The trouble with signatures

[theSeb]

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.

Where moderation isn't an antidote to misinformation, information provided by users can be an antidote to misinformation. Forum members can dispute misinformation in posts and provide the facts to back it up. You can't reply to misinformation in a signature, but signatures aren't seen unless the user posts, and if someone is trying to spread misinformation in a signature they will likely make the same claims in posts.

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.

And yet there are clear rules about posting hoaxes. A hoax is a form of misinformation, is it not?

 

[Weaselboy]

And yet there are clear rules about posting hoaxes. A hoax is a form of misinformation, is it not?

Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, the hoax rule requires an intent to mislead. So, for example, if one does not believe masks are effective and posts that, that does not violate the rule since there is no intent to mislead.

 

[SuperMatt]

For some reason, this discussion reminds me of this...

It’s not dead; it’s just resting!

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, the hoax rule requires an intent to mislead. So, for example, if one does not believe masks are effective and posts that, that does not violate the rule since there is no intent to mislead.

Proving intent is a lot more difficult than verifying facts.

However, as those who run the site have already made abundantly (and depressingly) clear, they are not in the business of truth checking or of verifying facts.

So be it.

Might I therefore respectfully suggest that the business of attempting to infer intent (to mislead) from a post be likewise jettisoned as a redundant and unnecessarily complication?

 

[I7guy]

I'm not sure what a change in wording will accomplish for the average user. A user who posts a hoax with intent to mislead as determined by staff is now susceptible to moderation. Removing that tool means that other areas of the TOS will be cited, which is far more general in nature, opening up the same conversations that are now taking place.

How difficult moderation should not be the average users concern. What the average user should be concerned about is sticking to the guidelines and not moderation complications resulting from enforcing the rules.

I checked reddits rules of order and MacRumors is head and shoulders above reddits TOS, where it seems like Moderation happen, just because. (although the basics are covered, but there is a considerable lack of detail). So I give props so at least there is a set of codified rules, even if not all agree with the rules themselves or the wording.

 

[MagicBoy]

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.

The first amendment is a parochial argument, unless the site is going to limit access to those located in the USA.

I see no reason to do that. If someone intentionally posts misleading information anywhere on the forums and it can be proven they did so, why would we not want to moderate that no matter where it was posted.

So why are you allowing misinformation about the COVID vaccines? You know it's false, I know it's false. Eminent scientists say it's false. Governments across the planet believe those scientists and say its false. There's only conspiracy theorists on the opposing side. Please deal with it before someone comes to harm.

 

[I7guy]

[…]
So why are you allowing misinformation about the COVID vaccines? You know it's false, I know it's false. Eminent scientists say it's false. Governments across the planet believe those scientists and say its false. There's only conspiracy theorists on the opposing side. Please deal with it before someone comes to harm.

Not sure of what misinformation is being posted, and since I don’t make policy my comment is as a fellow poster…but posting “misinformation “ would mean that information wasn’t started here and I’m of the opinion information fights misinformation. Someone posting misinformation about vaccines would seem to me to be an incredibly difficult feat to sway/convince the masses this misinformation is really valid. Add into this the citation rule and it should not be possible to spread misinformation. Someone’s opinion about the matter is another story.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

..Someone posting misinformation about vaccines would seem to me to be an incredibly difficult feat to sway/convince the masses this misinformation is really valid. Add into this the citation rule and it should not be possible to spread misinformation. Someone’s opinion about the matter is another story.

The thing is, not all opinions deserve to be treated with equal respect, and to do so creates a false equivalency.

While an opinion that masks don't work, or vaccines don't work, or the election was fraudulent, can be clearly, and freely, expressed as an opinion, in the light of what has transpired since then, and all that we have learned since, then, it is also a dangerously uninformed opinion, one that can have dangerous (public health, and public policy) consequences.

Current forum policy affords these opinions a sort of false equivalency with opinions grounded in, and based on, proven facts, giving the erroneous impression that they are equally valid positions to hold, or that both sets of opinions have equal merit.

 

[I7guy]

The thing is, not all opinions deserve to be treated with equal respect, and to do so creates a false equivalency.

While an opinion that masks don't work, or vaccines don't work, or the election was fraudulent, can be clearly, and freely, expressed as an opinion, in the light of what has transpired since then, and all that we have learned since, then, it is also a dangerously uninformed opinion, one that can have dangerous (public health, and public policy) consequences.

Current forum policy affords these opinions a sort of false equivalency with opinions grounded in, and based on, proven facts, giving the erroneous impression that they are equally valid positions to hold, or that both sets of opinions have equal merit.

I disagree about the use of the word dangerous, which implies a immediate threat to ones health or safety or the public health and safety. And no disagreement that opinions and "facts" that are dangerous should be removed/moderated with the speed of light. (sensationalized harmful opinions would probably be moderated under the hoax rule)

A post such as "masks don't work, here is the citation" someone already made up their mind and it seems to me it's better to discuss it, than censor it. The outcome could be another person may walk away from the conversation enlightened rather than uninformed or confused.

What current forum policy does is allow people to post opinions and facts with citations. It's not up to me if the policy is to allow "bad opinions" to be discussed. Hopefully people who engaged in these conversations understands an opinion vs fact.

But on the chance that some bystander mistake an opinion for a fact (which I think is what you are getting at), the rules allow this.

 

[SuperMatt]

I disagree about the use of the word dangerous, which implies a immediate threat to ones health or safety or the public health and safety.

I’m trying to think of a hoax that’s more dangerous than telling people it’s ok to take off masks, go into a crowded room, and telling them they won’t catch COVID. Or that it’s easily cured using medicines that we know don’t work and the medicine itself can be harmful (a video posted on MR forums).

We know for a fact over 588,000 people are dead in America alone from this disease, many of those deaths because people listened to the hoax. America has 4% of the world population and 20% of the deaths due to COVID. The biggest social media companies finally recognized this and are trying stop the misinformation, but MR is not following suit.

One moderator stated they would take action if somebody foisted a hoax that led people to wipe their hard drives, but a hoax that literally has led to the deaths of thousands? Eh... I think we’ll let that one go. That makes no sense, which is why I think there’s more to the story. Perhaps the staff doesn’t want to be seen taking a stance on something that unfortunately became political in America, or perhaps they also bought into the hoax unawares?

The COVID lies are no different than telling people that wearing a seatbelt doesn’t protect you, or that drinking alcohol improves your driving, or that having unprotected sex can’t get you an STD if you eat pineapple beforehand or something. It’s just that the COVID lies were politicized, so now if you point out the lies, you’re seen as making a political statement instead of just trying to protect your fellow humans and tell the truth.

 

[I7guy]

I’m trying to think of a hoax that’s more dangerous than telling people it’s ok to take off masks, go into a crowded room, and telling them they won’t catch COVID. Or that it’s easily cured using medicines that we know don’t work or the medicine itself can be harmful (a video posted on MR forums).

How about "drinking acid cures covid" as false statement and more what I was referring to and one that should be moderated.

None of what you posted above is going to prevent people from doing that, and has not prevented people from doing exactly that in many states. Being able to counter misinformation with information has a net positive.

We know for a fact over 588,000 people are dead in America alone from this disease, many of those deaths because people listened to the hoax. America has 4% of the world population and 20% of the deaths due to COVID. The biggest social media companies finally recognized this and are trying stop the misinformation, but MR is not following suit.

The biggest social media companies aren't necessarily discussion forums where bad information can be countered in a format that is educational. I don't follow big social media, so I don't know what has been on their platforms and what they are trying to stop and how they are trying to stop it. So examples would help.

One moderator stated they would take action if somebody foisted a hoax that led people to wipe their hard drives, but a hoax that literally has led to the deaths of thousands? Eh... I think we’ll let that one go. That makes no sense, which is why I think there’s more to the story. Perhaps the staff doesn’t want to be seen taking a stance on something that unfortunately became political in America, or perhaps they also bought into the hoax unawares?

Hoaxes as defined by MR rules, should be moderated. But it seems there is an push to moderate bad opinions also. Not my call. But as I said I believe in the flow of information, not suppression. Because imo, that results in a net positive.

The COVID lies are no different than telling people that wearing a seatbelt doesn’t protect you, or that drinking alcohol improves your driving, or that having unprotected sex can’t get you an STD if you eat pineapple beforehand or something. It’s just that the COVID lies were politicized, so now if you point out the lies, you’re seen as making a political statement instead of just trying to protect your fellow humans and tell the truth.

Everything you posted above is a great example of how to debunk bad opinions, by fighting misinformation with solid information. Someone who believes seatbelts don't save lives didn't get that opinion from MacRumors PRSI and is ripe for being shown the facts rather than shutting down the conversation and having bad opinions persist on the internet. Isn't it better the correct facts also persist on the internet?

(As I said, it's not my house, only my opinion. I don't engage in that type of behavior anyway,)

 

[SuperMatt]

How about "drinking acid cures covid" as false statement and more what I was referring to and one that should be moderated.

None of what you posted above is going to prevent people from doing that, and has not prevented people from doing exactly that in many states. Being able to counter misinformation with information has a net positive.

The biggest social media companies aren't necessarily discussion forums where bad information can be countered in a format that is educational. I don't follow big social media, so I don't know what has been on their platforms and what they are trying to stop and how they are trying to stop it. So examples would help.

Hoaxes as defined by MR rules, should be moderated. But it seems there is an push to moderate bad opinions also. Not my call. But as I said I believe in the flow of information, not suppression. Because imo, that results in a net positive.

Everything you posted above is a great example of how to debunk bad opinions, by fighting misinformation with solid information. Someone who believes seatbelts don't save lives didn't get that opinion from MacRumors PRSI and is ripe for being shown the facts rather than shutting down the conversation and having bad opinions persist on the internet. Isn't it better the correct facts also persist on the internet?

(As I said, it's not my house, only my opinion. I don't engage in that type of behavior anyway,)

Your opinion is to fight misinformation with information. This often doesn't work (scroll back to the link to Wired magazine on why). It is also only your opinion (which I respect and understand, truly), while the rules of this forum ban hoaxes. The rules don’t say “if somebody posts a hoax, tell them they are wrong.” It says hoaxes are not allowed, period... and it’s impossible to argue that COVID hoaxes are not dangerous, since we have proof of the danger in graves all around America.

 

[SuperMatt]

The biggest social media companies aren't necessarily discussion forums where bad information can be countered in a format that is educational. I don't follow big social media, so I don't know what has been on their platforms and what they are trying to stop and how they are trying to stop it. So examples would help.

Thanks for taking time to discuss this and seek details. Here is some info on what Twitter did over a year ago.

Twitter clamps down on coronavirus hoaxes and fake ‘experts’

Twitter is ramping up its policies against coronavirus misinformation. The company will ban tweets perpetuating claims of fake cures and other specific information that could incite panic or harm official efforts to fight the pandemic. Under the policies, the company will require users to...

www.engadget.com

 

[I7guy]

Thanks for taking time to discuss this and seek details. Here is some info on what Twitter did over a year ago.

Twitter clamps down on coronavirus hoaxes and fake ‘experts’

Twitter is ramping up its policies against coronavirus misinformation. The company will ban tweets perpetuating claims of fake cures and other specific information that could incite panic or harm official efforts to fight the pandemic. Under the policies, the company will require users to...

www.engadget.com

Interesting. Thanks for posting. Twitter is using machine learning and artificial intelligence to be in effect, the truth police. They will be attempting to determine non-credible or less credible sources according to the faq. How successful has that been? Twitter though is a difference communication platform than MacRumors.

And being a different communication platform means that approaches to thorny social issues can be dealt with differently than Twitter, which is what I was saying above. My opinion is that to fight bad information correct information has to be out there and that is why MR platform is valuable. If the powers to be decide in the future to change the rules, so be it. I'm voicing my opinion on how the rules are currently written. As both Twitter and MR are private enterprise each has a version of "free speech" that they deem is acceptable for their respective platforms.

 

[SuperMatt]

Interesting. Thanks for posting. Twitter is using machine learning and artificial intelligence to be in effect, the truth police. They will be attempting to determine non-credible or less credible sources according to the faq. How successful has that been? Twitter though is a difference communication platform than MacRumors.

And being a different communication platform means that approaches to thorny social issues can be dealt with differently than Twitter, which is what I was saying above. My opinion is that to fight bad information correct information has to be out there and that is why MR platform is valuable. If the powers to be decide in the future to change the rules, so be it. I'm voicing my opinion on how the rules are currently written. As both Twitter and MR are private enterprise each has a version of "free speech" that they deem is acceptable for their respective platforms.

It is interesting they used software to screen, but I believe that is due to the scale of their operation.

There are tons of lies on Twitter, Facebook, and here. Multiple posters in this thread have indicated that I want all of MR fact-checked. I do not, and I’ve yet to see anybody advocate for that. However, I think the hoax rule as written is a good idea.

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

Telling somebody to take the wrong medicine or medicine that causes harm absolutely fits this definition. Telling somebody they didn’t need a mask during the peak of the COVID pandemic fits this description. Lying about the vaccine’s effectiveness or claiming it has tracking microchips in it fits this.

The problem is the words “misleading” and “incorrect” in the definition above are impossible to identify if those enforcing the rule do not have the “resources” to determine what is correct and truthful. I hope in the future they will gain the resources to identify at least the most dangerous hoaxes “in the wild” and police them. Nobody expects they can spot them all... that’s why we have user reports.

 

[I7guy]

It is interesting they used software to screen, but I believe that is due to the scale of their operation.

There are tons of lies on Twitter, Facebook, and here. Multiple posters in this thread have indicated that I want all of MR fact-checked. I do not, and I’ve yet to see anybody advocate for that. However, I think the hoax rule as written is a good idea.

I agree about the hoax rule as written. As explained it seems to offer some guidance against specific types of posts. As far as the lies go...next comment.

Telling somebody to take the wrong medicine or medicine that causes harm absolutely fits this definition. Telling somebody they didn’t need a mask during the peak of the COVID pandemic fits this description. Lying about the vaccine’s effectiveness or claiming it has tracking microchips in it fits this.

The staff has already said they are not the truth police and I think it puts MacRumors in a position to set the record straight.
- telling someone they don't need a mask during covid is as bad telling someone if everyone wore a mask the pandemic would end tomorrow.
- telling someone vaccines don't help this pandemic is as bad as telling someone if everyone took the vaccine the pandemic would be over tomorrow.
- People believing BG put microchips in the vaccines, is as bad the hoax 25 years ago that Bill Gates was reading your emails.

I got it's really a tough area as maybe I consider myself informed and don't look at the internet for the "truth". But for those who do, MacRumors can help set the story straight and fill the void where the staff won't moderate. Let's be honest, people already believe, without MacRumors help that not wearing masks is the way to go, as evidenced by the large outdoor gathers resulting in upticks in covid.

People believe what they want, for the most part, but I think there is a subset of people who are on the fence about what to believe and this is where MacRumors can provide an counter to something that goes against the grain.

The problem is the words “misleading” and “incorrect” in the definition above are impossible to identify if those enforcing the rule do not have the “resources” to determine what is correct and truthful. I hope in the future they will gain the resources to identify at least the most dangerous hoaxes “in the wild” and police them. Nobody expects they can spot them all... that’s why we have user reports.

I agree nobody expects the staff can police everything as the current system stands, but we disagree about what dangerous really refers to.

 

[SuperMatt]

I agree about the hoax rule as written. As explained it seems to offer some guidance against specific types of posts. As far as the lies go...next comment.

The staff has already said they are not the truth police and I think it puts MacRumors in a position to set the record straight.
- telling someone they don't need a mask during covid is as bad telling someone if everyone wore a mask the pandemic would end tomorrow.
- telling someone vaccines don't help this pandemic is as bad as telling someone if everyone took the vaccine the pandemic would be over tomorrow.
- People believing BG put microchips in the vaccines, is as bad the hoax 25 years ago that Bill Gates was reading your emails.

I agree nobody expects the staff can police everything as the current system stands, but we disagree about what dangerous really refers to.

All you did was replace my hoax examples with other hoax examples. All are dangerous hoaxes. The main difference? The ones I listed actually were spread online. They led to actual illness and death.

The ones you listed are ones you came up with. I never saw a single person (before you) say wearing a mask or getting a shot would end COVID in 1 day. But if they did, that would be disastrous to public health if many people believed it. Sadly, many people DID believe the hoaxes I listed. And they spread online. All those examples are hoaxes that, according to the plain text of the hoax rule, should be moderated.

And sorry, but people fearing the vaccine due to microchip worries and not getting it, then catching COVID and dying from it, is about 1,000,000x worse than a dumb email hoax.

You are absolutely correct. I have an extremely strong disagreement with you on what constitutes danger. I’d say something with a high risk of death or serious illness is dangerous. I guess you don’t? I’d hate to see what you actually DO consider to be dangerous then… it must be truly frightening.

I also really wish you would stop with the “truth police” thing. It is a straw man argument (IMHO meant to distract from my actual argument) and NOT what the hoax rule is about. I know you’ve read me say multiple times I am not calling for fact-checking of all posts. But there ARE dangerous hoaxes out there, and it would be great to see them moderated more often than they are.

 

[I7guy]

All you did was replace my hoax examples with other hoax examples. All are dangerous hoaxes. The main difference? The ones I listed actually were spread online. They led to actual illness and death.

The ones you listed are ones you came up with. I never saw a single person (before you) say wearing a mask or getting a shot would end COVID in 1 day. But if they did, that would be disastrous to public health if many people believed it. Sadly, many people DID believe the hoaxes I listed. And they spread online. All those examples are hoaxes that, according to the plain text of the hoax rule, should be moderated.

And sorry, but people fearing the vaccine due to microchip worries and not getting it, then catching COVID and dying from it, is about 1,000,000x worse than a dumb email hoax.

You are absolutely correct. I have an extremely strong disagreement with you on what constitutes danger. I’d say something with a high risk of death or serious illness is dangerous. I guess you don’t? I’d hate to see what you actually DO consider to be dangerous then… it must be truly frightening.

I also really wish you would stop with the “truth police” thing. It is a straw man argument (IMHO meant to distract from my actual argument) and NOT what the hoax rule is about. I know you’ve read me say multiple times I am not calling for fact-checking of all posts. But there ARE dangerous hoaxes out there, and it would be great to see them moderated more often than they are.

I would like nothing more than an environment that consists of genuine discourse, where trolling is left at the door. That is a good pipe dream and one that MR TOS seeks to address. You and I have a disagreement on what a hoax is vs what misinformation/disinformation is. https://theconversation.com/misinformation-disinformation-and-hoaxes-whats-the-difference-158491

That's not by bailiwick...the staff definitionally will deal with that. If the staff decides these three are all equal, so be it.
- masks do not do anything in this pandemic
- it's my opinion masks do not do anything in this pandemic
- masks do not do anything in this pandemic: citation follows

But I personally view the issues you raised with my take on the matter, which is information counters disinformation. I'd rather tell someone they are incorrect then tell them to shut up.

And I agree postings that constitute and immediate threat should be dealt with. And the moderators do and presumably in the future will. But some misinformation has to be handled through information, if it's not here then it is somewhere else.

 

[SuperMatt]

I would like nothing more than an environment that consists of genuine discourse, where trolling is left at the door. That is a good pipe dream and one that MR TOS seeks to address. You and I have a disagreement on what a hoax is vs what misinformation/disinformation is. https://theconversation.com/misinformation-disinformation-and-hoaxes-whats-the-difference-158491

That's not by bailiwick...the staff definitionally will deal with that. If the staff decides these three are all equal, so be it.
- masks do not do anything in this pandemic
- it's my opinion masks do not do anything in this pandemic
- masks do not do anything in this pandemic: citation follows

But I personally view the issues you raised with my take on the matter, which is information counters disinformation. I'd rather tell someone they are incorrect then tell them to shut up.

And I agree postings that constitute and immediate threat should be dealt with. And the moderators do and presumably in the future will. But some misinformation has to be handled through information, if it's not here then it is somewhere else.

Thanks for the link to the article. Do we actually disagree on what constitutes a hoax though? Do you agree with this statement from the article you shared?

Hoaxes, similar to disinformation, are created to persuade people that things that are unsupported by facts are true.

If so, then in your example, cleary item 1 is a hoax, item 2 is a misinformed opinion. and item 3 links to a source that contains a hoax, and is therefore perpetuating the hoax. Facts show that masks are effective in reducing the spread. Statements and sources to the contrary are “created to persuade people that things that are unsupported by facts are true.”

 

[I7guy]

Thanks for the link to the article. Do we actually disagree on what constitutes a hoax though? Do you agree with this statement from the article you shared?

If so, then in your example, cleary item 1 is a hoax, item 2 is a misinformed opinion. and item 3 links to a source that contains a hoax, and is therefore perpetuating the hoax. Facts show that masks are effective in reducing the spread. Statements and sources to the contrary are “created to persuade people that things that are unsupported by facts are true.”

I agree with the article. Except they use the phrase starting a hoax. But nonetheless. 1 is either a hoax or an opinion stated as fact...take your pick. 2) is an opinion. 3) could be true if the citation was to some authoritative source, even if some didn't like the source. But I suppose if the CDC were taken to be the one and only authoritative source that would solve the entire issue. But that again dovetails into how moderation is done at MacRumors.

But I thank you for the thoughtful discussion.

edit: May 8. Thread was just necroed and closed by arn, from last summer, regarding not allowing "mask threads". In the almost a year, has there been any proof that misinformation/disinformation contributed in any meaningful way to either death statistics or hospitalization statistics? Completely differentiated from those who have already decided that masks or vaccines is not for them? This conversation and others like it stem from the same basic premise of requesting a disallowance of subjective conversation. Thankfully that hasn't happened.