate only rule infractions. Now if you are suggesting that being against the Pride bands are by definition hateful and an automatic rules infraction warranting moderation, than I would suggest there is no need to invite "debate" on it at all. That does not mean the Pride bands are not newsworthy or MR "should just not mention the damn thing in the first place, at all" as you proffer. It should be reported on.

See where your proposal leads? It leads to everyone being unhappy: either the people being moderated for their views or the others who have to suffer through it all. You cannot have it both ways.

Personally, as a free speech advocate, I see no reason why I would need to read about some yahoo's views about the Pride bands, or anything else, when a moderator in good faith thinks it foreseeable that such "debate" will lead to some pretty nasty commentary. It's not about letting the racists win. It's really about creating an enjoyable forum. IMHO

 

[laptech]

......

Alternatively, if you're going to argue that a watchband is too political - so political that it people cannot be trusted to even discuss it - then perhaps MacRumors should just not mention the damn thing in the first place, at all. Do the same with the rest of the news. Remove any mention of Apple's activities towards Pride month and similar things. Maybe photoshop or carefully select any stock photos used of Apple stores to ensure the employees and customers all look like straight white Christian males. Just to make super sure we don't trigger any anxieties or unwelcome thoughts for the ******* crowd. Why stop at just blocking discussion? Make the site 100% ******* friendly. And then the rest of us can go somewhere else.

Oh that's right, it's Pride Month in the US, which makes the disabling of comments even worse because Apple release a watch strap line for Pride Month, MR report on this new line for Pride Month but don't allow anyone to comment on these new straps because of the hassle it might cause the moderation team.

You've gotta laugh at the absurdity of the timing and their reasons. Pride Month where people are supposed to rejoice in all things LGTBQ, to be able to speak freely about LGTBQ and MR shuts it down.

I could see the headlines now 'Apple releases Pride Edition Watchbands to coincide for Pride Month but discussion about it is shutdown', what a joke!!!!

 

[Gk200062YVR]

Oh that's right, it's Pride Month in the US, which makes the disabling of comments even worse because Apple release a watch strap line for Pride Month, MR report on this new line for Pride Month but don't allow anyone to comment on these new straps because of the hassle it might cause the moderation team.

You've gotta laugh at the absurdity of the timing and their reasons. Pride Month where people are supposed to rejoice in all things LGTBQ, to be able to speak freely about LGTBQ and MR shuts it down.

I could see the headlines now 'Apple releases Pride Edition Watchbands to coincide for Pride Month but discussion about it is shutdown', what a joke!!!!

That's sad. Not everyone is straight cismale or cisfemale.

 

[balticgreen]

It you want controversy ... take it elsewhere.

I'm not looking for controversy. I wanted to talk about a watch band released by the company that this very website essentially worships. To exactly which website would you recommend I go to discuss a product released by Apple if not to a site called MacRumors?

 

[Gk200062YVR]

I'm not looking for controversy. I wanted to talk about a watch band released by the company that this very website essentially worships. To exactly which website would you recommend I go to discuss a product released by Apple if not to a site called MacRumors?

People don't have humanity and respect these days.

 

[bpeeps]

I don't want trolls to downvote my post because I am atypical guy; Reddit is toxic.

Reddit may be toxic to a degree. But if you go to r/apple and report bigotry, racist, or hateful comments, they'll likely be moderated. And let's say, on the off chance the mods don't moderate it, you can do an admin report and admins will review it as well. MacRumors shuts down all conversation because they can't be bothered to moderate. Reddit takes hate speech VERY seriously. And at the very least, if you take a look at the pride band thread on reddit, you'll see much of the hateful comments downvoted and at the bottom of the post.

Maybe draw out your argument to a conclusion. Allow discussions -- say on the topic of Pride bands. Let the people "debate" it even if you think it's not a political issue -- you know, free speech.

MacRumors is a private company, it isn't beholden to the second amendment like the government is. MR can limit speech however they choose and they do so quite often. It truly astounds me how many people continually confuse the second amendment.

The point is that moderators should not be placed in the difficult position of having to moderate unpopular viewpoints.

The job of a moderator is to moderate. That is the reason the role exists.

It's not about letting the racists win. It's really about creating an enjoyable forum. IMHO

To me an enjoyable forum is one where racists aren't allowed to constantly skirt the rules. To me an enjoyable forum is one where I can discuss a pride band during pride month. But maybe what's enjoyable to you is something completely different.

 

[Gk200062YVR]

Reddit may be toxic to a degree. But if you go to r/apple and report bigotry, racist, or hateful comments, they'll likely be moderated. And let's say, on the off chance the mods don't moderate it, you can do an admin report and admins will review it as well. MacRumors shuts down all conversation because they can't be bothered to moderate. Reddit takes hate speech VERY seriously. And at the very least, if you take a look at the pride band thread on reddit, you'll see much of the hateful comments downvoted and at the bottom of the post.

That's strange but Mr. Kim needs to police this forum or we can't comment on this site.

 

[BugeyeSTI]

Reddit may be toxic to a degree. But if you go to r/apple and report bigotry, racist, or hateful comments, they'll likely be moderated. And let's say, on the off chance the mods don't moderate it, you can do an admin report and admins will review it as well. MacRumors shuts down all conversation because they can't be bothered to moderate. Reddit takes hate speech VERY seriously. And at the very least, if you take a look at the pride band thread on reddit, you'll see much of the hateful comments downvoted and at the bottom of the post.


MacRumors is a private company, it isn't beholden to the second amendment like the government is. MR can limit speech however they choose and they do so quite often. It truly astounds me how many people continually confuse the second amendment.



The job of a moderator is to moderate. That is the reason the role exists.


To me an enjoyable forum is one where racists aren't allowed to constantly skirt the rules. To me an enjoyable forum is one where I can discuss a pride band during pride month. But maybe what's enjoyable to you is something completely different.

2nd amendment is the right to bear arms. 1st amendment is freedom of speech.

 

[Gk200062YVR]

2nd amendment is the right to bear arms. 1st amendment is freedom of speech.

@BugeyeSTI Bigot are using the forum to promote hate in the community.

 

[BugeyeSTI]

@BugeyeSTI Bigot are using the forum to promote hate in the community.

I was just correcting the statement that the second amendment was freedom of speech. Are you saying I'm a bigot for the correction?

 

[Gk200062YVR]

I was just correcting the statement that the second amendment was freedom of speech. Are you saying I'm a bigot for the correction?

No. People use the 1st Amendment to start hate speech and that is not meant for. You are a decent guy @BugeyeSTI

 

[Madhatter32]

MacRumors is a private company, it isn't beholden to the second amendment like the government is. MR can limit speech however they choose and they do so quite often. It truly astounds me how many people continually confuse the second amendment.

Umm ... perhaps, just maybe, it's not me who is actually confused.

Anyway, it is my job to know about the constitution and the law. I am well familiar with the Second Amendment, which, so you know, pertains to gun rights, and also the First Amendment, which pertains to free speech among other things. My comment rhetorically made the point you are trying to make about the First Amendment. MR, as a private company, certainly can moderate speech as it deems fit.

The job of a moderator is to moderate. That is the reason the role exists.

Obviously. However, the moderators here moderate rules infractions -- not viewpoints. This is a good thing as it allows a free exchange of ideas.

To me an enjoyable forum is one where racists aren't allowed to constantly skirt the rules.

For me too. See my previous comments for further details.

 

[bpeeps]

Umm ... perhaps, just maybe, it's not me who is actually confused.

Anyway, it is my job to know about the constitution and the law. I am well familiar with the Second Amendment, which, so you know, pertains to gun rights, and also the First Amendment, which pertains to free speech among other things. My comment rhetorically made the point you are trying to make about the First Amendment. MR, as a private company, certainly can moderate speech as it deems fit.


Obviously. However, the moderators here moderate rules infractions -- not viewpoints. This is a good thing as it allows a free exchange of ideas.

Bigotry isn't a viewpoint. It's bigotry. And there's a reason we moderate it both online and in the real world. Because it's hateful nonsense and has no place in any discussion. These people know there will be consequences when they spew hateful bigotry in their personal lives, so that's why they find spaces online where they can do it without repercussions. Enter MacRumors.

 

[eltoslightfoot]

They aren't soliciting more moderators (that I'm aware of)
If they were or do at some point, I'm sure many of us would be possibly interested

That's a bit of a diversion from the actual topic here

There isn't more moderation work needed here over the long term. Initially, there may be some higher than usual suspending and moderating needed, but that would be in service of behavior correction or eventual outright banning of folks who can't comport themselves in agreeable ways.

According to you.

 

[eltoslightfoot]

Once again, the thing that started this thread was the preemptive shutting down of conversation about THE COLOR OF A ****ING WATCHBAND - a new product released by Apple. It's not inherently political. But *******s have such a strong track record of coming along and making the comment section a **** show that the staff figures it's just easier to cave to the desires of the *******s and shut down the whole conversation preemptively. The stated purpose of this website is reporting on, and discussing, Apple products. The watchband is an Apple product. And we have staff members who would rather block discussion entirely (thus failing one of the main goals of the website), instead of properly moderating the very people who would seek to turn the comments into a **** show.

There is an easy, and completely fair, solution if moderation is too hard - shut down the comments on all posted articles (nope, don't just have staff deciding willy-nilly which threads they think will be a problem - we've seen that causes all sorts of problems). Get rid of the forum. Make MacRumors an announce-only website. Then there's no moderation effort needed at all.

Alternatively, if you're going to argue that a watchband is too political - so political that it people cannot be trusted to even discuss it - then perhaps MacRumors should just not mention the damn thing in the first place, at all. Do the same with the rest of the news. Remove any mention of Apple's activities towards Pride month and similar things. Maybe photoshop or carefully select any stock photos used of Apple stores to ensure the employees and customers all look like straight white Christian males. Just to make super sure we don't trigger any anxieties or unwelcome thoughts for the ******* crowd. Why stop at just blocking discussion? Make the site 100% ******* friendly. And then the rest of us can go somewhere else.

Yes, clearly rationality is the story of the day here. I agree with the sentiment, and am supportive of conversations. For whatever reason, it is EXTREMELY taxing on the mods here due to the work required. If the author of the article proactively shuts down comments on his or her articles, then that is fine.

The long term effect of the PRSI forum and the toxic responses was to really do in the mods and the users both. It was a dark, dark time. There is plenty of representation. Heck, start a post with the bands on the appropriate forum yourself. It's not political, right?

 

[I7guy]

Bigotry isn't a viewpoint. It's bigotry. And there's a reason we moderate it both online and in the real world. Because it's hateful nonsense and has no place in any discussion. These people know there will be consequences when they spew hateful bigotry in their personal lives, so that's why they find spaces online where they can do it without repercussions. Enter MacRumors.

If you believe there are posts that run afoul of the rules, don't hesitate to report those posts and let the mods and admins deal with it.

Making a not so subtle accusation that MacRumors is a place for bigotry and hate when it's clear that over the years the mods and admins do not stand for anything of the type.

 

[bpeeps]

Heck, start a post with the bands on the appropriate forum yourself. It's not political, right?

Someone tried to start a thread on the new pride faces and the mods closed the discussion and said refer to the main page article. While discussion under this pride face post was allowed to continue. Just another example of the often inconsistent and incomprehensible moderation of the site.

 

[I7guy]

Someone tried to start a thread on the new pride faces and the mods closed the discussion and said refer to the main page article. While discussion under this pride face post was allowed to continue. Just another example of the often inconsistent and incomprehensible moderation of the site.

Just guessing, but one thread sounds like a discussion similar to a thread on the main news page, while the other was a non-political discussion of a watch face.

 

[jav6454]

Someone tried to start a thread on the new pride faces and the mods closed the discussion and said refer to the main page article. While discussion under this pride face post was allowed to continue. Just another example of the often inconsistent and incomprehensible moderation of the site.

I was there when it happened. The first thread was done after the MR article which made the thread completely redundant. The second thread was done before the MR article and had already 2 pages of comments by the time the article was released. Heck I commented several times in that thread about my inability to download the watch face.

In all honesty, I thought that the second thread was going to be made the main MR article as several times that has happened before. So no, it's not inconsistent moderation.

Edit - Typo

 

[eltoslightfoot]

Someone tried to start a thread on the new pride faces and the mods closed the discussion and said refer to the main page article. While discussion under this pride face post was allowed to continue. Just another example of the often inconsistent and incomprehensible moderation of the site.

Well, then you do have a point. Hmm. I stand corrected.