Lobsters Interview
susam.net
susam.net
Unfortunately, Lobsters (previously?) blocked Brave browser and I don't feel like switching browsers just to visit a site.
Edit: though to be clear this is a spectrum with heavy overlap. Just general biases I've observed. Like on Lobste.rs there is an article titled 'Electron vs. Tauri' atm.
- Tries to be more purely technical. Generic political or business links are flagged or removed.
- Aggressive marketing/self-promotion is moderated: If you join, post three links to your own blog, and nothing else, expect someone to call out if you post a fourth. I know HN does this to some extent, but it is very explicit on Lobsters.
- Not "news", not necessarily about recent things. Project/language releases even have a "release" tag so you can hide them systematically. A ten-year-old article explaining some library internals is just as likely to come up.
- Instead of "downvotes" there are "flags", which requires choosing a reason. Ideally encourages people to pause and think, instead of scrolling and clicking a down arrow 20 times in a thread.
- Weekly community threads of "What are you working on this week?" and "What are you doing this weekend?" which is nice for a smaller community.
edit: If you are downvoting because you are also anti-AI, my comment is not about whether supporting AI is good. I'm only remarking that they are aggressively negative about the topic. The aggression is obnoxious and less tolerated with other topics.
On Lobsters it feels like the angry anti-LLM mindset is woven into the site’s culture, like you’re breaking some unspoken rule if you accidentally say something non-derogatory about AI.
As it happens AI the the hype of the day. Yes it is useful but also it attracts the same insufferable people who were pushing NFTs 4 years ago. So Lobsters have separate AI tag for technical pieces to do with actual development of AI systems and "vibecoding" for softcore user experience entries. Lots of people mute the latter. This, and the fact that the site refers to their blog posts as lowly vibecoding irks some of submitters.
There are film photography forums where digital photography is off-topic. There is at least one machinist forum where the topics of drone-making and 3D printing are explicitly banned. This is fine, these are niche places for like minded people who don't want to be drowned out by the masses promoting whatever is hot.
The entire site is constantly talking about how AI sucks and how it's not worth taking seriously. The AI tag was exclusively "vibecoding" despite it being extremely annoying for anyone who wanted to talk about it. Posts about AI being bad are upvoted far more, despite being very obviously low content/ uninteresting. Sentiment is very obviously anti-AI on lobsters.
I don't even think this should be contentious. The site is very openly anti-AI. When discussions about this have come up in meta posts it is overwhelmingly the case that users say "yes, we are anti AI, that's fine".
> it's not a big deal.
It stopped me from posting on there and I deleted my account because the conversations were so stupid. It comes up frequently that users want to be able to filter out "AI fluff" separately from "interesting discussion of AI". You can have a post about the internal algorithms and optimizations of an LLM and it will still be labeled "vibecoding" on the site - if that doesn't blatantly indicate a site-wide anti-AI bias I don't know how.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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!
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
If the site said "The rules are: pushcx's homies get gas and haters get ass" then I'd have no expectations of fairness or clear guidelines. But that's not the site. It has a set of guidelines. It has flagging capabilities along with categories you can use to indicate why the content you flag is flag worthy. It has a mod log where moderator actions are performed publicly. This gives the impression to many users that the site cares about a semblance of fairness and tries to separate rules from mere passions. The reason why I find Lobsters so annoying is because of that disconnect. The site gives this impression of rules, guidelines, and moderation philosophy. But in effect it's just the sounding board of the admin and some mods. Obviously as you so caustically try to reiterate they are free to associate like this (and I'm freely speaking about how much I dislike it while freely associating on another site), but that doesn't stop people from disliking it.
Of course you’re allowed to dislike it!
I think your criticism has a point of validity to it, but also a serious level of entitlement that you expect some sort of “customer service” from them - such as a menu of expectations or norms that you were expected to follow.
I’m not sneering at you because you’re being excluded, I’m sneering at your assumption that you have some sort of relationship with these moderators or the community such that they have to respect or cater to you.
Frankly, as someone who has run a community, it’s a lot of work and there’s a lot of people who just de facto expect you to give them a level of service that they have come to expect from social media _companies_, that frankly, they’re not entitled to.
It’s a community, not a product!
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.
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.
I mean, sure. If you don't know what freedom of speech actually means
Turn on showdead in your profile. Comments don't just disappear here.
I’m also all for being able to call out when a community is being excessively political while also trying to claim to be a no-politics zone.
I was a big fan of Lobsters in the early days, but it became apparent that even for apolitical topics you had to walk a very fine line with your comments and avoid anything that might be misinterpreted as wrongspeak.
The site has a long history of finding obscure reasons to ban people. The moderation log is public, but if you try to read the comments that caused the ban they’re all [Removed by moderator] in a very non-public way. The moderators then respond with their own interpretation of events after the account is no longer able to dispute it. It’s another example of double speak where the moderation actions are supposedly public but you’re also not allowed to see the comments that led to the ban.
> 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.
No entitlement here. My Lobsters account is in good standing since the start. However I believe we’re all entitled to explain our opinions about the moderators, even if it offends you that other people have opinions that disagree with your own.
Anyway, this entire comment thread where you derisively deliver “fun fact” snark and declare other people’s opinions “ridiculous” while ignoring the argument they’re trying to make is ironically a prime example of why Lobste.rs feels so exhausting. If you feel like you’re on the right side of the culture war you feel empowered to be snarky, dismissive, and rude because you think the rules of civil discourse only apply to people on the other side of the dividing lines.
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?
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!
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.
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.
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
RE: I largely agree with this but it doesn't shield them from criticism.
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.
dang strikes me as a more honest moderator than pushcx. I haven't seen dang play games with history, or worse, his own memory. Even if I disagree with his opinions, or question his judgement, I have a sense that dang tries to be honest. Which is not by the "transparency" of a gigantic wall-of-text or countless rules, tools and nuance.
dang stays on topic and is focused on HN's mission; he doesn't comment as he likes. Whereas your average discord & reddit moderator freely delivers strong, half-true opinions or announces lofty standards. They then forget what they say, do different from what they say, try to justify what they did or didn't do, and become, unknowingly, less than honest.
I don't mean to give a panegyric here. Half my trust is because dang is paid to moderate. He's a professional. The money makes dang's motivation more straightforward, whereas other moderators don't get paid so they look for part of their wage in the control they exert over others. It's natural, if perverted, motivation that conflicts directly with their self-story, which the moderator resolves by with even more story-telling.
Sounds lovely.
Peak HN, absolutely hilarious!
And the moderators and most of the remaining userbase of Lobsters are American political left-progressives, and this dramatically informs how they choose to moderate.
I've been here 12 years and I don't remember HN focusing solely on technical topics, unless the word "technical" has widened to mean "anything one engineer finds intellectually stimulating".
Nowadays it feels more like sales, marketing, management, and investor interests, and topics they find interesting which has far more popularity than anything at the implementation level.
Granted, HN probably better matches what matters these days to launch a successful company. But we're all older now and working for companies that became what we once tried to disrupt, and it shows.
Good founders have always been more about sales, marketing, funding, etc.
And that’s not meant to be an insult. I’ve always been more of a fan of the people who create successful businesses from technology than the technology itself.
The discussions are shallow and pointless, lots of actors arguing in bad faith and lots of commercial hype, lately mostly around AI to the point that the site is barely interesting for the tech-curious.
And then there's dang's moderation where he deletes comments or requires users to remove comments themselves to avoid being banned.
Yah, I deleted my 10+ yo account there over that. I won't have a site tell me what browser I should or should not use.
https://github.com/lobsters/lobsters-ansible/issues/45
They outline a very specific behaviour that Brave engaged in but Chrome, Edge, and Safari do not. Brave was engaging in fraudulent behaviour, wherein it posed a fake donations scheme to users of the browser under the guise of supporting website owners with their implicit but nonexistent consent, and in actuality took the money for itself. Brave then also specifically and publicly singled out Lobsters in an issue. Lobsters devs do not want to spend dev time engaging with scammers operating in bad faith. Seems fair to me.
See also an HN thread about the fraud scheme: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999
Allegedly. This, the "Brave was putting ads of their own on other pages" and "adding the referrer code for Binance" stories get thrown around like they were (a) are all huge sources of profit (b) carried on with malicious intent and (c) on par with the BILLIONS of dollars in ad fraud that goes around and Google so conveniently turns a blind eye.
Also, it's basically a given that Brave is not in a position to generate billions through such a scheme. It simply doesn't have the market share for that. If Chrome did the same thing that Brave did, they probably would generate billions. It is equally unethical either way.
Moreover, Google has an effective monopoly. Even if you wanted to protest Chrome, you can't do so without effectively shutting down your website. Chrome coerces consent into whatever they do. Brave does not have that power. You describe that as punching down, but just because Chrome has the capability to coerce consent does not mean we should be surrendering our consent to anyone and everyone.
They didn't do that. They were not actively promoting creators. it was the opposite. They were letting people mark someone as a potential recipient of contributions as a way to bootstrap their network.
> just because Chrome has the capability to coerce consent does not mean we should be surrendering our consent to anyone and everyone.
Your bias is showing.
Brave did not "coerce" anything to anyone. Their crypto stuff is opt-in. The ad blocker is opt-in.
Rationalize all you want, if you think that is justified to have a website blocking a browser like Brave because "of what they do to users", then it should be a moral imperative to help others to stop using chrome, edge and Safari.
Neither I, nor the linked issue, cite that Brave was blocked "because of what they do to users". If this had happened to me, I would block them based on what they did to me. As I said, the act in question is personally offensive in a way that what Google does is not. It plays on the border of identity fraud. If a browser is using my identity to solicit donations, I'm well within my right to do what I can to interfere with that.
Regards to coercion, I did not say that Brave coerced anyone. I pointed out that Google effectively does via its monopoly power, and that is why that people cannot realistically choose to block Chrome. The matter of coercion is addressing your complaint that they aren't also blocking Chrome, not a criticism of Brave.
A perceived, harmless, unintentional and nonetheless remediated offense is worse than the continuous abuse of power and anti-user practices from Google, Microsoft and Apple. It might seem justified to you, but to me it's just displaced indignation and illustrates why we will forever live in this corporate dystopia.
It certainly wasn't remediated, given that the donations received were not refunded. "Stops doing fraud when caught" is not remediation.
It is hard to come up with a situation where Google would be doing these types of tricks, because Google is already the dominant player in the market and they don't want to create products that cannibalize their own revenue streams.
> Thinking about the vocabulary also ensures that we are thinking about the data, concepts and notions we are working with in a deliberate manner and that kind of thinking also helps when we design the architecture of software.
As it stands, when I want more tech news I go to lobsters and there is the same stuff.