Those days are even today, just in the past moderation tended to be more US based which means lapses in moderation times.
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.
Experiment: Don't Moderate the Forums
- Thread starter robd003
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
We were a bit busy, with hundreds of new posts every few minutes. Sadly, I was a bit harsh at times. Growing up in a military family does that.
OP, can I ask what in particular made you think about this suggestion? Are there conversations you'd like to have on MacRumors in particular that you cannot have? Not trying to trip you up I'm just genuinely interested in examples because I can't think of many subjects related to Apple and tech in general that we're not allowed to have. The closest thing I can think of is some threads related to big tech get locked.
No matter what there's no winning. Zero moderation = trolls and bullies win. Over moderation = discrimination against certain ideas and opinions. I think big public general forums like Twitter where an absurd amount of people congregate should be as free from moderation as possible but focused forums like MacRumors need to ensure people not only stay on topic but do so without the typical condescension and attempts to 'dunk' on people for likes (see Twitter and MR to some extent).
People are mentioning 4chan but I doubt the OP means zero moderation like that. To me zero moderation on MR means any discussion can be had so long as it doesn't descend into absurd direct personal attacks and vicious language; everything from discussions about AirTag battery life to the sort of transgender 'debates' on PRSI (which I suspect were a major contributing factor to removing that sub-forum). I do like seeing all manner of discussion and arguments which is why I lurked PRSI in the first place but I don't think many of those conversations were necessary, only nice to haves.
My concern after the PRSI deletion and subsequent rule change was I feared the discussion of politics as it relates to tech (censorship, privacy law, etc.) would be outlawed but so far it seems most of the discussions around those subjects are allowed (again, so long as they don't descend into fighting). I don't think it's reasonable to run a technology forum whilst banning any and all political discussion as the two subjects are inherently intertwined so I'm glad MR mods allow a great deal of leniency there.
Overall MR are pretty light on censorship outside of punishing people that take no care in being polite in addition to removing conversation that has zero relation to the tech field or news topic. If you're trying to make a point in good faith your post will usually stay up.
No matter what there's no winning. Zero moderation = trolls and bullies win. Over moderation = discrimination against certain ideas and opinions. I think big public general forums like Twitter where an absurd amount of people congregate should be as free from moderation as possible but focused forums like MacRumors need to ensure people not only stay on topic but do so without the typical condescension and attempts to 'dunk' on people for likes (see Twitter and MR to some extent).
People are mentioning 4chan but I doubt the OP means zero moderation like that. To me zero moderation on MR means any discussion can be had so long as it doesn't descend into absurd direct personal attacks and vicious language; everything from discussions about AirTag battery life to the sort of transgender 'debates' on PRSI (which I suspect were a major contributing factor to removing that sub-forum). I do like seeing all manner of discussion and arguments which is why I lurked PRSI in the first place but I don't think many of those conversations were necessary, only nice to haves.
My concern after the PRSI deletion and subsequent rule change was I feared the discussion of politics as it relates to tech (censorship, privacy law, etc.) would be outlawed but so far it seems most of the discussions around those subjects are allowed (again, so long as they don't descend into fighting). I don't think it's reasonable to run a technology forum whilst banning any and all political discussion as the two subjects are inherently intertwined so I'm glad MR mods allow a great deal of leniency there.
Overall MR are pretty light on censorship outside of punishing people that take no care in being polite in addition to removing conversation that has zero relation to the tech field or news topic. If you're trying to make a point in good faith your post will usually stay up.
That's very evident in MR moderation. One will, one resolve, one cause.
![1076836f96c9cb8320880eb25e0a03c3.gif]()
Can you give an example?
Is the fact that said “free speech” example would be filtered by the moderators before you had a chance to read it really that hard for you to understand? We can’t talk here about what is actually being censored because of the censoring.
Last edited:
You really think you can’t even give a subject as example?
Otherwise there is a clear difference between »censorship« and »regulation«.
You're confusing free speech (having to do with limitations on the government's ability to interfere with citizens' expression) with a private forum where users agree to rules before completing the registration process.
When users agree to rules in order to make use of a service/platform, having their comments moderated when those comments aren't in line the rules is not the same as censorship.
This is such an incredibly bad idea that I noticed it in the "recent comments" part of the sidebar while scrolling down looking for a summary of today's Apple event, tried to create a new account to say it's a bad idea, was told I already had an account, and reset my password just so I could say what a terrible idea this is.
I‘ve been penalized a few times, but usually with everyone else en masse by weaselboy for engaging & calling some aggressive ass out on their stupid or hateful bs. Pretty reasonable action when cleaning up a thread after everyone has made their points. Otherwise, I can’t think of anything that’s really banned other than just needlessly trashy profanity, pooflinging & hate.
What is it specifically you feel so compelled to say here that you’re being prevented from saying, and are you sure it’s really appropriate here?
What is it specifically you feel so compelled to say here that you’re being prevented from saying, and are you sure it’s really appropriate here?
There is no free speech in a private enterprise. The whole 1st Amendment only applies to government interference.
This site is a private entity and is legally entitled to allow or disallow specific topics as the owner(s) see fit. You aren’t entitled to make a fuzz as you willingly agreed to the clearly stated terms when creating an account to post here.
So there goes your whole “free speech” argument.
To be fair, I think that is why people are using the quotation marks -- as in "free speech" versus free speech. I assume that all people here know that MacRumors is not operated by the federal government or any state for that matter. I think the argument is a "should be" allowed rather then "must be" allowed. On the substance though, I agree. Unmoderated speech is not a virtue on the internet. The problem is when such moderated speech is unfairly enforced, which does not seem like a problem here.
I have yet to see an example of biased moderation.
Agreed. That's exactly my point. It does not seem to be an issue here at MacRumors.
Because if I told you, I’d spend another week in time-out.
These requests are never made in good faith. It is correct that the moderation team is promptly rejecting this.
Back when we had the PRSI forum, it was quite common that a left leaning member complain and accuse the moderation staff of excessively moderating liberal content while letting right leaning members post (what they consider) offensive conservative material.
Likewise and often at the same time, the administrators would get complains from right leaning members complaining and accuse the moderation staff of excessively moderating conservative content while letting left leaning members post (what they consider) offensive liberal material.
I will say as a former moderator, I tried to apply the rules dispassionately and give the members the benefit of the doubt. Did I make mistakes? Sure, I'm human, and I'd be lying to say every report I handled was done with perfection. The moderators work as a team, so that we cross check each other and ensure that we do all that we can, to apply the rules consistently as possible. Additionally the administrators review our actions, and oversee that we're working within the established policies and procedures.
That just means people don't agree with your decision, but ultimately I fail to see anything outside the scope of the rules being applied.
Obviously, someone always cries foul.
I'd also like to mention that I experience the atmosphere backstage as being very accepting of being able to ask if we've made a mistake and have an open discussion about it. That's how I've experienced it since I became a mod in 2009 and an admin in 2011.
I think this is really important, because when a mistake is made, two things need to happen: the user needs to get an apology, and we need to learn from the mistake so things are better for everyone going forward. And this atmosphere is also one of the reasons I have hung around so long
Like maflynn wrote, we're human. We need to be able to discuss freely in order to keep moderation as fair and consistent as is humanly possible on such a huge site. Some users will always be dissatisfied, but if we changed what we do and how we do it to match the expectations of every user who disagreed with us, it would be a mess.
That said, I'm certainly not trying to dismiss the experience of dissatisfied users. MR won't be a good fit for everyone, I get that. It's certainly not necessarily a reflection on those users. People want different things from moderation.
Yep. SO many people don't understand that "free speech" has nothing to do with private organizations, etc. I also find that many people don't understand that your employer can fire you for things you do or say off the clock (depends on the precise nature of what was done or said, of course), at least in the US.
I appreciate that there are Moderators. I have been insulted a lot on the forum personally and I do my best not to respond in kind. I don't understand why people feel the need to try and throw an insult on a debate about a difference of opinion on a Mac or iPad.
But a lot of people do. And to be honest after a while of personal attacks for a different opinion it gets really tiring. Why can't I have my opinion and you have yours? Both of us can be right even if we disagree but it seems that people just want to trash you and shut you down instead of have a conversation based on the merits.
I would hate to know what this forum would be like with no moderation based on what I have experienced with Moderation.
But a lot of people do. And to be honest after a while of personal attacks for a different opinion it gets really tiring. Why can't I have my opinion and you have yours? Both of us can be right even if we disagree but it seems that people just want to trash you and shut you down instead of have a conversation based on the merits.
I would hate to know what this forum would be like with no moderation based on what I have experienced with Moderation.
That’s annoying, it would be such a boring forum if everyone had the exact same opinions.