Comments disabled 🤔

[I7guy]

Yes, you are correct. No matter how you slice it, its censorship - I posted the definition since people seem hung up on what is and isn't censorship. MacRumors is suppressing and prohibiting content they find unacceptable. They define specifics on various content and when that is violated the post is removed.

They also choose to suppress content that is not expressed in the rules
View attachment 2162974



Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's no rules being violated with the news story Apple's Communication Safety Feature for Children Expanding to 6 New Countries

Censorship is an ugly word, but the plain truth is that we do not have the right to say what we want when we want to say. Whatever one ultimately decides to call the inability to say virtually anything at any time, it is what it is.

As @icanhazmac noted it may be irritating to find an article of interest that you may want to comment in that has comments disabled, but the powers to be have made that decision for their own reasons. I don't believe this is censorship per se (in the traditional sense of objectional content even though I did use it above), but to each their own with a definition that fits that conveys their thoughts adequately. Like when we go visit the kids the rules are no potty mouth in front of the younger ones. Unlike MR, where this forum is for discussion of the site, I might think the no potty mouth rule is nonsense..but I go along with the program and don't object to Mommy or Daddy.

 

[tobefirst ⚽️]

So differing opinions are not welcome? Typical.

I'm rather sure the Site and Forum Feedback section is intended for suggestions/complaints as well as supportive posts or discussions regarding either.

Surely they are welcome. I just find it amazing. You'd do well to understand the difference.

And I'm glad we agree that suggestions and complaints are allowed in S&FF.

 

[Analog Kid]

I feel like it's more of censoring.

I don’t care what you do at home, you don’t fart among polite company. That’s not censorship, that’s manners.

 

[icanhazmac]

Surely they are welcome. I just find it amazing. You'd do well to understand the difference.

Oh I understand the difference, I was reacting to your tone, it doesn't seem to be very welcoming of opinions that challenge yours.

Equally amazing are those who spend their energy constantly defending an organization

I was not defending MR, I was challenging your comment below:

MacRumors cannot trust the audience it has nurtured to speak about certain topics.

The idea that MR actively "nurtures" a membership that then cause it to actively inhibit member interaction is absurd. Disabling comments minimizes interaction, reducing clicks, reducing ad views. Bad for business. My rebuttal in post #5 is what I feel is a far more likely reason for articles to have comments disabled. YMMV.

There is also a difference between those that use any opportunity to post in S&FF to incessantly complain about the same topics over and over and over again and those that reply to challenge those complaints.

 

[KaliYoni]

If I was in charge of setting moderation policy here, I would base rules and decisions on these principles:

• MR is a website focused on Apple, Apple products, and the Apple eco-system.
• MR's main purpose is not to be a debate site, a political news site, a conspiracy theory propagation or debunking site, or an activism site.
• Users who engage in on-topic respectful discussions in good faith should be moderated as little as possible.

Unfortunately, online discussions these days, regardless of venue, always attract some number of trolls, troublemakers, ideologues, and extremists. I consequently feel many of the comments and resulting responses that end up being removed are the result of statements not made in good faith.

This all leads me to think that given the lesser-of-two-evils choice of either disabling comments on certain subjects in anticipation of off-topic, toxic comments or having to make moderation decisions after people have been provoked and tempers have flared, MR's current policy is imperfect but acceptable.

----------
For anybody interested, here's a look at the psychology of why discussions over narrow issues often turn into fights over "free speech" or "religious liberty":
Kellogg Insight-Northwestern University

 

[laptech]

When you persistently see a banner at the top of the page asking to support MR by paying $50 a year for a better forum experience I expect to have more freedoms and more latitude in my speech but when articles are blocked from allowing comments to be made or posts removed because the subject matter is too sensitive then we are being 'censored' or as MR likes to call it 'Forum rules' I refuse to pay such a fee. Rules are there for a reason and I understand that but when those rules curtail my freedoms in what I can discuss then no, I will not pay to be censored.

If MR want people to have a better forum experience then invest in better moderation, ban the trolls and the trouble makers and give members more freedom and latitude to have their say on things. Persistently saying 'it will be too much work for the moderators' is not the way to go, it just shows how unprofessional a forum is run.

 

[maflynn]

Please see post #15, rules don't need to be broken

Your comment only offers your opinion, not the stance or edict of the staff, so self referencing doesn't further the conversation. It just reiterates your opinion. The Registration agreement talks plainly about wanting people to join to have the ability to add content. Its the very reason why MacRumors exists.

but the powers to be have made that decision for their own reasons. I don't believe this is censorship per se

I'm going to be pedantic here. When the suppression of ideas, thoughts and words occur, that is censorship. I'm not saying MR is wrong when a post contains content that violates their rules. The issue is the arbitrary nature of letting some topics be open for discussion and others that are not. There are no posted guidelines, and policies AFAIK, its up to the whims and feelings of the editor. I'm not casting dispersions to the editors, they do a great job at producing content, but inconsistently closing some news stories is problematic.

If staffing is the issue, why not address that?

I don’t care what you do at home, you don’t fart among polite company

I think your point is muddying the waters. The OP is complaining about the lack of ability to convey his opinion. We're not talking about people posting and misbehaving.

 

[Madhatter32]

When you persistently see a banner at the top of the page asking to support MR by paying $50 a year for a better forum experience I expect to have more freedoms and more latitude in my speech but when articles are blocked from allowing comments to be made or posts removed because the subject matter is too sensitive then we are being 'censored' or as MR likes to call it 'Forum rules' I refuse to pay such a fee. Rules are there for a reason and I understand that but when those rules curtail my freedoms in what I can discuss then no, I will not pay to be censored.

If MR want people to have a better forum experience then invest in better moderation, ban the trolls and the trouble makers and give members more freedom and latitude to have their say on things. Persistently saying 'it will be too much work for the moderators' is not the way to go, it just shows how unprofessional a forum is run.

I find this post to be humorous. In a nutshell: no money for MR from a person who eats up the content on offer to the tune of over 2,000 posts and even enjoys bickering about minutiae like forum rules and moderation. See the irony? As to the substance, it's been tried but many of the people here (or have left) are either too politically radicalized and/or are in want of basic manners for civil discussion.

 

[MajorFubar]

When you persistently see a banner at the top of the page asking to support MR by paying $50 a year for a better forum experience I expect to have more freedoms and more latitude in my speech but when articles are blocked from allowing comments to be made or posts removed because the subject matter is too sensitive then we are being 'censored' or as MR likes to call it 'Forum rules' I refuse to pay such a fee. Rules are there for a reason and I understand that but when those rules curtail my freedoms in what I can discuss then no, I will not pay to be censored.

If MR want people to have a better forum experience then invest in better moderation, ban the trolls and the trouble makers and give members more freedom and latitude to have their say on things. Persistently saying 'it will be too much work for the moderators' is not the way to go, it just shows how unprofessional a forum is run.

Maybe not enough people are paying the $50

 

[JayAgostino]

If I was in charge of setting moderation policy here, I would base rules and decisions on these principles:

• MR is a website focused on Apple, Apple products, and the Apple eco-system.
• MR's main purpose is not to be a debate site, a political news site, a conspiracy theory propagation or debunking site, or an activism site.
• Users who engage in on-topic respectful discussions in good faith should be moderated as little as possible.

Unfortunately, online discussions these days, regardless of venue, always attract some number of trolls, troublemakers, ideologues, and extremists. I consequently feel many of the comments and resulting responses that end up being removed are the result of statements not made in good faith.

This all leads me to think that given the lesser-of-two-evils choice of either disabling comments on certain subjects in anticipation of off-topic, toxic comments or having to make moderation decisions after people have been provoked and tempers have flared, MR's current policy is imperfect but acceptable.

----------
For anybody interested, here's a look at the psychology of why discussions over narrow issues often turn into fights over "free speech" or "religious liberty":
Kellogg Insight-Northwestern University

Judging from the likes on your reply, it’s an “us versus them” situation, which is rather disappointing. We can’t seem to have a productive discussion about this.

Maybe not enough people are paying the $50

Honestly, I wonder if it’s more of an issue with the owner no longer caring. If that’s the case, this place should be sold to a company with the resources to properly moderate it.

Also, why do articles like these ones need to have their comments disabled? That’s just sad…

How to Set Up and Use the Built-in 2FA Code Generator in iOS

With online account hacking becoming increasingly widespread, all users should make sure they're taking every security measure available to them....

www.macrumors.com

Will Apple Finally Launch an Even Bigger iPad This Year?

A 14.1-inch iPad was previously rumored to launch in in early 2023, but the latest reports suggest such a device is no longer in the works. While...

www.macrumors.com

 

[Analog Kid]

I think your point is muddying the waters. The OP is complaining about the lack of ability to convey his opinion. We're not talking about people posting and misbehaving.

Sure we are. And my point is that we form social groups that restrict behaviors all the time-- it's not a matter of free expression it's a matter of maintaining a pleasant and inviting environment.

Why are comments disabled? Because certain topics trigger a deluge of boorish behavior. That should be obvious on the face of it. Invoking the term "censorship" is an attempt to frame this as an ethical argument. It's not censorship in the way I believe the word censorship is being used here, it's the management of a social group through mores and enforcing those mores in the least disruptive way. My point was that society, and these forums, limit certain behaviors because they are inappropriate for the context and those around us don't have an obligation to accept our inappropriate behavior just because we want to frame it as some form of righteous freedom.

Yes, MR is a business. As such, they make business decisions. Their business depends on maximizing viewership. When the vocal and demonstrative behavior of a small few make the environment unpleasant for a large number of potential visitors, MR has the right (perhaps responsibility) to create a more pleasant environment however they choose. If that means closing the doors to the flatulent horde rather than hiring a squad of enforcers to physically remove miscreants after they've caused offense, because MR feels the latter approach does more damage all around, then so be it.

I had just tried to express all this in fewer words.

 

[laptech]

Sure we are. And my point is that we form social groups that restrict behaviors all the time-- it's not a matter of free expression it's a matter of maintaining a pleasant an inviting environment.

Why are comments disabled? Because certain topics trigger a deluge of boorish behavior. That should be obvious on the face of it. Invoking the term "censorship" in an attempt to frame this as an ethical argument. It's not censorship in the way I believe the word censorship is being invoked here, it's the management of a social group through mores and enforcing those mores in the least disruptive way. My point was that society, and these forums, limit certain behaviors because they are inappropriate for the context and those around us don't have an obligation to accept our inappropriate behavior just because we want to frame it as some form of righteous freedom.

Yes, MR is a business. As such, they make business decisions. Their business depends on maximizing viewership. When the vocal and demonstrative behavior of a small few make the environment unpleasant for a large number of potential visitors, MR has the right (perhaps responsibility) to create a more pleasant environment however they choose. If that means closing the doors to the flatulent horde rather than hiring a squad of enforcers to physically remove miscreants after they've caused offense because MR feels the latter approach does more damage all around then so be it.

I had just tried to express all this in fewer words.

The thing is, there are people in this world who are able to have sensible, informative, thought provoking, deep meaning constructive debates without the need to insult, name call, belittle, condescending, rude, swearing on any topic manageable. the problem is as with the majority of things in life now, it's being viewed as a business to make the owner money rather than it's original intention of allowing people from all walks of life and across all corners of the world to converse on topics they all have the same interests in. This is how discussion forums came about when the internet took off. The owners did not create them so they could make money, they created them so people all over the world could meet in one place and discuss/debate on relatable topics. As the years have gone one the original purpose of discussion forums have been lost and now it's all about making money. Reddit and Youtube are classic examples. Designed to allow people to discuss and video on a wide range of topics but now reddit is awash of people using the platform to advertise themselves, their business or others and same with Youtube, people create accounts for the sole purpose of making money due to advertising and paid subscriptions.

There will always be trolls and miscreants in this world who's sole intention is to cause trouble and it is up to forum owners to make sure these people are removed and banned from forums. It should never be the case that debates are curtailed because site owners can not be bothered to properly invest in better forum management because it will cost to much.

People are too scared to allow open and honest debates on many things and MR is no different. Comments sections disabled, topics of discussion shutdown, threads closed, posts removed all because it would create to much work for the moderation team.

 

[Analog Kid]

The thing is, there are people in this world who are able to have sensible, informative, thought provoking, deep meaning constructive debates without the need to insult, name call, belittle, condescending, rude, swearing on any topic manageable. the problem is as with the majority of things in life now, it's being viewed as a business to make the owner money rather than it's original intention of allowing people from all walks of life and across all corners of the world to converse on topics they all have the same interests in. This is how discussion forums came about when the internet took off. The owners did not create them so they could make money, they created them so people all over the world could meet in one place and discuss/debate on relatable topics. As the years have gone one the original purpose of discussion forums have been lost and now it's all about making money. Reddit and Youtube are classic examples. Designed to allow people to discuss and video on a wide range of topics but now reddit is awash of people using the platform to advertise themselves, their business or others and same with Youtube, people create accounts for the sole purpose of making money due to advertising and paid subscriptions.

There will always be trolls and miscreants in this world who's sole intention is to cause trouble and it is up to forum owners to make sure these people are removed and banned from forums. It should never be the case that debates are curtailed because site owners can not be bothered to properly invest in better forum management because it will cost to much.

People are too scared to allow open and honest debates on many things and MR is no different. Comments sections disabled, topics of discussion shutdown, threads closed, posts removed all because it would create to much work for the moderation team.

I'm sorry you feel you don't have enough places to espouse your views, but many enjoy a place where they don't have to listen to anyone's views on those topics and can discuss an interest that they may share with you and others without needing to get into all that.

You can debate whether this is a business or a public service or a business providing a public service. My point is that, which ever of those you choose to frame this site as, the vast majority of people are here to discuss Apple, its products and technology in general-- those are the actual topics that we "all have the same interests in"-- and they are not here to have to listen to someone else's political opinions grafted onto whatever conversation they're trying to have.

MR has a choice-- they can let it go on and MR can become just another site for anonymous accounts to spout their political beliefs and debatable science driving out the people who want to have a place to come outside of that noise to discuss something relatively narrow, or they can work to sculpt the community to make the majority more happy to be here.

You can look at it as being more profitable, or you can look at it as providing a better service to a larger cross section of their target community, but either way they have a right (perhaps responsibility) to control how their service is used.

 

[Apple_Robert]

Yes, article 10 protects free speech but the definition censorship is usually associated with words or pictures deemed offensive although everybody may have their own unique definition.

And to me MR does censor according to the definition above but they do have rules.

When one walks into someone’s house rules are usually in effect. Take the shoes off, no running etc. No different here in MR we are in someone’s house and we have to abide by their rules. And while we all know that and it doesn’t need to be said nobody who is criticizing and wanting change in moderation is offering to pay the bills.

It’s a great attribute of the site that comments, critiques and even harsh comments are allowed and responded to.

I think many here seem to forget that this place is Arn's business. This site has a big following and reputation which has taken years to achieve. The site is worth millions of dollars. As such, Arn has the right to protect his income and standing with rules that some here don't like. As you said, when you are in another person's house, respect the rules or get out.

 

[ixxx69]

Perhaps the structure and organization of the staff is inadequate and instead of shutting down threads, they address the root cause?

If this happened in the business world, where a core functionality had to be curtailed, you can bet your bottom dollar that it would only happen once and then management would reorganize and restructure to ensure the teams could scale. MacRumors is being run like its a small site, and using that excuse year in and year out without doing anything seems disingenuous

My first thought was your account had been jacked. My second thought was this reminds me of the politician that toes the political line until they're out of office, and then they finally say what they should have said when they were in office. I probably still disagree with you on most things, we probably even disagree about what you think should be allowed for discussion that currently is not, but it was refreshing to read this none the less. Thumbs up.

You can invite the editors to discuss their choices here in this forum section, but to call it censorship is incorrect. Censorship has to do with a government's ability to interfere with the expression of its citizens. It doesn't apply to a private online site, and this is a private site.

As has been pointed out numerous times to you over many threads, you're completely wrong, this is a lazy argument, but you still insist on being wrong, and it's as though you get pleasure in antagonizing anyone who you disagree with, with the security that you're an admin. The only time you should pull this card from the deck is if someone is trying to make a legal argument.

FTR, as far as MR is concerned, I am absolutely for "censorship" when it comes to the toxic nature of some discussion topics, regardless of how many mods Macrumors has at its disposal (and it's comical how few they have for a site of this size). The site has absolutely improved since they got rid of the political discussion forum (I've already forgotten the name of that toxic dumpster fire) and disabled commenting on troublesome topics that simply invited trolling interlopers. The longer it went on, the more I suspected the worst about the site owners political motivations.

 

[annk]

This thread started out with a post that included the sentence "I feel like it's more of censoring." For me, I think the real problem is that claiming censorship obscures what is really being said. It's a form of deflection, though perhaps not intentional.

There's an important nuance lost when the word censored is used to describe having posts edited or deleted when they don't adhere to the rules that users agree to when they register. Claiming censorship can have the effect of insinuating that something nefarious is going on.

If you were told "MacRumors censors posts that don't adhere to their rules" and "MacRumors moderates posts that don't adhere to their rules" - - do those sentences give you two different vibes? They do for me.

It's fine not to agree with the rules or how they're enforced. Both of these are legitimate things to discuss. Users are not shut down for disagreeing, as long as they post about their disagreement in the framework of the rules they accepted when they registered. That for me is the opposite of a system that employs censorship in the way I believe the word is being used in this discussion.

 

[icanhazmac]

…

I think the message should be interpreted as "debate in good faith, while following the rules of conduct, or get suspended". I've stepped over the line a few times and received a vacation, while I didn't agree with them all, in the end it is their site, their rules.

 

[Analog Kid]

As has been pointed out numerous times to you over many threads, you're completely wrong, this is a lazy argument, but you still insist on being wrong, and it's as though you get pleasure in antagonizing anyone who you disagree with, with the security that you're an admin. The only time you should pull this card from the deck is if someone is trying to make a legal argument.

I think the "dictionary definition" of censorship is being used to disguise the meaning it is meant to carry. There is no point using the dictionary to pedantically defend the use of a word and then very unpedantically shift the nuance of that word to imply a different point.

Only @supremedesigner can clarify their intent, and they've been absent from this discussion since starting it, but when included in the phrase "I feel like it's more of censoring" it carries the context of that phrase. If the meaning was "I feel like MR is exercising their right to suppress objectionable material according to the forum rules", I don't see a point of even starting a thread about it. The question answered itself-- "Why are comments disabled? To suppress objectionable material according to the forum rules.".

I don't believe that dictionary definition is what "censorship" is meant to convey in that phrase. I believe, and read, that phrase to mean that it's an infringement of presumed rights.

"Freedom of speech" is a restriction governments impose on themselves to prevent the suppression of other rights among their citizenry. That is an important restriction on a body with a standing army and the power to tax and regulate the behavior of its citizens. More recently "free speech" and its antithesis, "censorship", have entered the zeitgeist as cudgels intended to leverage those high minded ideals into an implied right to say or do anything whenever and wherever one wants. In particular it's taken root in attacks on the tech industry for their efforts to control misinformation and those attacks generally take the form that there are no facts, only opinions, and everyone has the right to state their opinion.

The implication is made that if you think it's important enough to have in the US Constitution, isn't it important enough to protect everywhere. I don't think so, I think everyone shouting in a room stifles expression rather than support it, and gives excessive power to the loudest and least scrupulous voices in the room and that a tendency to bend every conversation back to a repetitious set of political or cultural talking points limits the breadth of conversations we can have.

Just as importantly, whatever one might wish, freedom of speech (or freedom from censorship) simply doesn't exist as a right outside of freedom from government action and is not absolute even in that context. Under the governance of MacRumors, our speech is restricted by the forum rules. There is no presumption of free speech here, and objectionable material will be suppressed or deleted. This allows us to more freely discuss topics of shared interest without regressions to political and cultural tribalism. It also means that since people who would otherwise hijack conversations to use as platforms for their personal gripes on other topics can't, I don't have to ignore them individually and I can hear their more relevant opinions on the topics we're actually here to discuss.

 

[I7guy]

Judging from the likes on your reply, it’s an “us versus them” situation, which is rather disappointing. We can’t seem to have a productive discussion about this.

You want a "productive" conversation and kumbaya, yet immediately split the debate into an "us vs them" when there is a different opinion. Which is it?

Honestly, I wonder if it’s more of an issue with the owner no longer caring. If that’s the case, this place should be sold to a company with the resources to properly moderate it.

On the face of it, this is a ridiculous comment.

Also, why do articles like these ones need to have their comments disabled? That’s just sad…

How to Set Up and Use the Built-in 2FA Code Generator in iOS

With online account hacking becoming increasingly widespread, all users should make sure they're taking every security measure available to them....

www.macrumors.com

Will Apple Finally Launch an Even Bigger iPad This Year?

A 14.1-inch iPad was previously rumored to launch in in early 2023, but the latest reports suggest such a device is no longer in the works. While...

www.macrumors.com

IMO, the above is a legitimate question.

 

[MBAir2010]

I just spent over 2 hours here replying, getting info on a MacBook 2015 and hopefully helping those in need.
and only 1 was removed of being "off topic"
not bad!

most of my post go south and get random, so I expect some watching over
but THIS IS THE LAST Internet forum were we have a freedom to joke,
provide help and encourage those to use a 2010 Macbook air in 2023.

so thanks moderators and the "powers that be" here!

 

[icanhazmac]

IMO, the above is a legitimate question.

The first of the two articles referenced is a "how to" and the majority of articles in this section do not have comments enabled. Why is a fair question but in the end a how to is rather straight forward and in theory shouldn't require much conversation.

The second article about the iPads seems to have never made the main page. Maybe that is why? Also, inside that article another is referenced (that had comments enabled) so perhaps this one was just an update to this previous article and they felt comments would be repetitive?

 

[MysticCow]

Is there a reason why some posts have comments disabled? I get it; some may have to do with politics but sometimes, it's disabled for no reason. I feel like it's more of censoring. For example, this post disabled the comments with no explaination. https://www.macrumors.com/2023/02/20/apple-communication-safety-new-countries/

In that particular case, you have…drumroll please…OH COME ON, I CAN’T KEEP THIS IP FOREVER….

CSAM, which is about the best forum explosion you’re going to see at MacRumors. So my best guess is the mods/admins dang well knew this will be a forum explosion and intentionally disabled comments. It’s a highly controversial issue here.

While I can’t agree with the decision (mine would be an explicit “This topic will be heavily moderated” tag), I can understand their logic.

 

[laptech]

In that particular case, you have…drumroll please…OH COME ON, I CAN’T KEEP THIS IP FOREVER….

CSAM, which is about the best forum explosion you’re going to see at MacRumors. So my best guess is the mods/admins dang well knew this will be a forum explosion and intentionally disabled comments. It’s a highly controversial issue here.

While I can’t agree with the decision (mine would be an explicit “This topic will be heavily moderated” tag), I can understand their logic.

To disable comments because moderators do not want a hard life is totally unacceptable. We've seen it said in here time and time again, such and such decision has been made to prevent too much work being put on the moderators. Again totally unacceptable and it gals me to think that the admins of this site think it's ok to keep on using that excuse.

 

[VulchR]

I've had my share of suspensions because my comments tend to be 'political' (not sure what isn't political these days). It's always a little surprising because I do not mean to cause offence, but this site has rules that we all agree to when we access the site. On the whole I'd say those rules are transparent and applied fairly (although I must admit I miss PRSI). This applies to whether MR invites users to comment on news articles. The site is not ours. We are just visitors. If you want to create an Apple news site that has more freedom to comment, there is nothing preventing you.

 

[usagora]

. . . but to call it censorship is incorrect. Censorship has to do with a government's ability to interfere with the expression of its citizens. It doesn't apply to a private online site, and this is a private site.

Sure it applies to private entities. Censorship is simply the suppression of speech, information, etc. That can be done by anyone, not just the government. However, it's only a Constitutional violation--in the US at least--if the government is doing the censorship, because it would violate the First Amendment (there are obviously exceptions, of course, such as inciting violence, child pornography, etc.). So it's not inaccurate for people to call it censorship on this forum, but it would be incorrect to call it a violation of free speech/the First Amendment, since that does not apply to private entities.

So many tend to view the word "censorship" negatively because they are thinking of government censorship only, or primarily. However, there is also positive censorship, such as protecting your children from obscene material online using filters or closing a forum thread to comments when people get out of hand and it causes too much work for the staff to moderate.