4 ms·

Unfortunately Lobsters might claim to be non political but is actually quite political. Because the moderators and increasingly the remaining community identifi

Unfortunately Lobsters might claim to be non political but is actually quite political. Because the moderators and increasingly the remaining community identifies with American progressive left values, a pretty common thing to see on the site is political posts along those lines getting upvoted and other political philosophies being flagged as political. It's probably the most deeply unpleasant part about the site IMO. I don't think there's anything wrong with moderators all sharing certain politics. On Lobsters though, there's this hugely disingenuous gaslighting culture where the political ingroup can break rules while the outgroup can't but it's never explicitly acknowledged by the moderators or the community.

karlgkk 11mo ago
They do not claim to be non political. They just try to keep explicitly political material from being posted on their site - from any point of view. > there's this hugely disingenuous gaslighting culture Fun fact: that’s called “they don’t want you around”. You’re being vibe checked out. Running communities is difficult and sometimes it’s just easier to build a community of people you want to be around. They’ve never been running it as a public service or a free speech platform. And that’s okay.
- Karrot_Kream 11mo ago
  > They just try to keep explicitly political material from being posted on their site - from any point of view. Right that is what they claim in their guidelines but in practice this is very untrue. American left progressive material generally does fine on the site, both from the rule moderation perspective and community sentiment. > Fun fact: that’s called “they don’t want you around”. You’re being vibe checked out. It's funny, in your attempt to sarcastically sneer in your comment you just tried to build a strawman of my political opinions in your head. Regardless the easiest way for them to settle this would to say it explicitly. "We strongly believe in left social justice values and that informs our moderation and the content we allow on the site." That's all the guidelines would need to make it clear to everyone what's going on. Instead they do this gaslighting dance where they never explicitly say their political position but instead enforce it by enforcing the rules more harshly on those they politically disagree with. They could instead point to this guideline to moderate or flag content they politically disagree with. It's upfront and clear. The Internet as it is is subject to a huge amount of context collapse. Moreover tech people are more likely than the average person to have lower EQ. Using unrelated moderation rules to fight political battles is a fairly negative thing in my opinion. Being clear about what you allow and disallow does everyone a service and level sets expectations.
  - avadodin 11mo ago
    There are some very smart people on that site that only contribute there(although some are old slashdotters from back in the day) so it is a shame. I get the impression by watching the community that interacting with them is basically impossible as a normal person. Someone gets an invite, has productive technical discussions, eventually says something that doesn't align exactly with their religion(and we're talking really obscure stuff here) and he gets swiftly and permanently banned possibly bringing the person who invited him down with him as well.
    - gerikson 11mo ago
      It's easy to state this, almost as easy as to find a specific entry in the modlog proving it. If you want, I can do the grunt work if you cite a specific username.
      - avadodin 11mo ago
        It has already been mentioned that banned users' "ban-worthy" comments are censored. I'd have to run an operation on lobste.rs in order to make a point and then maybe the non-representative examples I do capture are of people actually going crazy. HN hides "dead" comments for unregistered users but at least registration is open. This way I can know that some user was unknowingly making ill-informed claims about the extent of the contributions of the author of the linked project to certain products as opposed to any of the worst-case assumptions one could make from the replies. > [censored]. Oh, you know who also [censored]? [censored]? Exactly!
        gerikson 11mo ago
        I'm a member of the site since 2017, read almost every comment (it's not that much), and have a habit of saving "spicy" threads before mods arrive. So there's a pretty good chance I can recover more background than what's available now.
  - karlgkk 11mo ago
    I don’t know your particular political affiliations. But it also doesn’t matter. Being asked to leave is not being gaslit. Being asked to leave is not abusive. This Weaponized therapy speak is exhausting. It’s called “freedom of association”. Again, they built a community for themselves. They don’t need to cater to people like you or me if they don’t want to. And they’re not. You’re not owed or entitled to some sort of clear moderation guideline. You’re not owed or entitled to having a good experience on that website. It sounds like it’s not for you, and that’s OK
- Aurornis 11mo ago
  > Fun fact: that’s called “they don’t want you around”. You’re being vibe checked out. This mindset where the culture war lines have been drawn and anyone who doesn’t get perfectly in line is “vibe checked” out is highly political, even if the claim is that political content is excluded. The snarky and derisive way it’s presented as “fun fact” and you’ve jumped to the conclusion that the commenter is on the wrong side of the culture war, and therefore a fair target for derision, is actually why I never “vibed” into that site for very long.
  - karlgkk 11mo ago
    Culture war? Lines drawn? Ridiculous. People are allowed to build a community that they want to be a part of, and certain rules and base lines for how they expect other people to engage. It’s called “freedom of association”. What really offends me is the consumer entitlement that people have that make them think that they should be allowed to participate in any community however they see fit.
    - marcinzm 11mo ago
      The core of the argument is that they say the rules are X but the actually mean they are Y. That has nothing to do "freedom of association" but simply with being two faced liars. Which people often dislike. And the thing called "freedom of speech" lets me say those last bits. :)
      - CursedSilicon 11mo ago
        >and the thing called "freedom of speech" lets me say those last bits. :) I mean, sure. If you don't know what freedom of speech actually means
      - karlgkk 11mo ago
        Ironically, if the mods here thought your comment was over the line, it would be removed. I don’t think you understand what freedom of speech actually means lol
- mannanj 11mo ago
  Fun fact: telling the guy saying it's gaslighting that it's not, with your reframe of reality words like "fun fact" are gaslighting. I've found gaslight-positive people who go on "vibes" are indeed still gaslighters. Abuse is abuse. You can justify it with "vibe check" and "they don't want you around" all you want - does my not wanting you around and treating you poorly make it any less undignified and abusive?
  - karlgkk 11mo ago
    Being told to leave is not abuse. Being told to leave is not gaslighting. Being told it's vibes based moderation is not gaslighting. Using weaponized therapy speak is annoying, by the way. Anyways, they are very much saying to you, I don’t like you and now I would like you to leave. And to answer your second question, if you ran such a community, I probably wouldn’t participate! Easy!
    - mannanj 11mo ago
      not sure what you mean by answering my second question, maybe it applied to another comment I made elsewhere. My belief stands clearly as, if it's "the improper or harmful use or treatment of another person, often to gain power or control... manifesting in many forms" its abuse. Abuse can be clear and in the open. I can tell you I'll abuse you, and treat you undignified and in an abusive manner, and it is still abuse. Saying I'm abusing you and it's not abuse, does not make it any less abuse. It makes it gaslighting.
- GaryBluto 11mo ago
  > They’ve never been running it as a public service or a free speech platform. I largely agree with this but it doesn't shield them from criticism. > vibe checked > fun fact > And that’s okay. If you want people to agree with or understand your viewpoint I'd suggest conveying them in a way that doesn't immediately harken back to BuzzFeed and pop journalism.
  - karlgkk 11mo ago
    I see you’re attacking the way I delivered my message. Yes, you can criticize them. But at the end of the day, it’s their community. And if you’re not fitting in there, there are many others. At some point in the last decade or so, people have begun to think that they’re entitled to participate or be welcome in every community the way that they want to. At the end of the day, a community like lobsters is run by people who want to hang out with other people they find interesting or on the same plane as them The moderators are not required to cater to you
    - GaryBluto 11mo ago
      > The moderators are not required to cater to you RE: I largely agree with this but it doesn't shield them from criticism.
fleebee 11mo ago
I agree. I like Lobsters but the political brigading is unfortunate and the moderation seems to favor one side over the other. That almost sours the whole experience, but I've learned to hide low quality drama posts and move on.
- bluedino 11mo ago
  Honestly though HN really is just as bad.
  - Aurornis 11mo ago
    Having participated in both sites for over a decade, I disagree. Lobste.rs was pitched as having more open moderation with a public moderation log, but in practice it's mostly one moderator running the show and deleting comments they don't like. There have been some notable incidents over the years where relatively benign comments were used as justification to ban people, the original comments deleted, and then the moderators come in to provide an alternate story of what happened. If you step out of line and question that narrative, you could find yourself silenced as well. Long term users know how and where to toe the line, as well as which topics to avoid completely unless you want to get that famous pop-up that shames you for having your comments downvoted and ends with an invitation to delete your account. The moderators on Lobste.rs also weave their narrative into the fabric of the site in unavoidable ways. For example, you can't post anything related to LLMs without tagging it "vibecoding". Most of the articles are not about vibecoding, but they've decided that everything related to LLMs is "vibecoding" and therefore that tag is your only option. Don't think you can tag those stories as "AI" because that's wrong and they'll change it to "vibecoding". It's a silly decision that users have been carefully complaining about for a long time but the message from on top is that LLMs are to be sneered at as "vibecoding" and therefore that's the only permissible narrative. You don't see anything like that coming out of HN, for all it's imperfections.

karlgkk 11mo ago

They do not claim to be non political. They just try to keep explicitly political material from being posted on their site - from any point of view. > there's this hugely disingenuous gaslighting culture Fun fact: that’s called “they don’t want you around”. You’re being vibe checked out. Running communities is difficult and sometimes it’s just easier to build a community of people you want to be around. They’ve never been running it as a public service or a free speech platform. And that’s okay.

Karrot_Kream 11mo ago
> They just try to keep explicitly political material from being posted on their site - from any point of view. Right that is what they claim in their guidelines but in practice this is very untrue. American left progressive material generally does fine on the site, both from the rule moderation perspective and community sentiment. > Fun fact: that’s called “they don’t want you around”. You’re being vibe checked out. It's funny, in your attempt to sarcastically sneer in your comment you just tried to build a strawman of my political opinions in your head. Regardless the easiest way for them to settle this would to say it explicitly. "We strongly believe in left social justice values and that informs our moderation and the content we allow on the site." That's all the guidelines would need to make it clear to everyone what's going on. Instead they do this gaslighting dance where they never explicitly say their political position but instead enforce it by enforcing the rules more harshly on those they politically disagree with. They could instead point to this guideline to moderate or flag content they politically disagree with. It's upfront and clear. The Internet as it is is subject to a huge amount of context collapse. Moreover tech people are more likely than the average person to have lower EQ. Using unrelated moderation rules to fight political battles is a fairly negative thing in my opinion. Being clear about what you allow and disallow does everyone a service and level sets expectations.
- avadodin 11mo ago
  There are some very smart people on that site that only contribute there(although some are old slashdotters from back in the day) so it is a shame. I get the impression by watching the community that interacting with them is basically impossible as a normal person. Someone gets an invite, has productive technical discussions, eventually says something that doesn't align exactly with their religion(and we're talking really obscure stuff here) and he gets swiftly and permanently banned possibly bringing the person who invited him down with him as well.
  - gerikson 11mo ago
    It's easy to state this, almost as easy as to find a specific entry in the modlog proving it. If you want, I can do the grunt work if you cite a specific username.
    - avadodin 11mo ago
      It has already been mentioned that banned users' "ban-worthy" comments are censored. I'd have to run an operation on lobste.rs in order to make a point and then maybe the non-representative examples I do capture are of people actually going crazy. HN hides "dead" comments for unregistered users but at least registration is open. This way I can know that some user was unknowingly making ill-informed claims about the extent of the contributions of the author of the linked project to certain products as opposed to any of the worst-case assumptions one could make from the replies. > [censored]. Oh, you know who also [censored]? [censored]? Exactly!
      - gerikson 11mo ago
        I'm a member of the site since 2017, read almost every comment (it's not that much), and have a habit of saving "spicy" threads before mods arrive. So there's a pretty good chance I can recover more background than what's available now.
- karlgkk 11mo ago
  I don’t know your particular political affiliations. But it also doesn’t matter. Being asked to leave is not being gaslit. Being asked to leave is not abusive. This Weaponized therapy speak is exhausting. It’s called “freedom of association”. Again, they built a community for themselves. They don’t need to cater to people like you or me if they don’t want to. And they’re not. You’re not owed or entitled to some sort of clear moderation guideline. You’re not owed or entitled to having a good experience on that website. It sounds like it’s not for you, and that’s OK
Aurornis 11mo ago
> Fun fact: that’s called “they don’t want you around”. You’re being vibe checked out. This mindset where the culture war lines have been drawn and anyone who doesn’t get perfectly in line is “vibe checked” out is highly political, even if the claim is that political content is excluded. The snarky and derisive way it’s presented as “fun fact” and you’ve jumped to the conclusion that the commenter is on the wrong side of the culture war, and therefore a fair target for derision, is actually why I never “vibed” into that site for very long.
- karlgkk 11mo ago
  Culture war? Lines drawn? Ridiculous. People are allowed to build a community that they want to be a part of, and certain rules and base lines for how they expect other people to engage. It’s called “freedom of association”. What really offends me is the consumer entitlement that people have that make them think that they should be allowed to participate in any community however they see fit.
  - marcinzm 11mo ago
    The core of the argument is that they say the rules are X but the actually mean they are Y. That has nothing to do "freedom of association" but simply with being two faced liars. Which people often dislike. And the thing called "freedom of speech" lets me say those last bits. :)
    - CursedSilicon 11mo ago
      >and the thing called "freedom of speech" lets me say those last bits. :) I mean, sure. If you don't know what freedom of speech actually means
    - karlgkk 11mo ago
      Ironically, if the mods here thought your comment was over the line, it would be removed. I don’t think you understand what freedom of speech actually means lol
mannanj 11mo ago
Fun fact: telling the guy saying it's gaslighting that it's not, with your reframe of reality words like "fun fact" are gaslighting. I've found gaslight-positive people who go on "vibes" are indeed still gaslighters. Abuse is abuse. You can justify it with "vibe check" and "they don't want you around" all you want - does my not wanting you around and treating you poorly make it any less undignified and abusive?
- karlgkk 11mo ago
  Being told to leave is not abuse. Being told to leave is not gaslighting. Being told it's vibes based moderation is not gaslighting. Using weaponized therapy speak is annoying, by the way. Anyways, they are very much saying to you, I don’t like you and now I would like you to leave. And to answer your second question, if you ran such a community, I probably wouldn’t participate! Easy!
  - mannanj 11mo ago
    not sure what you mean by answering my second question, maybe it applied to another comment I made elsewhere. My belief stands clearly as, if it's "the improper or harmful use or treatment of another person, often to gain power or control... manifesting in many forms" its abuse. Abuse can be clear and in the open. I can tell you I'll abuse you, and treat you undignified and in an abusive manner, and it is still abuse. Saying I'm abusing you and it's not abuse, does not make it any less abuse. It makes it gaslighting.
GaryBluto 11mo ago
> They’ve never been running it as a public service or a free speech platform. I largely agree with this but it doesn't shield them from criticism. > vibe checked > fun fact > And that’s okay. If you want people to agree with or understand your viewpoint I'd suggest conveying them in a way that doesn't immediately harken back to BuzzFeed and pop journalism.
- karlgkk 11mo ago
  I see you’re attacking the way I delivered my message. Yes, you can criticize them. But at the end of the day, it’s their community. And if you’re not fitting in there, there are many others. At some point in the last decade or so, people have begun to think that they’re entitled to participate or be welcome in every community the way that they want to. At the end of the day, a community like lobsters is run by people who want to hang out with other people they find interesting or on the same plane as them The moderators are not required to cater to you
  - GaryBluto 11mo ago
    > The moderators are not required to cater to you RE: I largely agree with this but it doesn't shield them from criticism.

fleebee 11mo ago

I agree. I like Lobsters but the political brigading is unfortunate and the moderation seems to favor one side over the other. That almost sours the whole experience, but I've learned to hide low quality drama posts and move on.

bluedino 11mo ago
Honestly though HN really is just as bad.
- Aurornis 11mo ago
  Having participated in both sites for over a decade, I disagree. Lobste.rs was pitched as having more open moderation with a public moderation log, but in practice it's mostly one moderator running the show and deleting comments they don't like. There have been some notable incidents over the years where relatively benign comments were used as justification to ban people, the original comments deleted, and then the moderators come in to provide an alternate story of what happened. If you step out of line and question that narrative, you could find yourself silenced as well. Long term users know how and where to toe the line, as well as which topics to avoid completely unless you want to get that famous pop-up that shames you for having your comments downvoted and ends with an invitation to delete your account. The moderators on Lobste.rs also weave their narrative into the fabric of the site in unavoidable ways. For example, you can't post anything related to LLMs without tagging it "vibecoding". Most of the articles are not about vibecoding, but they've decided that everything related to LLMs is "vibecoding" and therefore that tag is your only option. Don't think you can tag those stories as "AI" because that's wrong and they'll change it to "vibecoding". It's a silly decision that users have been carefully complaining about for a long time but the message from on top is that LLMs are to be sneered at as "vibecoding" and therefore that's the only permissible narrative. You don't see anything like that coming out of HN, for all it's imperfections.