7 ms·

> The users there have a major case of groupthink Isn’t that a common feature of most forums? The orange site, in particular, isn’t generally regarded outside

by sbuk 2y ago

> The users there have a major case of groupthink Isn’t that a common feature of most forums? The orange site, in particular, isn’t generally regarded outside of its own bubble as a bastion of independent thought…

pierrec 2y ago
I don't know about lobsters, but every time I see an opinion posted on HN, it seems to get immediately followed by a contrary opinion. I've also changed the settings so the website no longer appears orange, but I'm probably still in the bubble anyways.
- bb88 2y ago
  Sometimes I post a comment to agree with something someone has written. Like here.
  - gosub100 2y ago
    You just invoked Russell's paradox.
- MisterTea 2y ago
  I changed the color as a quick tell for when I'm logged in.
bb88 2y ago
Isn't that a product of the industry? Python has one groupthink, Golang another. Martin Fowler's company is named "Thoughtworks". I guess he's trying to control the way we think about stuff?
krapp 2y ago
Lobsters is trying to do the same thing as Hacker News - avoid the Eternal September effect at all costs. It just has more direct and overt methods of maintaining and enforcing its culture than here, and that starts with barring the door against the rabble.
- OutOfHere 2y ago
  That's something that Slashdot does by limiting registrations. In contrast, by disallowing anonymous registrations (without a recommendation), Lobsters actively seeks out those who don't think differently at all, perpetuating its closed-mindedness.
  - krapp 2y ago
    They're optimizing for quality and civility - a certain standard of intellectual and emotional maturity - rather than controversy. Vetting through personal relationships and requiring reputation risk to let someone new in is an effective way to do that. Not every platform wants or needs to be a debate club.
    - OutOfHere 2y ago
      On the contrary, quality is not intrinsic; it emerges from a healthy debate, something that isn't generally possible on Lobsters.
    - Karrot_Kream 2y ago
      I think that's certainly a goal of invite systems but I don't think Lobsters really lands this. The quality of its discussion isn't much to write home about. It is much friendlier to some opinions over others but quality is not the discriminator. If you write a middling article on Rust I can guarantee you that you'll get more positive feedback than a good article on Go or on LLMs simply because of the opinion bias of the community.
- 082349872349872 2y ago
  I wonder if the Dutch Strategy might work for a link aggregator: explicitly provide a well-signposted "front page", where the rabble congregates and the groupthink is at its Grundyest, yet implicitly expect any non-Septemberist discussions to occur well away from those few sacrificial links?
  - gsf_emergency 2y ago
OutOfHere 2y ago
The issue is much worse on Lobsters because of its registration policy which altogether prohibits anonymous registration and thereby a diversity of voices. People are likely to recommend those who think like them (for a new account) rather than ones who think differently.
Karrot_Kream 2y ago
I find the Lobsters opinion bubble to be much narrower than HN. HN these days definitely has its share of meme bubble opinions (like reading the comments on any social media thread), but Lobsters is narrow enough that I can often predict all the comments to a post just based on reading its contents myself. This makes the site pretty boring because if it's so easily to mentally simulate the responses, I may as well just ignore the comments. Tech link aggregators usually source links from all the same places (Mastodon, Bluesky, Twitter, RSS feeds) that I already do so Lobsters' value on top is minimal.
082349872349872 2y ago
> ...as a bastion of independent thought… The long tail on this site is what keeps bringing me back, although I must admit it took both swapping to RSS and manually filtering with an acceptance of Sturgeon's Law to wade through the "Make Mone¥ Fa$t" slush. (note that the —to my mind, misguided— focus on the front pages means TFA misses a lot of the overlap between the two sites)

by sbuk 2y ago

pierrec 2y ago

I don't know about lobsters, but every time I see an opinion posted on HN, it seems to get immediately followed by a contrary opinion. I've also changed the settings so the website no longer appears orange, but I'm probably still in the bubble anyways.

bb88 2y ago
Sometimes I post a comment to agree with something someone has written. Like here.
- gosub100 2y ago
  You just invoked Russell's paradox.
MisterTea 2y ago
I changed the color as a quick tell for when I'm logged in.

bb88 2y ago

Isn't that a product of the industry? Python has one groupthink, Golang another. Martin Fowler's company is named "Thoughtworks". I guess he's trying to control the way we think about stuff?

krapp 2y ago

Lobsters is trying to do the same thing as Hacker News - avoid the Eternal September effect at all costs. It just has more direct and overt methods of maintaining and enforcing its culture than here, and that starts with barring the door against the rabble.

OutOfHere 2y ago
That's something that Slashdot does by limiting registrations. In contrast, by disallowing anonymous registrations (without a recommendation), Lobsters actively seeks out those who don't think differently at all, perpetuating its closed-mindedness.
- krapp 2y ago
  They're optimizing for quality and civility - a certain standard of intellectual and emotional maturity - rather than controversy. Vetting through personal relationships and requiring reputation risk to let someone new in is an effective way to do that. Not every platform wants or needs to be a debate club.
  - OutOfHere 2y ago
    On the contrary, quality is not intrinsic; it emerges from a healthy debate, something that isn't generally possible on Lobsters.
  - Karrot_Kream 2y ago
    I think that's certainly a goal of invite systems but I don't think Lobsters really lands this. The quality of its discussion isn't much to write home about. It is much friendlier to some opinions over others but quality is not the discriminator. If you write a middling article on Rust I can guarantee you that you'll get more positive feedback than a good article on Go or on LLMs simply because of the opinion bias of the community.
082349872349872 2y ago
I wonder if the Dutch Strategy might work for a link aggregator: explicitly provide a well-signposted "front page", where the rabble congregates and the groupthink is at its Grundyest, yet implicitly expect any non-Septemberist discussions to occur well away from those few sacrificial links?
- gsf_emergency 2y ago

OutOfHere 2y ago

The issue is much worse on Lobsters because of its registration policy which altogether prohibits anonymous registration and thereby a diversity of voices. People are likely to recommend those who think like them (for a new account) rather than ones who think differently.

Karrot_Kream 2y ago

I find the Lobsters opinion bubble to be much narrower than HN. HN these days definitely has its share of meme bubble opinions (like reading the comments on any social media thread), but Lobsters is narrow enough that I can often predict all the comments to a post just based on reading its contents myself. This makes the site pretty boring because if it's so easily to mentally simulate the responses, I may as well just ignore the comments. Tech link aggregators usually source links from all the same places (Mastodon, Bluesky, Twitter, RSS feeds) that I already do so Lobsters' value on top is minimal.

082349872349872 2y ago

> ...as a bastion of independent thought… The long tail on this site is what keeps bringing me back, although I must admit it took both swapping to RSS and manually filtering with an acceptance of Sturgeon's Law to wade through the "Make Mone¥ Fa$t" slush. (note that the —to my mind, misguided— focus on the front pages means TFA misses a lot of the overlap between the two sites)