Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MR proving they are the lowest of the low

laptech

laptech

macrumors 601
Original poster
Apr 26, 2013
4,412
4,691
Earth
MR has just proven they are the lowest of the low by allowing a post that insults the King of England in a derogatory manner because of rule stating they do not moderate posts that insult people who are in the public eye. People can either dislike or like the UK Royal Family but to use insulting derogatory language towards the UK head of state and to allow it because of a pathetic rule is down right disgraceful.

Yes I reported a post and it came back as 'no moderation required'.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: avheatherim, fehhkk, E.Lizardo and 6 others
Public figures get insulted on here all the time.... Presidents, presidential candidates, CEO's, etc.... Why is this any different? I bet you didn't report any other posts insulting public figures... But because this one affects you personally its a problem all of a sudden?
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: max2, avheatherim, arkitect and 6 others
So you reported a post and did t like the moderation, ok, happened to me before too.
There is a way to escalate this - have you done that? I assume no.
Instead you felt compelled to post here with that title…
We all have choices…
 
  • Like
Reactions: max2 and avheatherim
Apple_Robert said:
I don't think MR is obligated (nor do I wish to see it happen) to censor speech in that regard, so long as said speech does not violate forum rules.

Did you take the post personally because you may be from the UK? If so, you shouldn't have. I think it is pretty insulting to @arn and the fine people who run this site to say MR is pathetic.
Click to expand...
I find it insulting and pathetic that MR hides behind the excuse of 'it's in the rules' to allow derogatory insults to everyone outside of MR. I bet if someone made such an insult to a religious leader or a prominent member of the Jewish or Islamic community you would not allow it.

MR has a habit of hiding behind the rules to allow it to behave disgracefully and repugnantly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ben J. and rmadsen3
bigjnyc said:
Public figures get insulted on here all the time.... Presidents, presidential candidates, CEO's, etc.... Why is this any different? I bet you didn't report any other posts insulting public figures... But because this one affects you personally its a problem all of a sudden?
Click to expand...
I have reported posts in the past that have made derogatory comments towards others outside of MR and each time the result has been 'No modification required'. Which is why I no longer report such posts but a post being derogatory towards the monarch of a country is extremely repugnant. I had a feeling I would get the same response of 'no moderation required' and when I did I felt I had no choice but to make this thread.

It is an utter disgrace that MR allows it's members to post derogatory comments towards people outside of MR, people who do not deserve such comments but yet will ban it's own members if they dare say anything bad about another MR member, members who deserve being called out upon for their behavior.
 
laptech said:
I find it insulting and pathetic that MR hides behind the excuse of 'it's in the rules' to allow derogatory insults to everyone outside of MR. I bet if someone made such an insult to a religious leader or a prominent member of the Jewish or Islamic community you would not allow it.

MR has a habit of hiding behind the rules to allow it to behave disgracefully and repugnantly.
Click to expand...
What strangers on the internet say about public figures (outside of death threats or direct calls for violence) does not bother me nor should it bother me. That includes religious leaders.

It looks like you acknowledge MR has rules and followed them but, you don't like it because you are still offended over what a stranger said on the internet about your leader. I don't think it is practical nor wise for MR to change the adjudication of their ToS based on you taking a post personally that you shouldn't have and that is the real problem in this situation. You are offended over something that doesn't involve you and it's not MR's responsibility to make sure you are never offended or take posts here personally.

Edited: If had posted what you did about MR being pathetic (by extension Arn and the staff), I wouldn't have returned. And yet, here you are continuing to use a site you claim to now find contemptible. It might be a good idea for you to take a step back, remove the emotions from this scenario, and then take another look at your behavior.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: EllieCat, max2, avheatherim and 2 others
Apple_Robert said:
What strangers on the internet say about public figures (outside of death threats or direct calls for violence) does not bother me nor should it bother me. That includes religious leaders.

It looks like you acknowledge MR has rules and followed them but, you don't like it because you are still offended over what a stranger said on the internet about your leader. I don't think it is practical nor wise for MR to change the adjudication of their ToS based on you taking a post personally that you shouldn't have and that is the real problem in this situation. You are offended over something that doesn't involve you and it's not MR's responsibility to make sure you are never offended or take posts here personally.
Click to expand...
Why in the hell should I like a rule that allows MR to act and behave in a disgraceful manner? Just because there are rules does not mean I have to like them and when those rules are being used to allow others to behave in a disgraceful manner to non members then yes that becomes a problem, a problem MR, it's owner, it's admins and mod's refuse time and time to do anything about because they 'don't want to'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ben J.
laptech said:
Why in the hell should I like a rule that allows MR to act and behave in a disgraceful manner? Just because there are rules does not mean I have to like them and when those rules are being used to allow others to behave in a disgraceful manner to non members then yes that becomes a problem, a problem MR, it's owner, it's admins and mod's refuse time and time to do anything about because they 'don't want to'.
Click to expand...
If the mod staff had taken action that favored your report, even though such action would have been contrary to the rules, you wouldn't have made the thread. Do you see the irony?

You reported a post and didn't get the call you wanted even though it was the right call per the rules. And yet, you demand MR bend the rules to make you happy because you got offended over what a stranger said on the internet that didn't involve you.The problem in this scenario isn't MR and its staff.
 
Apple_Robert said:
If the mod staff had taken action that favored your report, even though such action would have been contrary to the rules, you wouldn't have made the thread. Do you see the irony?

You reported a post and didn't get the call you wanted even though it was the right call per the rules. And yet, you demand MR bend the rules to make you happy because you got offended over what a stranger said on the internet that didn't involve you.The problem in this scenario isn't MR and its staff.
Click to expand...
Ahhhh i see the typical twisting of words and adding in stuff that I did not say to suit your agenda. No where in my posts have I hinted or even suggested that I demand MR bend the rules. I've said I am not happy with the rules, there is a big difference so please stop injecting stuff into the debate which you say I have supposed to have done when I haven't. If that is how you behave then I feel sorry for you.

As for the irony, there is no irony because the rule should never have existed in the first place. Over the many years of being on the internet and visiting hundreds of different forums over those years, not a single one of them allowed insults of ANY kind towards any body. MR is the first forum I have come across that allows it's members to make derogatory insults towards anyone it want's to as long as it is not another forum member. The problem is not with me, the problem is with MR.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ben J.
laptech said:
Ahhhh i see the typical twisting of words and adding in stuff that I did not say to suit your agenda. No where in my posts have I hinted or even suggested that I demand MR bend the rules. I've said I am not happy with the rules, there is a big difference so please stop injecting stuff into the debate which you say I have supposed to have done when I haven't. If that is how you behave then I feel sorry for you.

As for the irony, there is no irony because the rule should never have existed in the first place. Over the many years of being on the internet and visiting hundreds of different forums over those years, not a single one of them allowed insults of ANY kind towards any body. MR is the first forum I have come across that allows it's members to make derogatory insults towards anyone it want's to as long as it is not another forum member. The problem is not with me, the problem is with MR.
Click to expand...
I didn't claim you said 'bend the rules.' What I did do was extrapolate what was done with what you said (in essence) and present the core foundation of your argument. I assert if the mods had ruled in your favor, you would have been happy, even though doing so would be contrary to the rules as currently in place. That is the irony of the position you stated.

I stand by my replies. You got offended over a post that wasn't made about you. You chose to take personal offense. It is not MR's responsibility to police this forum and remove every post you are offended by, unless the post violate the rules. The staff has told you twice now that the post in question didn't violate the rules. I think it is time for you to move on and get over the fact that you reported a post and the decision taken wasn't what you wanted.

If you truly believed in what you said in your original post, you wouldn't still be participating in the forum at all given the firm replies by staff. And yet, here you are with the insult to Arn and the staff in place.

It's one thing to post emotional in the moment and say things one might not really mean. And upon reflection, apologize for the wrong or hateful words made and the intent thereof at the time. It is quite another to hold close to the original words said and intent thereof (without any contrition) while continuing to demand action from the very people insulted.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: avheatherim, kitKAC, icanhazmac and 1 other person
@laptech So, you come here to complain about someone insulting His Majesty the Kind of England, ...here - a board that's mostly used by people living in a country that SPLIT from said king because they didn't really like him that much and they then allowed pretty much total freedom of speech shortly after...

And you expect them too cheer at you for calling out this monstrous affront to someone you're not actually related to.

Why would you think that?

I don't agree with the American way of absolute freedom of speech, but it's their way of life and insulting the King of England is hardly the worst that has happened due to free speech in the USA, so Macrumors gets a pass here.

Sincerely,

A German
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: avheatherim, arkitect, Ericdjensen and 2 others
SILen(e said:
I don't agree with the American way of absolute freedom of speech, but it's their way of life and insulting the King of England is hardly the worst that has happened due to free speech in the USA, so Macrumors gets a pass here.

Sincerely,

A German
Click to expand...

America doesn't have absolute freedom of speech, neither in philosophy nor law. There are some enumerated freedoms which in theory keep the government from interfering with political speech, but all of those have their limits. But, it is true that America probably has a bit more freedoms (for now) than some other countries.

None of that applies to MacRumors. As a private entity, MacRumors can control speech on their fora as they see fit. It's their property, they moderate it as they please. They don't even have to obey their own professed rules. Their moderators can be biased and blinded by hatred, or the most even tempered and fair people you'll ever encounter. It simply doesn't matter because it is their property. If they wanted to, they could ban insults of public individuals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Just_Kevin, davide_eu, I7guy and 1 other person
laptech said:
MR has just proven they are the lowest of the low by allowing a post that insults the King of England in a derogatory manner because of rule stating they do not moderate posts that insult people who are in the public eye. People can either dislike or like the UK Royal Family but to use insulting derogatory language towards the UK head of state and to allow it because of a pathetic rule is down right disgraceful.

Yes I reported a post and it came back as 'no moderation required'.
Click to expand...
I‘d like to see that post. In my experience they censor even the slightest cursing and are very prudish about wordings that wouldn’t make anyone outside the USA even blink.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davide_eu
Unami said:
I‘d like to see that post. In my experience they censor even the slightest cursing and are very prudish about wordings that wouldn’t make anyone outside the USA even blink.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what post that is either. It could be I read it and have a different interpretation than OP -- or the post was deleted. As far as censorship, yes there is the asterisk filter, but the site is rated "G" (imo). For general audiences.

This site is not a barroom brawl, where anything goes.

Even in the Political forum, where politics and controversial topics are allowed, members still have to stick to the rules. Being courteous is 99% of the battle, but sadly some just don't know how.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scepticalscribe
laptech said:
MR has just proven they are the lowest of the low by allowing a post that insults the King of England in a derogatory manner because of rule stating they do not moderate posts that insult people who are in the public eye. People can either dislike or like the UK Royal Family but to use insulting derogatory language towards the UK head of state and to allow it because of a pathetic rule is down right disgraceful.

Yes I reported a post and it came back as 'no moderation required'.
Click to expand...
The post was probably written by Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex -- so he gets a pass in deference to His Royal Highness.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: E.Lizardo, SalisburySam and I7guy
laptech said:
MR has just proven they are the lowest of the low by allowing a post that insults the King of England in a derogatory manner because of rule stating they do not moderate posts that insult people who are in the public eye. People can either dislike or like the UK Royal Family but to use insulting derogatory language towards the UK head of state and to allow it because of a pathetic rule is down right disgraceful.

Yes I reported a post and it came back as 'no moderation required'.
Click to expand...
I did the same for a post saying the "EU mafia"; it is disrespectful of all EU Citizens.
 
laptech said:
MR has just proven they are the lowest of the low by allowing a post that insults the King of England in a derogatory manner because of rule stating they do not moderate posts that insult people who are in the public eye. People can either dislike or like the UK Royal Family but to use insulting derogatory language towards the UK head of state and to allow it because of a pathetic rule is down right disgraceful.

Yes I reported a post and it came back as 'no moderation required'.
Click to expand...
Bill of rights FTW!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back