That’s fair enough. I prefer Tapatalk because of its basic and clean view and it also hides signatures. Not keen on how cluttered the web view is to be honest. Not as easy to navigate on a small iPhone screen either.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What happened, why is MacRumors so full of negativity lately?
- Thread starter intriguer
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That’s fair enough. I prefer Tapatalk because of its basic and clean view and it also hides signatures. Not keen on how cluttered the web view is to be honest. Not as easy to navigate on a small iPhone screen either.
Strange as it may sound, but what I observe is that people are ready to start a fight because they hardly live life as it is, but mainly think life as it should be, which makes them tense and antagonistic.
As far as I am concerned, antagonistic people think life rather than live life, because they haven’t looked at life very carefully as yet. What would strike them when they begin to observe life really carefully is that what comes, must go, because it has come.
Now, when asked, many will say “Of course everything changes all the time and is present in life only for a limited period of time”, but when you observe people carefully, you will recognize that this fact of life is somehow only present in their minds as a knowledge, not as an understanding. They only know it, but do not understand it, which means they are informed by what they know, not transformed by understanding what they know. Careful observation would have made them harmonious, because it would have revealed for them that life is very precious, because anything can happen any moment. And so they use their precious time to fight.
As far as I am concerned, antagonistic people think life rather than live life, because they haven’t looked at life very carefully as yet. What would strike them when they begin to observe life really carefully is that what comes, must go, because it has come.
Now, when asked, many will say “Of course everything changes all the time and is present in life only for a limited period of time”, but when you observe people carefully, you will recognize that this fact of life is somehow only present in their minds as a knowledge, not as an understanding. They only know it, but do not understand it, which means they are informed by what they know, not transformed by understanding what they know. Careful observation would have made them harmonious, because it would have revealed for them that life is very precious, because anything can happen any moment. And so they use their precious time to fight.
To me what you are saying here is the issue. The reaction button is not the issue. People being able to down vote or disagree is not the issue. The issue from what I see is that there is a large number of people that believe they should never see a negative reaction to what they think.
Just as you have the right to your own thoughs on things others do as well and those things don't have to be in agreement and it is no ones responsibility to make sure you are not offended or upset. Honestly it is part of life that people will and should be able to disagree. You need to be the one to learn how to deal with it.
People who believe that everything they say and do should be affirmed without any reservation are the vast majority of the problem.
I'm not saying that I personally do this—in fact, I welcome different opinions. All I'm saying is that other people are like personally affected somehow with negative reactions. Look, I understand the problem, and I'm not trying to be critical—mental health problems are very real and should be recognized. But if there was a way, like maybe removing the reaction buttons, to lessen the chance of stuff like this happening, it'd be so much better.
I feel like online forums have generally become more negative over time, in part because many people have grown up with online anonymity and therefore have learned to converse in a pointed (often worse) way that is fundamentally different from in-person communication. Also, as sites such as this one become larger, they also become more difficult to moderate.
That said, things weren't always perfect here. When this was overwhelmingly an Apple enthusiast site, one could easily be attacked for any sentiment that wasn't obviously pro-Apple. I once posted about how my iPhone 5 battery spontaneously caught fire -- something I thought would be of interest to many. People called me all sorts of things and accused me of lying, which was very disappointing for me. For that reason (and despite the fact that I like most Apple stuff quite a bit and often post positive experiences about my gear), I was glad for a time when the point of view here became less "fanboi." Now, however, the pendulum has probably swung too far.
I had a similar experience years ago with the iPhone 6 here too. An update made my battery life plummet and I simply asked if anyone else had experienced the same. I was called a liar and accused of working for Samsung. The old classic bit of advice was disked out too, ‘why don’t I just go over to Android if I don’t like it?’ You’re right, it was nauseating pro Apple on here and maybe it’s less so now. Maybe it’s because as iPhones have surpassed the £1k mark, people expect less issues and more perfection? I suppose it was easier to accept the issues when we were paying just £619 for our iPhone 4/5/6. The competition is much better matched now too as markets have matured and people have set expectations and demands.
Actually, - for those of us who dislike the provision of the "down vote" - I do not believe that this is a case of people wishing that everything they say or do should be "affirmed".
Rather, it is deploring the increasingly negative tone to a discussion that tends to follow the introduction of a "down vote" button, where online interaction can become a bruising experience, coloured by ill temper (for the provision of the down vote button also seems to serve to render the tenor of discussion somewhat bad-tempered), and made worse - exacerbated - by the fact that online etiquette has yet to evolve sufficiently.
Why not use words to register disagreement, or express a difference of opinion, rather than clicking on an icon?
Last edited:
I wonder if it's the scoring (liking etc) system.
The human instinct tells you at that point that this is a game, not a discussion. Then you make comments that are contradicting, angering or otherwise create emotions - especially negative emotions as they get more attention.
So that's where discussion ends and the game of internet points begins.
The human instinct tells you at that point that this is a game, not a discussion. Then you make comments that are contradicting, angering or otherwise create emotions - especially negative emotions as they get more attention.
So that's where discussion ends and the game of internet points begins.
Very possibly, as more "attention" generates more traffic, and hence, more revenue.
However, it does make the experience of engaging in such discussions an awful lot less pleasant.
Here is a past post of mine addressing the topic.
I just don't see this, outside of some of the children here on MR that abuse/misuse emoji. Ex: those that do not have the ability or ideas to contribute to honest debate and use the laughing emoji as "laughing at you" vs "laughing with you".
I still feel the thumbs down is misinterpreted by many members, it is "DISAGREE" not "DISLIKE", I feel those two words carry very different meaning and weight. I can disagree with someone without disliking them. I also feel that some people cannot differentiate between someone disagreeing with their post and disagreeing with them as an entire person.
I do not think that simple emoji overtly contribute to a negative tone, they could be one of the purest ways to convey simple emotion, as they are intended to. One only needs to read what is placed in print to find the true lack of civility or etiquette. Words are still far more powerful than little red faces or thumbs.
I cannot disagree with you. Most people have a good understanding of how to debate in person but fail miserably when other people are removed from the room and they are given a keyboard and anonymity. I try very hard not to type anything that I wouldn't say if the person/people I am typing with were in fact sitting in front of me.
On the topic of "people that cannot stand having their ideas "affirmed" one only needs read some S&FF threads. Members here get attacked if they challenge ideas posted by others on a regular basis. An example, if you challenge another members idea that MR is not properly moderated you get called a "shill" or other similar term. Why can't members simply have different opinions on the matter? Discourse on the topic gets so toxic that some members take their hateful opinions to other sites where they are supported by their tribe or echo chamber in private, or so they think.
Last edited:
You have made some very good points, @icanhazmac:
To be perfectly candid, I have the very same issue with the "like" button: Sometimes, I use it to register my agreement with what the poster has written, sometimes, I am simply applauding a post that I think is well written, and am choosing to signal that I "like" the post.
Personally, I would like to see an evolution of the "like" button, so that it becomes possible to distinguish between "liking" a post and agreeing with its contents. Of course, a post can also elicit both reactions (and that is what the "love" emoji is for, to my mind).
On this, I am in complete agreement with you.
I would like - in an ideal world - to be able to draw a distinction between "laughing with" and "laughing at" - the latter is an ugly enough spectacle - when responding to a post.
And it is an intellectually lazy, disrespectful, style of posting to seek refuge in that "laugh" emoji rather than take the time and trouble to craft an articulate reply to something with which you disagree or wish to mock.
If it were possible to have two separate icons to indicate - draw a distinction between - signalling that you "dislike" a post, or registering your disagreement with a post - I think that this might serve to remove some of the negativity, and the negative - occasionally toxic - tone of debate - that inevitably follows the intellectually lazy abuse of these icons, or emojis.
To my mind, it would serve to improve the tone in which discussions and debates are conducted in.
Agree that words are more powerful - sometimes, far more powerful than little red faces or thumbs - but there is a blunt lack of subtlety in those little red faces when they are available to be used that encourages an infantilisation of thought, and, unfortunately, an equal infantilisation of expression in subsequent online exchanges.
That is what I mean when I write that an etiquette - an agreed set of standards of online behaviour that one ought to abide by - has yet to evolve, or develop, for people who choose to participate in the online space.
The tech revolution is so recent - and so transformative - that we are still working out ways of coping with it.
Appropriate behaviour and conduct online will come - as, for example, the rules of the road developed after the invention of the internal combustion engine and the automobile, in some instances requiring regulation, and - for the most part - they are adhered to - as we learn to deal with the challenges of the online world.
Attack the argument, rather than the person; above all, do not impute - I was about to write "impure" - motives, I shall replace that with "unworthy" motives, to someone, merely because you may disagree, and disagree, at times, vehemently, with what they have written.
To be perfectly candid, I have the very same issue with the "like" button: Sometimes, I use it to register my agreement with what the poster has written, sometimes, I am simply applauding a post that I think is well written, and am choosing to signal that I "like" the post.
Personally, I would like to see an evolution of the "like" button, so that it becomes possible to distinguish between "liking" a post and agreeing with its contents. Of course, a post can also elicit both reactions (and that is what the "love" emoji is for, to my mind).
On this, I am in complete agreement with you.
I would like - in an ideal world - to be able to draw a distinction between "laughing with" and "laughing at" - the latter is an ugly enough spectacle - when responding to a post.
And it is an intellectually lazy, disrespectful, style of posting to seek refuge in that "laugh" emoji rather than take the time and trouble to craft an articulate reply to something with which you disagree or wish to mock.
Unfortunately, the two have become conflated.
If it were possible to have two separate icons to indicate - draw a distinction between - signalling that you "dislike" a post, or registering your disagreement with a post - I think that this might serve to remove some of the negativity, and the negative - occasionally toxic - tone of debate - that inevitably follows the intellectually lazy abuse of these icons, or emojis.
To my mind, it would serve to improve the tone in which discussions and debates are conducted in.
Agree that words are more powerful - sometimes, far more powerful than little red faces or thumbs - but there is a blunt lack of subtlety in those little red faces when they are available to be used that encourages an infantilisation of thought, and, unfortunately, an equal infantilisation of expression in subsequent online exchanges.
That is what I mean when I write that an etiquette - an agreed set of standards of online behaviour that one ought to abide by - has yet to evolve, or develop, for people who choose to participate in the online space.
The tech revolution is so recent - and so transformative - that we are still working out ways of coping with it.
Appropriate behaviour and conduct online will come - as, for example, the rules of the road developed after the invention of the internal combustion engine and the automobile, in some instances requiring regulation, and - for the most part - they are adhered to - as we learn to deal with the challenges of the online world.
Again, on this, I am in complete agreement with you.
Attack the argument, rather than the person; above all, do not impute - I was about to write "impure" - motives, I shall replace that with "unworthy" motives, to someone, merely because you may disagree, and disagree, at times, vehemently, with what they have written.
Last edited:
What I really wish we had is 🤔 as a way to acknowledge someone who has given you something to consider. You may not yet agree or disagree with that members idea(s) but you are pondering.
I'd love to see that replace the 😲 "wow" face which, at least for me, is not used much and a bit muddy in its meaning.
I'd love to see that replace the 😲 "wow" face which, at least for me, is not used much and a bit muddy in its meaning.
Last edited:
Thankfully, the Musk topics have ended on the front page. Too many people “can’t even”, making genuine interesting conversation/civil discourse possible 😂
It most definitely is. But what's interesting is that I haven't seen any competition—like "I need to get to 150 liked posts!" I think it's more of like the system as a whole, where people are thinking that they're doing something wrong or something. I honestly have no idea for sure though.
Last edited:
What happened… was the whole society got soft and offended at everything: Feelings and Offense matters more than reasonable and respectful debate to arrive at absolute truth of matters.
And then also what happened is that all the super-offended could all band together and shout down things they disagree with on Facebook/Twitter/Instagram/TokkyTic… and call it “violence” or some nonsense.
It’s an interesting turn of society, coming from the “buck up, buttercup and quit yer whining” in Gen X especially; to now “OMG that was so MEAN! I’m sorry you’re offended. How can I make you feel better? I am so sorry at my outright ignorance. I am trash and I pledge to do better.”
It’s difficult to have a meaningful conversation if everyone has to be constantly worried about “offending” people.
But right or wrong, that’s the state of society in America these days 🤷♂️
And I for one am so glad that Macrumors does a great job of keeping things absent of political Opining and slants. It’s reporting on news they think we would be interested in as readers. That’s it. Stay away (not just you, anyone) from comment sections if you don’t want attempts at levity in these DARK TIMES 🤣 or don’t want the occasional heated arguments about whether Apple is great company anymore…
And, praise to the MR staff for doing a commendable job of keeping things middle of the road and focused on only reporting news without Opines and “From the Editor” sections and inserts into the stories.
If everything has failed at this point after reading this, and you are now in a flying fit of rage; please check my signature and use the site to your own enjoyment in the way you see fit
✌️ It’s great to be part of a community that loves Apple products and the rumors that are produced, and taking part and experiencing the conversations that spring up.(Also, I do not think that any of the 4chan and Reddit and Twitter, etc. negativity and forum styles generally last longer than a few days. I have not experienced any long term negative trajectory in the last ten years I’ve haunted the articles and forums: I’ve only seen a little bit of evolution in the entertainment aspect of the site in participating in the forums and posting/reading funny comments. It’s not stodgy, and it’s not a bad thing that it’s evolved in this direction. Looking at it from a business viewpoint, it bring’s in more engagement, and keeps people around longer… not to say that the tech only talk and arguments couldn’t keep the interest of readers, but allowing some FUN and excitement in the forums only brings in more people to enjoy the site.)
I’ll agree with the downvote… it’s horrible and red and does make me feel bad 😩 it’s not clear what it means to imply, and there’s actually a whole thread on it somewhere here in this sun-forum….
As to the second one… yep, the laughing face spamming has been used as a derogatory and harassment technique, but thankfully the Moderators shut that down after a few short weeks.
(As to me feeling hurt from thumbs downs, I just deal with it, be butt-hurt, and then think that I’m going to remember that User and get them back one day!! But then forget all about it later 😂)
I think the "wow" could be taken in a lot of different directions. It also seems very dated to me, idk why.
Yup. 🤣
It’s just too bad Android has a lot more good to say about their phones than what Apple puts out these days. Apples getting left in the dust… 🤣🤣🤣
I agree. Come to the PowerPC and Early Intel forums. We have cookies. And punch. And pie. And cake. And the blood of our enemies.
Well, you also can’t have a meaningful discussion or debate if everything is just a matter of one-upping the other person and you have no intention of listening. A debate is more than just “here’s why you’re wrong”, it’s also a matter of refining your own positions and addressing challenges to those positions. Too often people meet challenges to their ideas with “you’re not allowing me to have an option!” or accusations of being silenced. A debate isn’t just about expression and shouting from the rooftops, it’s also a matter of engaging with what the other person is saying, and that means not getting on the defensive instantly and seeing it as a contest. You being challenged should be an invitation to expound on your point more and not feel that your freedom of speech is being violated and that you’re being targeted because you’re being disagreed with. But everything is so competitive and confrontational that it’s hard to get out of that mindset.
Maybe threads from news articles could do with a different format to the rest of the forum. I find that most issues are within these huge fast paced threads. Maybe an interface with more basic comments with simple up and down votes, automatically hiding posts with a lot of downvotes and highlighting popular posts. Also grouping/bundeling replies. I find that these formats on other sites can provide a good overview of popular opinions and responses at a glance.
In regular forums I think the Forum Rules provide good guidelines although they are a bit hard to find. I think that clearer instructions could be provided when starting a new thread, like where to find answers to common questions or how to properly describe a problem.
Otherwise I can only advise to simply stay away from news threads during WWDC 😉
In regular forums I think the Forum Rules provide good guidelines although they are a bit hard to find. I think that clearer instructions could be provided when starting a new thread, like where to find answers to common questions or how to properly describe a problem.
Otherwise I can only advise to simply stay away from news threads during WWDC 😉
NO, NO, NO!
We don't need more places where "mobs" can effectively eliminate thoughts and ideas via downvotes and boost others to the point where all you can see is what the mob wants you to see.