Communication to Senior Executives at AARP

[Centristsin2010]

Greetings,

On or about March 1st and March 11th, two AARP Members and very active posters on the P/CE forum wrote letters/emails to several Senior Executives at AARP, both received cursory responses saying AARP would look into their concerns and get back to them.  One of the letter writers received a call from a gentleman named Justin who apologized for an error in his written response on March 17th and said the following day was his last day at AARP.  Justin received a very polite and respectful reply which can be provided here if interested and/or relevant.

On March 15th, AARP announced the Politics and Current Events was closing on April 5th citing the obvious that the nation is divided. Was this an admission that AARP is incapable of moderating ' robust ' discussion? Was closing the forum the result of looking into the complaints illustrated by the two-letter writers as AARP committed they would do?  Should the two letter-writers anticipate a personal response from AARP as committed?  

Thank you, General Help

CQ - not related to Q-anon

[ChasKy53]

To these three questions:

On March 15th, AARP announced the Politics and Current Events was closing on April 5th citing the obvious that the nation is divided. Was this an admission that AARP is incapable of moderating ' robust ' discussion?   Not so sure that this was an admission of that, but it's possible.

Was closing the forum the result of looking into the complaints illustrated by the two-letter writers as AARP committed they would do? That is also a possibility, I will explain why after responding to all three questions.

Should the two letter-writers anticipate a personal response from AARP as committed?  I would say that's it's natural to expect a response but after this long my expectations would change.

It is possible that AARP did indeed investigate as a response to the letters? Perhaps they did and decided that closing the forum was a better or easier way to address the problems within the forum. Perhaps contractual language prevented them from interfering with how the forum was being moderated.  Perhaps closing the forum ended that contract and now leaves AARP free to contract others to moderate and manage a new political discussion forum.  It's hard to believe that AARP is not capable of having and managing a political discussion forum, perhaps closing this one was the best way for them to have a better forum in the near future., it is my hopes that they indeed do. If so, I hope that those who post there will take heed and be more respectful in the way that they address others within the forum, and research what they read in an article to determine that it is indeed factual before they post it. Yep, many questions unanswered, only time will tell.

[Centristsin2010]

---

@ChasKy53 wrote:

To these three questions:

On March 15th, AARP announced the Politics and Current Events was closing on April 5th citing the obvious that the nation is divided. Was this an admission that AARP is incapable of moderating ' robust ' discussion?   Not so sure that this was an admission of that, but it's possible.  That's why it's best to ask the question vs assuming someone knows all the answers.  Wouldn't you agree?

Was closing the forum the result of looking into the complaints illustrated by the two-letter writers as AARP committed they would do? That is also a possibility, I will explain why after responding to all three questions. Again, worth asking, don't you agree?

Should the two letter-writers anticipate a personal response from AARP as committed?  I would say that's it's natural to expect a response, especially when there is a committment to investigate and respond; not investigate and close shop.  but after this long my expectations would change.  No harm in asking...

It is possible that AARP did indeed investigate as a response to the letters? Indeed, it's possible. Perhaps they did and decided that closing the forum was a better or easier way to address the problems within the forum. Maybe.  Perhaps contractual language prevented them from interfering with how the forum was being moderated.  Perhaps closing the forum ended that contract and now leaves AARP free to contract others to moderate and manage a new political discussion forum.  It's hard to believe that AARP is not capable of having and managing a political discussion forum, perhaps closing this one was the best way for them to have a better forum in the near future., it is my hopes that they indeed do. If so, I hope that those who post there will take heed and be more respectful in the way that they address others within the forum, and research what they read in an article to determine that it is indeed factual before they post it. Yep, many questions unanswered, only time will tell. Don't you think AARP should answer these simple questions?

---

[williamb39198 · Accepted solution]

Lack of communication and dishonesty were the demise of the Political Forum. 
And to claim that we must respect posters from the other side, when wild false accusations and opinions were presented as fact...then when asked to verify, they could not, or would tell us that we have to prove their false accusations...which meant that they had no proof, Yet, their comments were left to stand, without challenge...how does one find respect for that. 
One side tells the truth and the other does not. 

[Centristsin2010]

---

@williamb39198 wrote:

Lack of communication and dishonesty were the demise of the Political Forum.  Both of which could have been addressed with focus groups for users to share their insights anf how to improve the forum. 

And to claim that we must respect posters from the other side, when wild false accusations and opinions were presented as fact... Repect is earned; not just given.  Do you respect a person that claims there was no riot at the Capitol on January 5th or claim they respect the police more than those who call out police abuse and claim they are 'cop haters'...  Respect these posters; why? Who are they respecting? Not those complaining about police abuse.

[Gorm50]

As our country is MORE divided than I ever recall, I sense AARP came to the conclusion they could NOT effectively control the flagrant abuse and rather than risk litigation from those who felt victimized or bias on part of AARP moderating the posts, etc  chose to eliminate the problem.  

[Centristsin2010]

@Gorm50 wrote:

As our country is MORE divided than I ever recall, I sense AARP came to the conclusion they could NOT effectively control the flagrant abuse and rather than risk litigation from those who felt victimized or bias on part of AARP moderating the posts, etc  chose to eliminate the problem.  

---

Interesting position, Gorm, that AARP was fearful of being sued. Though, like trump and Rudy and MyPillow on Twitter, all posters on AARP agree to the TOS and you are suggesting posters might sue? And the posters might be successful and AARP doesn't want to risk losing a lawsuit. Am I understanding you correctly?

Thanks for sharing your view. @Gorm50 

[Gorm50]

I fully suspect that AARP is aware of the pressure upon Twitter, Facebook, etc to regulate WHAT is posted, what is seemingly condoned, conveyed bias, etc and I suspect AARP is not looking to get drawn into those problems.

Can say from my very limited experience, Reddit is NOT a satisfactory alternative.  I have been permanently BANNED because I suggested we 1)  suppress the perpetrator's name to minimize publicity, 15 mins of fame, etc and 2) invoke prompt capital punishment for those convicted of mass killings.  Any reference to inciting harm, even government mandated executions is NOT tolerated.    

[Centristsin2010]

---

@Gorm50 wrote:

I fully suspect that AARP is aware of the pressure upon Twitter, Facebook, etc to regulate WHAT is posted, what is seemingly condoned, conveyed bias, etc and I suspect AARP is not looking to get drawn into those problems. Maybe, though I disagree that they regulate, they manage to their TOS, just as AARP claims it does.

Can say from my very limited experience, Reddit is NOT a satisfactory alternative.  Did anyone suggest it was?

I have been permanently BANNED because I suggested we 1)  suppress the perpetrator's name to minimize publicity, 15 mins of fame, etc and 2) invoke prompt capital punishment for those convicted of mass killings.  Any reference to inciting harm, even government mandated executions is NOT tolerated. I'll take your word on that,but I suspect there is a misunderstanding of something. Bur ok....

But if misery loves company, I was permanetly banned from the Democratic Underground because I wasn't a Liberal because I suported Amy Klobuchar for the Democratic nomination last year.

---

[Gorm50]

I can only conclude the AARP thread constituted MORE problems than they were willing to tolerate.  Can only imagine that was their most heavily visited thread so they had to know it would upset many.  

I was quite surprised when I tried Reddit, just following the herd, that my initial experience based on a reply to my post was this was the wild west as the refuter spared no words on what I could do. So, I was surprised when I saw the email that I was permanently banned, given infrequent posts, and petition to cut me some slack quickly conveyed their lack of tolerance. 

Are you expecting a reversal in AARP's position? 

[Centristsin2010]

---

@Gorm50 wrote:

I can only conclude the AARP thread constituted MORE problems than they were willing to tolerate. I understand and I understand others may draw different conclusions. Can only imagine that was their most heavily visited thread so they had to know it would upset many. You would think...

I was quite surprised when I tried Reddit, just following the herd, that my initial experience based on a reply to my post was this was the wild west as the refuter spared no words on what I could do. I agree...it's a little ;ess structured...  So, I was surprised when I saw the email that I was permanently banned, given infrequent posts, and petition to cut me some slack quickly conveyed their lack of tolerance. A lack of tolerance is a problem in many circles of our society and is problematic as we both experienced. 

Are you expecting a reversal in AARP's position?  NO, Why do you ask?

I think I have reasonable expectations...but alas, maybe asking the question in an AARP Help forum may be expectating too much.  What do you think?