Suspicion of censorship

Hi João,

You wrote:

A couple of hours later I got a moderation E-mail stating that the thread had been deleted because the post had been made by an AI agent so I brushed off my thoughts, but after the event that I reported on the original post to this thread, in which yet another thread whose content could be problematic to another company's interests, disappeared without any explanation whatsoever, I began to wonder whether my thoughts regarding the AI usage thread could possibly have some merit, and the explanations provided here have actually failed to shake off that feeling.

From reading this and other posts in this thread, it is clear that you have some concerns; however, I cannot meaningfully address vague or speculative claims. If you have a specific question that you would like addressed, please state it directly.

Thanks,

Michael

Hi João,

There is no corporate influence over our moderation decisions at AppleVis.

To answer some of your points,

In an earlier comment to this thread right after yours that I made titled Hard sell I think that I was perfectly clear that I did not buy your explanation as well as the reasons why, and to my knowledge none of what I said there was addressed afterwards.

• I took your reply as a statement of your opinion about the explanation I had offered--not a desire for further dialog.

One of the things that I said there was that by the time I posted my last comment to that thread, which I couldn't tell at that point because the thread was still hidden but have since confirmed to be December 6 after the thread was restored, the bickering on that thread was already ongoing, so the urgency that motivated nuking the thread 6 days later was not justified.

• We had been watching that thread for days, hoping the people involved would self-moderate and resolve the conflict. The last comment (before the thread was temporarily unpublished) escalated the conflict further, and it was at that point that we concluded we needed to step in.

Couple that with the removal of the AI usage thread right after I posted a comment demonstrating that running large models locally is perfectly feasible,

• As communicated in my email of August 20, 2025, the thread in question was originated by an account that we believe was tied to an AI company outside of the United States. Their email address also matched in the database for the commercial antispam service we utilize.

and adding to that the fact that no moderation action was taken made when I tackled disinformation regarding the accessibility of Parallels and got personally attacked,

• The Parallels discussions were something we also watched closely. We read every comment, and while the debate was very passionate and people were vehemently challenging each others' viewpoints, when taken in context, we did not feel the posts rose to a level requiring moderator intervention. If you disagree with our assessment and would like us to conduct a full review of those threads, we can definitely do so.

while on the other hand a comment that I made containing a pretty inoffensive innuendo was quickly removed,

• The innuendo in question was removed due to it being sexual in nature and potentially offensive to women in our community. The posting of sexually offensive content is prohibited in our Forum Guidelines.

the possibility of this site being moderated with corporate interests in mind could not and still can not be ruled out without transparency.

• While I recognize you may still disagree, I can state unequivocally that AppleVis is not, and will never be, moderated with corporate interests in mind.

Thank you, as always, for your feedback.

Michael

If you use it, you lost already. Expressing feelings and thoughts work better if you just give the facts or your views without having to do so. Know some express themselves by using bad language, but when doing it here control yourself and your point be respected. Also for those who attack they also lost the point. If some cry about and tell Michael how bad they feel because they do not agree, do not read it. If you need someone who suppose to protect you, you might not read it. Saying this, keep warm all, it is cold and freezing in Chicago. Long live cats.

Michael,
You've mentioned a couple of times posts being removed because they could be seen as offensive to the LGBTQIA+ community in some way. At the risk of diving too deep into the topic, does AppleVis actually have any moderators from that community who could offer additional context and help determine if a post could actually be offensive to that community, or is the team just trying to use what they know about said communities from the outside in order to make that determination? If it is the latter case, I would strongly recommend making an attempt to diversify the team. With someone on the inside, and keeping in mind the intent vs surface value aspect of posts, I think moderation could be significantly improved where it comes to worries about other cultures, and how a post might impact them.
The way I see it, it's kind of like how other people worry about us as a group and censor themselves as a result because they're worried about, for example, using the word "see" in every day conversations. Something that they see as being potentially offensive to us, but in reality is not.

This website has been great. And they’ve done a lot for the “blind community” in terms of accessibility and bringing notice to various bugs. They aren’t the issue. Ultimately, the people that come on this website, and spew negativity are. The ones that don’t bother to learn how to use devices properly, and get upset when the most basic thing doesn’t work for them, are the problem. Even I have been a frustration. I’m not exactly the easiest person to get along with. And my opinions have not been the most sparkle sunshine Happy time.

We tend to lose sight of the point of this website. We talk about things that have nothing to do with anything, except our personal frustrations. We attack each other. We put others down. The first owner got sick of our behavior, and wanted to shut things down. And many started crying, and then started putting the website down. And then, many went on Reddit to do more of the same.

We got a second chance. And they’ve been trying to improve things, and provide us with worthwhile content. )It’s just more of the same negativity.

So… They’re trying to keep us focused on the point. Which is to talk about technology and accessibility. For us to be able to provide opinions and support without talking about things outside that.

There have been really wonderful people that have come on to this website. They’ve been thoughtful, insightful, and very engaging. There are a few that have stuck around. But the vast majority have been run off. And it’s because of our behavior. I don’t really believe in censorship. But I do understand why it occurs. Look at all the terrible things we’ve said just in the past week alone.

What you call negativity may not for some. Agree people need to have some control over behavior. Think before you type and send. This topic will never end, why? Humans. Long live cats.

Yes, See people can agree. Long live cats.

you have been specifically asked several times to stop being negative in regards to your comments on Apple accessibility. Moreover, you have been asked to stop with the Kat thing. And you have decided to continue. That is an example of the negativity. At this point, you’re not even doing it to be funny. You’re doing it to throw it back in peoples faces. Cats have nothing to do with Apple accessibility. And constantly ripping on anything people are trying to learn/do is not productive.

Thanks for proving my point. It is my experience and you are denying it that is happening to me. Just because I do not worship on the apple alter. Do use apple devices and will continue until something better come along. Before you say something, I had used iPhone since the first with voiceover. Thanks and keep warm. Long live cats. PS. In the future you do not care for my comments just do not read it. Simple and creates less issues.

In my experience, it is possible to describe negative experiences without actually taking a negative tone. It's all about how the experience is framed. I can say a thing happened that I think was bad, but I can relay it in a semi-factual or factual based manner without letting my feelings color the experience. Just like we can talk about Apple's missteps surrounding accessibility without framing the company itself as a horrible entity which is not deserving of our dollars. Let us not forget after all that voiceover, for all its flaws, does exist. To me at least that does count for something, because even if it may not be a priority now, that doesn't mean it won't be in the future, if we play our cards right.

. With all due respect to everyone here, I think this topic should be brought to a swift end. This benefits absolutely no one and if anyone has read my previous post on this topic, I would not want to come across this topic as afirst time user Please see page one of this thread at the bottom for a more complete explanation.

Having dealt with offensive and nonsensical reactions and personal attacks, comment removals and responses from the moderation several times over the past years since I joined AppleVis, exchanged multiple e-mails with Michael in particular, and gone through all the posts in this thread, I finally decided to write a reply that I hope will be treated with respect. So here's an endless loop where you're stuck when trying to question what counts as offensive content and what should be tolerated. Who draws the line? Who defines "diversity" vs. intolerable, offensive or otherwise inappropriate content? What should be deemed worthy of attention for someone to be considered from a different background or subject to discrimination? It doesn't necessarily have to be me, but I would definitely want a Muslim to be included in the moderation team in that case. I would define profanity, nudity or NSFK content differently than the vast majority of the members, and my definition, according to Islam, would include unveiled women showing off their physical appearance. I view them as modern slaves serving global corporations by selling their freedom in return for cosmetics and clothing that render them sexual toys to satisfy men's desires. I would never refer to Jesus Christ as "God", for several reasons, including the fact that asserting that God was his father would imply that God himself had a father just like any human, and the fact that the word "god" can take on different forms (male and female, singular and plural). I strictly disapprove of gambling, dating and flirting, the promotion and abuse of alcoholic/intoxicating/addictive drinks/substances/drugs/tobacco, homosexuality and so-called non-binary sexual orientations, and anything haram (forbidden in Islam). I do make a distinction between disapproving/denying/opposing something vs. removing it by force or without an explanation/excuse, and I do know how to do both at once, but I don't know who draws the line where. A whole thread where I posted my suggestion that could be called single-tap navigation in short, was removed due to offensive responses targetting me rather than contributing or providing constructive feedback. Similarly, I was bombarded with a volley of offensive responses to posts of my containing app entries addressing Muslims. The moderators were late to take necessary measures, but Michael did appreciate my concern and it is understandable that they're busy handling everything. Plus, they do that as volunteers so don't be so hard on them.

I think we've moved into an age where we've forgotten that words are optional, as is silence. We don't have to say anything at all... we don't have to swear to make a point. We don't have to be offensive to others to express our internal state of mind. There seems to be a pandemic of fear that 'my view' won't be heard, that I'll be forgotten if I don't speak up.

I get that this is an issue for us as disabled people where we've been told to advocate for ourselves again and again and, for the most part, this is exactly what we need to do. At the same time, learning to write something in an edit box, step away from the computer and come back to it again and reread, is one of the most useful practices I've picked up in the last few years. Most of the time I'll simply delete it. Most of the time I was just writing it to myself or, more accurately, clarifying my thoughts.

There is also this. How much does any of this actually matter? How important is it that we express ourselves again and again, and how much difference does it make in this echo chamber? Where does infighting actually get us? Do we ever change the mind of those we are in arguments with and, so what if we did? I imagine 99% of people on here have never and will never meet.

I think maintaining a level of high respect for one another, accepting that each of us has our own experiences, values, needs and wants, is a good thing. We can all learn. We can all adapt... That's all part of the game when one is disabled.

I see far more strength in those who can evolve a view than those who are bloody-minded and dig in. We never have all the information and, for that matter, the information is often a moving target.

I'd rather AV is over-moderated than under. If you want a real verbal punch-up, go elsewhere. Reddit springs to mind.

This site is incredibly valuable to me and I know I'm not alone. I don't pay anything to access it and the moderators generally seem to do a great job. I feel privileged to be able to use it and don't feel like I am entitled to it. More so after the site almost closed.

So whilst I think moderation should always be transparent I do not doubt for a second that the moderators are doing their best and without any hidden motives.

I have been warned a couple of times about language I have used, that did not appear to be to be remotely offensive or rude, but then who am I to judge these things anyway? Different people and different cultures think differently and I fully respect the opinions of the moderators.

I have seen a few comments on here that are borderline trolling (for example something along the lines of "You people in this thread are disgusting!" but my policy is that responding to that sort of thing is just feeding it, and that it is better to just move on.

On the whole I think the people on here are generally very positive and respectful, and those that aren't are in a very small minority. If the price for accessing this great site is that I sometimes need to bite my tongue and ignore certain people, then I still feel like I've got a pretty great deal here.

Hi all,

Whatever you think of me personally and AppleVis as an organization is what it is. Feel free to continue discussing this as long as you wish.

While open criticism of myself, AppleVis, and our policies is welcome here, I do feel it necessary to ask you to please keep the discussion specific to AppleVis and our platform. It is not necessary to list the people groups, lifestyles, and other specific things with which you disagree... To make any point you wish about our moderation philosophy.

Hi Enes,
First, I want to say that I respect your beliefs and your perspective as someone of the Muslim faith, even if I'm not. I understand the point you're trying to raise here about the diversity of different perspectives. At the same time, we do have to remember the kind of website Applevis is, what purpose it is meant to serve. In my own opinion, many of the things you raised as examples are non-issues here, because they fall out of the scope of Applevis. But racism, sexism, and phobias are very much a universal issue, which is why I do think it's important to try and represent different groups of people within, say, the LGBTQIA+, POC etc communities. I also understand that this may not be entirely realistic though.
In the generally inclusive age we live in now, I think one thing that gets lost is that inclusion doesn't end with people you don't like. So long as no one person of a group is harmed/victimized/attacked by another person/group, I believe we should stride to be inclusive of all backgrounds, belief systems, etc, or else that effort means nothing. As disabled people, I do think we are in a unique position to be able to offer that kind of inclusion ourselves, which is why I posed the possibility of expanding the moderation team. I think as a website, Applevis does have a great deal of power behind it, and hope that we can all continue to move forward as a community to spread the message of accessibility awareness to Apple and other companies.

Should I conclude that you don't view targeting certain religions like racial or sexual discrimination and care about me having been offended by certain members solely for posting Islamic app entries? If that's the case, sorry, but I have to point out that you falsify your claim yourself that you understand my concerns; you are not even aware of them. As for why I mentioned my concerns in the very first place, I was just hoping to be able to urge you to actually question your own concepts and definitions and acknowledge the presence of is a much larger world beyond the West, rather than just drawing attention to them (i.e., my concerns). Not everyone defines "freedom" or "inappropriate" content/behaviors in the same way, and not everyone means the same thing when using the word "offend" and its derivatives ( e.g., "offensive").

As I said, I support inclusion as a rule. As such, I think it is inappropriate for someone to be targeted based on a protected characteristic, including religion. The only reason I didn't mention that characteristic specifically is because Applevis is a technology focused website, not one focused on cultural issues. As such, in general I think the likeliness of someone being attacked for their divine or spiritual beliefs is quite low, an act which I will condemn just the same as any other.
Where I draw the line is when there is harm done to a person, regardless of the characteristic in question. I do think there is a difference between being harmed and being offended though.
I believe in inclusion to the extent that I do precisely because I am well aware that the world is much larger than the America's. Part of that means accepting belief systems which are different than my own. I will not infringe on someone's right to speech, even if I disagree with the message they're sending, unless it is causing direct harm to another person or group.
I do recall your posting spree and I support the apps having been posted, though what bugged me at the time was them having been posted one after another after another and getting constant alerts. Which I'm fully willing to admit is a trivial me issue, but not related to the apps themselves in any way.

Here's what you wrote earlier:
"Hi Enes,
First, I want to say that I respect your beliefs and your perspective as someone of the Muslim faith, even if I'm not. I understand the point you're trying to raise here about the diversity of different perspectives. At the same time, we do have to remember the kind of website Applevis is, what purpose it is meant to serve. In my own opinion, many of the things you raised as examples are non-issues here, because they fall out of the scope of Applevis. But racism, sexism, and phobias are very much a universal issue, which is why I do think it's important to try and represent different groups of people within, say, the LGBTQIA+, POC etc communities. I also understand that this may not be entirely realistic though.
In the generally inclusive age we live in now, I think one thing that gets lost is that inclusion doesn't end with people you don't like. So long as no one person of a group is harmed/victimized/attacked by another person/group, I believe we should stride to be inclusive of all backgrounds, belief systems, etc, or else that effort means nothing. As disabled people, I do think we are in a unique position to be able to offer that kind of inclusion ourselves, which is why I posed the possibility of expanding the moderation team. I think as a website, Applevis does have a great deal of power behind it, and hope that we can all continue to move forward as a community to spread the message of accessibility awareness to Apple and other companies."
And here's what I infer from it: You consider offending religions, religious values and practices as non-universal and non-issues.
And here is what I have to point out in response: It was not only Islamic app entries but several apps from various categories that I had been posting back when those posts of my containing Islamic app entries were responded were offensive content and even spam. So I will have to correct you on that matter. If it is posting multiple apps in a row/in quick succession that constitutes a problem, then;

1. This never justifies offending the poster.
2. Why was it only Islamic apps that triggered offensive responses?

So ask yourself once again how offending and harming someone differ, and whether I was offended, harmed, or both at once.

To clarify, I was including religions/spiritual beliefs both when I said, belief systems. I also acknowledge the quick successive app entries posting bugging me as a me thing, and yes I one hundred percent condemn people posting Islamophobic responses to app entries you posted. Applevis is supposed to be a platform for sharing information and resources. It stands to reason that such a place would attract people from all corners of the world, who follow any number of faiths or spiritual belief systems. Singling any one of them out is not okay, because then it turns the website into something it was not meant to be.
If I seemed dismissive of your beliefs, I do apologize because as I said, I respect them even if they aren't my own.
With that said, I'm going to back away from this line of discussion because we're moving far beyond the scope of even this thread, to say nothing of Applevis as a community.

Hi João,

Because facts matter, I am providing further responses to the points you raised.

with one of them being allowing the moderation to address any potential misconceptions.

• That is what we have been doing for almost three days now. While responding to the assertions made here is beneficial to ensure that accurate information is available, repeatedly addressing these allegations represents a substantial use of limited resources. Time devoted to this exchange necessarily limits our ability to attend to other pressing responsibilities.

For starters, potentially offensive does not mean offensive, and secondly the innuendo that I posted had absolutely nothing to do with women and was actually related with self-pleasure since that was precisely the message that the thread title hinted at regardless of the original poster's intentions.

• Two years ago, a woman in our community contacted us to raise concerns about an exchange of a similarly sexual nature that we had allowed to remain. That communication has informed our ongoing approach to moderation and reinforced the importance of maintaining appropriate standards. In assessing content, we consider not only stated intent but also potential impact. Our decision in this instance was made in good faith and in accordance with those standards.

What is factual is that this behavior was not consistently applied in a later situation later where two threads regarding an agentic screen-reader were both deleted right after I commented offering my engineering services and posted my Linked-In profile to the second thread, so while I do understand why those threads were deleted, I found the timing to be quite weird considering that I had already warned about the original poster many times on the original thread, which was allowed to stay up for the better part of a year, and had already done the same on the second at least days before it got removed, it was only after I posted the linked to my Linked-In profile that the threads disappeared,

• The agentic screen reader post from November was reported to us by multiple established members of the community, each of whom raised concerns that it constituted a scam. One member indicated a belief that the post was a phishing attempt and noted that similar content had appeared in other online blindness communities. We received this information on 11/18/2025. After reviewing the available information, including the account’s posting history and the concerns raised, we closed the account and removed the associated posts, consistent with our standard practices regarding spam and scam content.

but the total lack of transparency in that case with absolutely no explanation provided was noteworthy.

• We did not issue a public notification regarding the removal of the agentic screen reader content because doing so is not our routine practice. Our moderation decisions are not made with an eye toward anticipating future disputes or external scrutiny, but rather based on what we believe is appropriate at the time and in the best interests of the community as a whole. We always strive to exercise reasonable judgment and to apply what we learn to future situations.

The thread had 44 comments when it was restored, adding 12 which is the number of comments that you claim to have removed brings it up to 56 comments so just over a forum page. If, in addition to that we add your claims that it required several hours to review and decide on appropriate action, and that you just said that the thread was already being closely watched, I don't think any of this adds up to justify the urgency in its removal.

• The final comment, when considered in combination with the overall context of the thread, led us to take action. Moderation decisions are based on cumulative content and context, not solely on the number of comments or the length of a discussion.

so I'll save that along with the snapshot of this thread that I'll capture right after posting this for a rainy day...

• Thank you for the clarity regarding the nature and purpose of this exchange. We now consider this matter addressed.

I'm the author of the thread in question, where Joao's comment got deleted, sorry for the lack of accented chars there. I find it fascinating in a thread about censorship and related issues that Joao insists that he knows what I really meant, regardless of my actual intentions.

To be clear, the thread title was, IIRC, "What are you doing with your hands"? It was prompted by several posters complaining about Voiceover on Mac requiring two hands to be used, e.g. one poster mentioned, in another thread, about the joy they felt being able to play audio games on Windows with one hand.

As I explained in the thread in question, I didn't get this. I mean, sure, do that, but I didn't get why it was such a thing for people. Some great responses about workflows, deep pressure, hand mobility, and so on. So apparently, a fair number of people were able to understand, you know, my actual intent, not something they invented in their own mind and decided was what I really truly madly deeply meant.

Much like being offended is "your problem", you reading intentions into threads, based solely on the subject I might add which makes me wonder if you even bothered to read any of it, commenting based on that, and getting your comment deleted seems to also be "your problem". That seems especially true since you seem to be the only one who had a comment deleted in that thread. Everybody else seemed to manage to play by the forum rules, unless, of course, there was a magical conspiracy of a bunch of deletions we don't know about because corporations or something.

Fight the power!

The term thread, related to a forum, is just another way of saying a forum topic itself. Within a forum a thread can refer to a specific line of replies.
Hope this helps!

Hi all,

First, we want to again thank everyone who shared their concerns, feedback, and opinions in this thread. We have read every comment, and we will carefully consider everything that has been said.

While we had the best intentions with temporarily unpublishing the Envision topic, in hindsight, a different--more proactive--approach would have been the better option. We are always learning and actively exploring ways to handle these type of situations the best way possible, and this is an ongoing and iterative process.

At this point, we feel that people have had ample opportunity to express their opinions here; and that additional discussion is unlikely to result in further meaningful dialog. With this in mind, we have made the difficult decision to close this thread to further comments.

Thank you again to everyone for your honest and open feedback.

The AppleVis Editorial Team