I was scrolling through a post and saw where someone's post was directly edited by a moderator. I had seen the previous version of the post, and the edit effectively changed the context of what the user was trying to convey. Considering this website is based in the US, seems like a violation/manipulation of free speech. It's one thing to just remove the offending post, but to edit it and change what a user is trying to say is morally incorrect.
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.
Why can moderators edit the content of others' posts?
- Thread starter WingsAndBeer
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The US' First Amendment protects a citizens right to free speech from government interference.
This is a privately owned and run website where the US Constitution does not apply.
The reason a moderator edited a post was because something in there violated the established forum rules in one way or another.
Libel laws absolutely would apply and, if OP is not misrepresenting the situation, then editing posts is a dangerous game. Remove them if they violate the established forum rules...
Editing another user's post should be limited to removing quoted content... anything else feels like overstepping.
I’ve had posts edited. I tend to agree that if there’s a problem with a particular post the entire thing should be removed, not just a portion deemed to have violated the rules.
Thanks, that is correct.
Posts can be edited to remove a phrase or section which is violating the forum rules or they may be edited because they are responding to another post which has since been deleted or edited.
When a new member signs up, they must agree to the terms of the MacRumors Registration Agreement. This clearly states that posts may be edited.
There is never any intention to misrepresent or change the meaning of what the member has posted but if you believe this has happened to a post because of a moderators edit, please use the Contact Form to bring it to our attention.
Last edited:
I have seen my posts and the posts of others edited for rules violations, but I have personally never seen one edited to alter content.
For example, if I post something that violates the rules, and then you quote my post, both posts typically are edited to remove the offending content - mine because of the rule violation, and yours because it's a quote of my post containing the violation of the rules.
The only other time I've seen anything like this is when an edited/removed post causes confusion to the rest of the thread (which is to say, that it removes all context).
For example, if I post something that violates the rules, and then you quote my post, both posts typically are edited to remove the offending content - mine because of the rule violation, and yours because it's a quote of my post containing the violation of the rules.
The only other time I've seen anything like this is when an edited/removed post causes confusion to the rest of the thread (which is to say, that it removes all context).
So delete the whole post if the only offending thing is them circumventing the word filter?
If you were posting that in reference to the possibility of a libellous edit... I'm not sure that the reason/intent behind doing something and the result of doing something are necessarily one and the same.
Or better yet, tell the poster they have x amount of time to fix it.
Surely if I come to a place that is owned, paid for and run by someone else, then I have to abide by their rules.
This is especially true if I've also signed up to those terms. If I ran a website with so many active threads / opinions, then I'd want to be the one in control. I'm pretty sure it ain't an easy task!
I'm member of a local sports orientated club, and I have no expectation that I get to set the rules there. I pay my subs, get the support and training from it and I abide by the rules. Why should it be any different for MacRumors?
No-one is forcing me to come here.
This is especially true if I've also signed up to those terms. If I ran a website with so many active threads / opinions, then I'd want to be the one in control. I'm pretty sure it ain't an easy task!
I'm member of a local sports orientated club, and I have no expectation that I get to set the rules there. I pay my subs, get the support and training from it and I abide by the rules. Why should it be any different for MacRumors?
No-one is forcing me to come here.
If US law applies to this forum, there is probably little need for the moderators to worry. There is not much, if any, content in this forum that could be reasonable interpreted as libelous.
I edited the post shortly afterwards to add this. We do fix mistakes if you get in touch.
And how would that work out from the moderator workflow perspective. Would be much easier if posters just read the user agreements and adhered to them.
As I’ve discussed in a couple other threads, they’d lighten the workload significantly if they relaxed their unrealistic rules.
And turn MacRumors into another Reddit. No thanks.
I'm not suggesting a total free-for-all, but maybe somewhere between the Wild West and Tea Time. I am telling you from experience that people get banned for pretty minor stuff. Here you have a site where it's against rules to troll, but it's against rules to call someone a troll even if they are trolling. Where sarcasm is treated as an insult. Where calling someone "simple" can lead to a ban.
It's been my experience, posters get banned due to rules infractions. And if you know what you are about to post is a rules infraction, why post it?
Calling another poster "simple" is an insult, out and out. Why should it not get moderated?
So calling them "simple" is an insult, but if I were to say "your argument is plain, basic, or uncomplicated in form, nature, or design; without much decoration or ornamentation" that would be okay? Call me old fashioned, and forgive me for sticking to this one example, but I'd prefer to have a discussion in a place where calling someone simple (gasp) doesn't get a second thought. That's just me, I don't expect you to agree.
In one case you would be calling someone something in another case you would be commenting on something that they said with some detail and without the use of crude language that says something about the poster. There's a difference.
"Crude language"? Well anyway, this is kinda my point with PRSI. Maybe in the end they will get their wish: the world's first online forum dedicated to politics where no one gets their feelings hurt.
That is the point, and whether you agree those are the rules. Commenting on the post (not the poster), within the rules, is always the right way to go. Dismissing a post, as in “that’s a simplistic way to view it, doesn’t further a conversation as much as saying the same thing with your reasoning and/or opinion or facts.
A moderator edited a forum o post. Even if the overall context of said post was changed to convey a possible meaning the OP had not intended, such action by the moderator does not constitute libelous action under U.S. law.
There's never an intention to edit in such a way that the meaning is changed. The only reason to edit is to remove the bit that breaks a rule, but let as much as possible of the post remain, given that the remaining bit doesn't break any rules.
Sometimes it's only a small part of the post that needs to go, so we try to interfere with the discussion as little as possible and therefore leave the rest of the post.
As has already been said, let us know via the contact form if you feel an edit for moderation purposes has changed the meaning, and we'll fix it.
As to the rules and whether or not they are too strict - that's why we have users read and accept the rules as part of the registration process. We've chosen to stay on the strict side here, and this won't be right for everyone. Some users might well decide they want to be on a site with more lenient rules, and they can then abort the registration process and find a site that fits their posting style.
It's fine to comment on and debate post content, but not allowed to make negative comments about other users. That's not going to change.
Sometimes it's only a small part of the post that needs to go, so we try to interfere with the discussion as little as possible and therefore leave the rest of the post.
As has already been said, let us know via the contact form if you feel an edit for moderation purposes has changed the meaning, and we'll fix it.
As to the rules and whether or not they are too strict - that's why we have users read and accept the rules as part of the registration process. We've chosen to stay on the strict side here, and this won't be right for everyone. Some users might well decide they want to be on a site with more lenient rules, and they can then abort the registration process and find a site that fits their posting style.
It's fine to comment on and debate post content, but not allowed to make negative comments about other users. That's not going to change.