The trouble with signatures

[Weaselboy]

I appreciate this. But misinformation does break forum rules, specifically the hoax rule as it is currently written.

You are conflating two issues. The hoax rule is enforced and we are not ignoring hoax posts due to staffing issues.

The problem here is someone posting incorrect information about a topic, while not having any intent to mislead, is not a violation of the hoax rule. The staffing issue comes in with you, apart from the hoax rule, wanting us to take on the role of fact checkers. Fact checking reported incorrect information is not something the volunteer staff is able to do.

@Doctor Q touched on this in his post above, but I just wanted to clarify for anybody following the thread, the hoax rule is enforced.

 

[usagora]

Yes, to me it seems like a double-standard. I saw one the other day that was a bash on a politician. Just seems really tacky and poor taste and sort of a childish way to make an inflammatory statement on every post you make without people being able to respond to it within the rules (except in the PRSI forum, of course). If it's just something stating your political principles or religious beliefs in a non-inflammatory way, that's different.

EDIT: Just saw another one that had a quote mocking Christianity. Shouldn't be allowed (regardless of which religion it's mocking).

 

[I7guy]

One does not need to be a factchecker to understand that Alex Jones blabbering about COVID vaccines altering DNA is misinformation. That's as clear cut as you can get.

If I don't know who Alex Jones is, or substitute Jim Smith for Alex does that mean it's not a hoax?

I appreciate this. But misinformation does break forum rules, specifically the hoax rule as it is currently written.

So, I do think it would bring a lot more clarity if the hoax rule was changed or deleted from the rules, because although not everybody reads the rules, it is far more likely they will read the rules vs. randomly spotting a thread in the SFF where it states hoaxes will not be policed. Having one rule that isn’t being used leads to confusion: “What other rules are or aren’t in force?”

As staff members pointed out before, health hoaxes and the like weren’t an issue when the rules were written... they were meant for hoaxes involving Apple products. But the forum has grown, as has the variety of topics discussed. As such, the rule really does need to be changed IMHO to avoid future confusion.

So in the spirit of a discussion, this is the way the hoax rule is written since terminology seems to be at the core:

Hoaxes. Purposely misleading other members to their detriment. Giving advice you know to be incorrect or harmful. Sensationalism.

Which backs up what dr q said.
- The world is flat is not a harmful statement. It could be construed to be a mistake or done on purpose.
- Drinking xxx chemical is an antidote for covid. That statement would/should be moderated according to the hoax rule.
- Masks aren't effective. Truth, misinformation or disinformation. Depending on the citation used I guess.

The bottom line is based on what dr q said, the way hoax rule is written, misinformation does not break forums rules because you can't prove the intent and as long as it's not harmful (not wearing masks does not pose an immenent threat to health) why should the statement be moderated?

 

[Apple_Robert]

In my opinion, this thread, along with the move threads to PRSI thread is doing nothing but going in circles. The staff has answered the same questions again and again, along with several members, and the same forum members who didn't like the answers continue to beat the dead horse.

The record is skipping over and and over and nothing is being gained from it. I think the mods should consider closing it down as it has run its course.

 

[bpeeps]

You are correct. It would be misinformation. But MacRumors doesn't moderate misinformation in a post or signature unless it breaks forum rules.

Huge social media sites have a large paid staff who can investigate claims. Tiny social media sites have a low volume of content and may choose whether or not to review it all. MacRumors has a small team of volunteer moderators and a high volume of content. Unless that changes, it would not be practical to add a policy to root out misinformation.

AKA, we are okay with MacRumors being used as a vehicle for misinformation because it doesn't hurt our bottom line and we haven't faced public scrutiny for it like other media sites have. And that's in the face of a world moving towards a necessary increase in regulation as digital and social become indistinguishable from one another. That sum it up succinctly enough?

If the problem is help, hire more mod volunteers. As we can see from the quoted post below, there are more than enough members here willing to devote their time:

In my opinion, this thread, along with the move threads to PRSI thread is doing nothing but going in circles. The staff has answered the same questions again and again, along with several members, and the same forum members who didn't like the answers continue to beat the dead horse.

The record is skipping over and and over and nothing is being gained from it. I think the mods should consider closing it down as it has run its course.

 

[I7guy]

AKA, we are okay with MacRumors being used as a vehicle for misinformation because it doesn't hurt our bottom line and we haven't faced public scrutiny for it like other media sites have. And that's in the face of a world moving towards a necessary increase in regulation as digital and social become indistinguishable from one another. That sum it up succinctly enough?

If the problem is help, hire more mod volunteers. As we can see from the quoted post below, there are more than enough members here willing to devote their time:

In my opinion, we (and we is not me, we is the collective of the management team) are okay with misinformation not being corrected because 1) MR doesn't want to shutdown conversation and 2) it's a slippery slope toward censorship and legitimate conversation and then opinions that can't be proved true start to get censored as well.

That's the way many internet sites that promote community discussion operate. But it's interesting the comment about the bottom line and public scrutiny. Do you have any examples of internet sites whose main focus is a community of forums dedicated to public discourse, facing public scrutiny and backlash because of some mere misinformation?

Regulating these types of sites is never going to happen because that would probably abridge the 1st amendment of which misinformation is part of, even if some don't like it.

 

[SuperMatt]

You are conflating two issues. The hoax rule is enforced and we are not ignoring hoax posts due to staffing issues.

The problem here is someone posting incorrect information about a topic, while not having any intent to mislead, is not a violation of the hoax rule. The staffing issue comes in with you, apart from the hoax rule, wanting us to take on the role of fact checkers. Fact checking reported incorrect information is not something the volunteer staff is able to do.

@Doctor Q touched on this in his post above, but I just wanted to clarify for anybody following the thread, the hoax rule is enforced.

I would post the following in the hoax thread, but it is locked. Here is the hoax rule:

Hoaxes. Purposely misleading other members to their detriment. Giving advice you know to be incorrect or harmful. Sensationalism.

I believe one would agree that posting known false information about a deadly disease and how to prevent it clearly fits the language of this rule. It is literally impossible to enforce a hoax rule if one refuses to fact-check. If I tell people that scientists discovered it’s safe to stare directly into the sun and that it actually improves your vision, the current enforcement would say “well it could be true; we can’t fact check, so…”

Arn stated in that thread 1) the hoax rule was meant for Apple rumors only initially and 2) that he is looking into the hoax rule, but we never heard back on that.

I want to be 100% clear. I don’t care if general misinformation is policed. If people say Tim Cook drinks the blood of wild boars, whatever. But if somebody says Bill Gates is putting microchips in vaccines, which then leads to somebody refusing a vaccine and they die of a preventable disease, then somebody has been purposely misled to their detriment.

I asked for this rule to be enforced, as written. This is obviously not happening at this time; people are being given medical “advice” that is very harmful, and it is left up with no enforcement. We know for a fact that many people died of COVID-19 because they didn’t follow CDC guidance. And yet, hoaxes stating otherwise, that could lead to serious illness or death were left on the forum.

I feel that my request is being misconstrued as “he doesn’t want lies on here“ instead of “he doesn’t want harmful lies on here that would mislead forum members to their detriment” as the rule says. I don’t want anybody losing their vision by staring into the sun and I don’t want anybody to die of a preventable disease.

Why People Keep Falling for Viral Hoaxes

It's not because they're stupid.

www.wired.com

 

[SuperMatt]

In my opinion, we (and we is not me, we is the collective of the management team) are okay with misinformation not being corrected because 1) MR doesn't want to shutdown conversation and 2) it's a slippery slope toward censorship and legitimate conversation and then opinions that can't be proved true start to get censored as well.

That's the way many internet sites that promote community discussion operate. But it's interesting the comment about the bottom line and public scrutiny. Do you have any examples of internet sites whose main focus is a community of forums dedicated to public discourse, facing public scrutiny and backlash because of some mere misinformation?

Regulating these types of sites is never going to happen because that would probably abridge the 1st amendment of which misinformation is part of, even if some don't like it.

The first amendment allows me to tell somebody they are “full of it” or “Sure, Jan…“ without government interference, but such would result in censorship here. The first amendment is about the GOVERNMENT censoring speech. There is no law preventing a forum owner from censoring forum members, and it happens here many times every day.

You yourself had multiple posts deleted from another thread because we got off-topic. Censorship. It‘s allowed, just not by the government.

 

[bpeeps]

In my opinion, we (and we is not me, we is the collective of the management team) are okay with misinformation not being corrected because 1) MR doesn't want to shutdown conversation and 2) it's a slippery slope toward censorship and legitimate conversation and then opinions that can't be proved true start to get censored as well.

That's the way many internet sites that promote community discussion operate. But it's interesting the comment about the bottom line and public scrutiny. Do you have any examples of internet sites whose main focus is a community of forums dedicated to public discourse, facing public scrutiny and backlash because of some mere misinformation?

Regulating these types of sites is never going to happen because that would probably abridge the 1st amendment of which misinformation is part of, even if some don't like it.

It's not a slippery slope, that's alarmist nonsense. MacRumors controls just how much or how little they want to moderate. They can implement rules against misinformation and moderate based on discretion like they do for everything else. You've agreed to it under the ToS.

The first amendment doesn't matter, Reddit, Facebook/Instagram, and Twitter all privately regulate misinformation. Either through the removal of communities and posters or by tagging posts with links to the appropriate information. The first amendment protects us against government limits on our freedom of expression, but it doesn’t prevent a private employer from setting its own rules. If MacRumors didn't want people to discuss shoes, it would be well within their rights to eradicate conversation of it.

 

[tobefirst ⚽️]

If MacRumors didn't want people to discuss shoes, it would be well within their rights to eradicate conversation of it.

As someone who has already purchased 5 pairs of athletic shoes this year, I hope they don’t do this!!!

 

[I7guy]

It's not a slippery slope, that's alarmist nonsense.

In my opinion, it's not.

MacRumors controls just how much or how little they want to moderate. They can implement rules against misinformation and moderate based on discretion like they do for everything else. You've agreed to it under the ToS.
The first amendment doesn't matter, Reddit, Facebook/Instagram, and Twitter all privately regulate misinformation.

Oh I agree 100% about the 1st amendment as it relates to our freedom of speech and private enterprise being able to regulate discourse as they see fit. However, reddit, facebook/instragram and twitter have nearly unlimited resources, and do they eradicate 100% of misinformation, and/or curtail 100% of fake news? I'll bet the answer is no.

MacRumors has already said they weren't out to be the truth police and maybe certain types of fake news/misinformatoin and disinformation should be moderated as opposed to bad opinions and misunderstanding of a particular topic (which is where censorship and education come into play). But I will place my vote for more discussion vs more censorship because more discussion facilitates getting the truth out there to the universe.

Dan Rather got fired and CBS news got a black eye because of misinformation. A MR poster posting misinformation gets challenged as to what the veracity of the information really is and for all intents and purposes will not have the same type of issue as Mr. Rather.

Either through the removal of communities and posters or by tagging posts with links to the appropriate information. The first amendment protects us against government limits on our freedom of expression, but it doesn’t prevent a private employer from setting its own rules. If MacRumors didn't want people to discuss shoes, it would be well within their rights to eradicate conversation of it.

100% agree.

 

[Weaselboy]

I would post the following in the hoax thread, but it is locked. Here is the hoax rule:

Hoaxes. Purposely misleading other members to their detriment. Giving advice you know to be incorrect or harmful. Sensationalism.

I believe one would agree that posting known false information about a deadly disease and how to prevent it clearly fits the language of this rule.

This has already been explained, but I will repeat it. Note the word "purposely" in the hoax rule. That means there is an element of intent in the rule. So if one honestly believes X, even if they may be wrong, and they post X, that is not a violation of the hoax rule.

So the hoax rule is being enforced as it is written.

What you are asking for is fact checking, and that is unrelated to the hoax rule.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

To my mind, it would be possible to address this by amending the rules so that they reflect reality on the site: In other words - with the clear exception of posts and threads that discuss Apple products, where posts are "factually correct" and "hoaxes" will not be tolerated, and posters are expected to abide by this, as the rule will be enforced and transgressions will be met with reprimands - why not clearly state that the "no hoax" rule - and the obligation to cite sources in support of claims, or facts, alleged facts, - does not apply anywhere else in the site, above all in the community or political sections?

Amending the rules to reflect the reality would allow for consistency in how MR implements the rules, and would immeasurably improve the site; at least, in terms of consistency.

Content is an entirely separate matter, but that is also a matter of subjective judgment and personal opinion.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

This has already been explained, but I will repeat it. Note the word "purposely" in the hoax rule. That means there is an element of intent in the rule. So if one honestly believes X, even if they may be wrong, and they post X, that is not a violation of the hoax rule.

So the hoax rule is being enforced as it is written.

What you are asking for is fact checking, and that is unrelated to the hoax rule.

Why not amend or abandon the hoax rule as currently enforced and interpreted?

Why not explicitly state that it applies to, and is to be applied to threads relating to Apple products and nothing else?

As currently interpreted, it makes a mockery of the site, and, as others have already pointed out, it fails to meet the (already rather low) bar set by platforms such as FaceBook and Twitter.

Nobody is asking the mods to become "fact checkers", but inferring intent is at least as arduous a task as checking facts.

Indeed, writing as someone who was a professional historian in a previous life, I would argue that inferring intent - or attempting to read intent from a post, or letter, a diary, or source - is arguably an awful lot harder than mere verification of facts.

Something either happened, or it didn't.

A fact is either true, or false.

But attempting to infer intent is a challenge that the most empathetic person on the planet would find hard to meet.

However, in attempting to meet it, I would respectfully submit that the use of the word "purposefully" in this context is somewhat disingenuous, for inferring intent, is, at its best, in the absence of a declaration proving intent, is both subjective, and very difficult to prove.

 

[maflynn]

where posts are "factually correct"

So how will we determine that a post is factually correct? Will the moderators have to spend their time now fact checking every post? What happens when a post about a topic cites source material that justifies their position but others believe its fake? Take climate change, there's plenty of sites that provide evidence to deny that it exists.

Do we delete those posts because other people feel its fake news? Conversely when someone disbelieves in climate change and they come up against a global warming post, they'll report that as fake news.

Another topic is wearing masks, we have many people denying the effectiveness of masks, and those posts were reported left and right, calling it fake news. Well we're seeing the CDC now saying masks (at least outdoors) has minimal (at best) affect. So people called those posts out as fake only now the they may not be?

I don't think its job of the staff to vet out each post's truthfulness. If someone is purposely trying to mislead the membership then yes, the hoax rule as its written will be applied. If someone believes the world if flat, then the hoax rules does not apply as they're stating a belief.

Lets take it to an extreme perspective - religion. How can we determine the truthfulness of religion when that in of itself is basically based on faith. Science has no ability to prove/disprove of a creator.

By embracing that every post needs to be factual, we open up a can of worms especially when you consider that the PRSI is now closed to new members. We spent so much time dealing with this hoax discussion, when truth be told, it probably represents such a low percentage of what's being posted it seems kind of a waste to keep beating this horse to death. Yes, some news stories about covid or the pandemic will more likely generate posts that others feel is not factually correct but generally we're talking about a tiny subset of activity.

 

[SuperMatt]

This has already been explained, but I will repeat it. Note the word "purposely" in the hoax rule. That means there is an element of intent in the rule. So if one honestly believes X, even if they may be wrong, and they post X, that is not a violation of the hoax rule.

So the hoax rule is being enforced as it is written.

What you are asking for is fact checking, and that is unrelated to the hoax rule.

So, without fact-checking, please tell me how you can identify a hoax.

 

[Weaselboy]

So, without fact-checking, please tell me how you can identify a hoax.

In the past we have done it by the person admitting they intentionally posted incorrect information to mislead. One I can think of was an image of an upcoming Mac and the person later admitted they made it up. I recall another where a person posted an OS update had been released and when called out on it admitted they made it up.

As @Doctor Q mentioned before, we cannot mind read, so intent is difficult to prove.

I get you want us to fact check, and it is fine to disagree about that. But your continued assertion that we are not enforcing the hoax rule is just wrong.

 

[SuperMatt]

In the past we have done it by the person admitting they intentionally posted incorrect information to mislead. One I can think of was an image of an upcoming Mac and the person later admitted they made it up. I recall another where a person posted an OS update had been released and when called out on it admitted they made it up.

As @Doctor Q mentioned before, we cannot mind read, so intent is difficult to prove.

I get you want us to fact check, and it is fine to disagree about that. But your continued assertion that we are not enforcing the hoax rule is just wrong.

So unless somebody admits they lied, you will not enforce it? That’s a loophole the size of a hula hoop.

 

[SuperMatt]

So how will we determine that a post is factually correct? Will the moderators have to spend their time now fact checking every post? What happens when a post about a topic cites source material that justifies their position but others believe its fake? Take climate change, there's plenty of sites that provide evidence to deny that it exists.

Do we delete those posts because other people feel its fake news? Conversely when someone disbelieves in climate change and they come up against a global warming post, they'll report that as fake news.

Another topic is wearing masks, we have many people denying the effectiveness of masks, and those posts were reported left and right, calling it fake news. Well we're seeing the CDC now saying masks (at least outdoors) has minimal (at best) affect. So people called those posts out as fake only now the they may not be?

I don't think its job of the staff to vet out each post's truthfulness. If someone is purposely trying to mislead the membership then yes, the hoax rule as its written will be applied. If someone believes the world if flat, then the hoax rules does not apply as they're stating a belief.

Lets take it to an extreme perspective - religion. How can we determine the truthfulness of religion when that in of itself is basically based on faith. Science has no ability to prove/disprove of a creator.

By embracing that every post needs to be factual, we open up a can of worms especially when you consider that the PRSI is now closed to new members. We spent so much time dealing with this hoax discussion, when truth be told, it probably represents such a low percentage of what's being posted it seems kind of a waste to keep beating this horse to death. Yes, some news stories about covid or the pandemic will more likely generate posts that others feel is not factually correct but generally we're talking about a tiny subset of activity.

I re-read my post. I didn’t suggest this, in light of the mods as a group stating they do not have time to fact check.

Instead, I suggested removing the hoax rule, as it’s impossible to enforce such a rule WITHOUT checking the validity of a statement. If you don’t take a stand on whether any given statement is true or false, then it is logically impossible to enforce such a rule. Even if somebody admits they lied, how can you be sure their admission of lying is true? Maybe they think they are lying, but their belief is actually false to begin with, so what they think is a lie is actually the truth.

The hoax rule as written is putting mods in an impossible situation. It requires that they:

1) Determine the truth of a statement (requires work to fact-check)
2) Determine the motive of the person making the statement (nearly impossible to determine in a forum like this)

It really does need to be changed, IMHO.

 

[I7guy]

[...]

As currently interpreted, it makes a mockery of the site, and, as others have already pointed out, it fails to meet the (already rather low) bar set by platforms such as FaceBook and Twitter.

I couldn't disagree more. You want the site to become something it's not designed to be. A totally moderated/censored community of discourse where content in any post that can't be verified is deleted. What I disagree about is the "already rather low" bar. That's just not so, in my opinion.

Nobody is asking the mods to become "fact checkers",

Yes, that is exactly what is being suggested.

but inferring intent is at least as arduous a task as checking facts; indeed, writing as someone who was a professional historian in a previous life, I would argue that inferring intent - or attempting to read intent from a post, or letter, a diary, or source - is arguably an awful lot harder than mere verification of facts.

Something either happened, or it didn't.

A fact is either true, or false.

There are many things in this universe that cannot be proven true and false, so would discussion about them be allowed? Maflynn touched on a couple of examples?

But attempting to infer intent is a challenge that the most empathetic person on the planet would find hard to meet.

However, in attempting to meet it, I would respectfully submit that the use of the word "purposefully" in this context is somewhat disingenuous, for inferring intent, is, at its best, in the absence of a declaration proving intent, is both subjective, and very difficult to prove.

Inferring intent may be difficult as is fact checking everything, or at least everything that gets reported. But I do not supposed there will every be agreement about the verbiage of the tos, given the wide user base of MacRumors.

 

[I7guy]

I re-read my post. I didn’t suggest this, in light of the mods as a group stating they do not have time to fact check.

Instead, I suggested removing the hoax rule, as it’s impossible to enforce such a rule WITHOUT checking the validity of a statement. If you don’t take a stand on whether any given statement is true or false, then it is logically impossible to enforce such a rule. Even if somebody admits they lied, how can you be sure their admission of lying is true? Maybe they think they are lying, but their belief is actually false to begin with.

So you want something removed from the TOS because it's not enforceable 100%? In that vein, should speed limit signs be removed because they don't stop speeding and the cops can't catch 100% of the speeders anyway.

 

[Weaselboy]

So unless somebody admits they lied, you will not enforce it? That’s a loophole the size of a hula hoop.

Like I mentioned, the rule requires an intent to mislead, so unless there is some evidence (like an admission) of that intent, the rule does not apply. I agree with you, that is difficult to enforce.

I understand your desire for fact checking, but trying to shoehorn the hoax rule into this is the wrong approach in my view.

 

[SuperMatt]

Like I mentioned, the rule requires an intent to mislead, so unless there is some evidence (like an admission) of that intent, the rule does not apply. I agree with you, that is difficult to enforce.

I understand your desire for fact checking, but trying to shoehorn the hoax rule into this is the wrong approach in my view.

I don’t want the mods to fact-check every post. I never, ever said that. I’m simply pointing out that a hoax rule cannot be enforced without determining if a given statement is a hoax or not. Such determination requires fact-finding.

Its definition: "A hoax is a falsehood deliberately fabricated to masquerade as the truth.” One must know what is true and false to determine if something is or isn’t a hoax. There is no way around this.

 

[SuperMatt]

So you want something removed from the TOS because it's not enforceable 100%? In that vein, should speed limit signs be removed because they don't stop speeding and the cops can't catch 100% of the speeders anyway.

It’s 0% enforceable at the current moment. If one must admit they lied to be subject to the hoax rule, nobody will admit they lied.

To match your analogy, it would be like telling cops to catch speeders but not giving them radar guns or even a speedometer on their own car so they can determine the speed of passing vehicles.

 

[Weaselboy]

Such determination requires fact-finding.

Understood... and you have been told repeatedly that we are not going to get involved in fact checking.

I think you would have a stronger argument if you dropped the whole hoax rule issue and just plainly said you want us to fact check, because that is what you are asking for.