Comments disabled 🤔

[laptech]

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.

Owners and admins do not like to use the word 'censorship' because the word itself is too volatile and confrontational so to get around the problem a new word replaced it called 'rules'. It does not matter how people try to wrap it, it's censorship under the wording of 'rules'. for example, when used in the correct context, if someone does something that is idiotic, I or anyone else should be able to call out that person for being an idiot but we are censored from doing so because of 'rules'. Again when in the correct context, if a post slips slightly into the political, it should be allowed but again, people are censored from doing so because of 'rules'.

Yes rules are required to keep a forum running in an orderly fashion, to stop derogatory comments to one another or about others, to stop trolling and other bad behavior but to use 'rules' to prevent people from being able to partake in debates and discussions is censorship, pure and simple.

 

[VulchR]

Owners and admins do not like to use the word 'censorship' because the word itself is too volatile and confrontational so to get around the problem a new word replaced it called 'rules'. It does not matter how people try to wrap it, it's censorship under the wording of 'rules'. for example, when used in the correct context, if someone does something that is idiotic, I or anyone else should be able to call out that person for being an idiot but we are censored from doing so because of 'rules'. Again when in the correct context, if a post slips slightly into the political, it should be allowed but again, people are censored from doing so because of 'rules'.

Yes rules are required to keep a forum running in an orderly fashion, to stop derogatory comments to one another or about others, to stop trolling and other bad behavior but to use 'rules' to prevent people from being able to partake in debates and discussions is censorship, pure and simple.

I understand your viewpoint, but whether you call it rules or censorship, we all agree to the 'rules' when we access the site.

FWIW, I wish there was some sort of forum in MR to discuss political implications of Apple and related technology. For instance, both Signal and WhatsApp are threatening to pull out of the UK if the government breaks end-to-end encryption in the name of protecting children from abuse and exploitation (see BBC link). I have no idea whether MR would consider that fair game to discuss or not, but I wish I could learn of the opinions of the technically savvy people here in MR about this.

So, all we can do is to ask, respectfully, that the owners of the MR consider our request for a little more lattitude to discuss the intersection of technology and politics here in MR.

EDIT: LOL - MR is indeed hosting a thread about the UK situation with end-to-end encryption. See link.

 

[KaliYoni]

Personally, I come to MR to read about Apple and, as a bonus, talk about shared interests with other users. When I'm in the mood for debate or seeing people "calling out" other people, I go elsewhere. I think there are a lot of venues with Terms of Service and moderation policies that are better suited for adversarial interaction.

 

[I7guy]

Owners and admins do not like to use the word 'censorship' because the word itself is too volatile and confrontational so to get around the problem a new word replaced it called 'rules'. It does not matter how people try to wrap it, it's censorship under the wording of 'rules'. for example, when used in the correct context, if someone does something that is idiotic, I or anyone else should be able to call out that person for being an idiot but we are censored from doing so because of 'rules'. Again when in the correct context, if a post slips slightly into the political, it should be allowed but again, people are censored from doing so because of 'rules'.

Yes rules are required to keep a forum running in an orderly fashion, to stop derogatory comments to one another or about others, to stop trolling and other bad behavior but to use 'rules' to prevent people from being able to partake in debates and discussions is censorship, pure and simple.

The is some overlap between censorship and rules. Having said that your right to free speech is not abridged. There is no guarantee by decree or common sense that gives one the right to say anything, anywhere.

That’s not censorship that’s manners. For example you cannot come into my house with kids with a potty mouth. You’re not being censored you’re being asked to mind your manners and have common sense. Call them rules. Call them the same thing here. But don’t suggest you’re being censored.