40 comments

[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 69.2 ms ] thread
What exactly does Lobsters solve? Who does this cater to?
Seems like a tech news link aggregator like HN, except it's invite-only: https://lobste.rs/about
If you (or anyone else on here) would like an account, feel free to post a comment with your email address or shoot me a message (address in profile).

Edit: Invites sent for any requests up to 14:50 UTC. I'll check the thread later on for updates.

Can I take you up on that? I've been lurking on there for a long time and having an account to post the occasional comment would be nice.

Email is morenzg@gmail.com

zie@birl.org
(comment deleted)
I'd appreciate an invite - thanks! lobste@freytag.org
I'd enjoy one, please.

chbarts@gmail.com

Thank you.

The idea looks interesting, but looking at the frontpage there seem to be very few threads with any comments on them.

Maybe I'm missing something about the format. Do you feel that there's a sense of community and discussion? Or is it mostly a feed of interesting things?

TBH I mostly just lurk there and use it as a feed of interesting things when my need for procrastination exceeds what even HN has to offer. It's surfaced some nice stories though, that I didn't see on HN.

From what limited view I've had into the community, the quality of the discussion seems similar to HN. With a lot less volume, of course.

I'd love one gduplessy+lobsters@gmail.com
Sure... uninvolved@outlook.com

Thanks!

I'll add my thanks here. I suppose thank you type posts aren't always the most productive, but I am adding it because it also serves as confirmation that my I invite was received and, of course, that I am grateful.
I'd also like an account: support at getfilemapper.com
Thank you, kind sir.
I think that HN used to have opaque moderation - people would find themselves shadow-banned and not know why.

Lobste.rs makes different choices around moderation (including user moderation) and is a lot more transparent than HN.

Lobste.rs is a good community, and I'm glad it's sill going to be around.

Things have changed a bit on HN though. If a mod chooses to ban someone they almost always leave a message. (I think, I'm not a mod.)

Being invitation only, presumably, makes it much harder for someone who has been banned to quickly set up a new account and continue the nefarious behaviour.

Shadow banning mitigates that somewhat as it can take a little while for the person to realise they're banned.

Shadow banning is the most lowly form of moderation.
I've noticed that posts tend to be more technical on Lobsters than on HN. For example you'll rarely find posts about gravitational waves or medicine Nobel Prize (to take some examples in the current HN top posts), it's more about programming, software, technical stuff.

Quality is good in general both in terms of posts and comments, so it's a good complement to HN.

The founder was banned from HN for asking why a story title was changed. People like that.
I think HN is a whole lot better than it used to be. (I think shadowbans used to be common back when pg ran this site.)

I'm still happy that other sites exist.

I'm pretty easy going, so I haven't experienced it, but shadowbanning seems like a nefarious thing. I'd much rather, I think, know that I have been banned and why I have been banned.

That is actually speculation. I've never actually been banned from any online community.

In case it wasn't clear I agree.

I think todays practice is a whole lot better.

I also haven't been banned yet but I feel I sometimes annoy dang a lot even when I try to be as polite as possible without letting go of the facts so I won't be surprised if/when it happens.

I sorta told a mod off, not dang but one of the guys at night usually, before I knew he was a moderator. What I respect is that he never even mentioned his moderator status. I figured it out when I saw him threaten to ban someone at a later date and remembered the username.

So, I have grown to respect the moderation here. It is generally a light touch and I've seen them give multiple earnings. They seem to be pretty even headed and aren't power hungry or overly controlling.

I realize this strays a bit far from the topic at hand, but it seems related enough to share. It's also a good time to point out that they were right, I was wrong, and I am sorry for grumping at them.

If what I've observed, the HN mods are pretty good at leaving a comment when someone's been banned. Sounds like there are two perhaps different understandings of shadowbanning: banning without letting someone know, and allowing a user to continue to post with their comments being dead by default. If someone hasn't read their responses (which can happen) one might not be aware they are banned. Am I understanding you correctly in that you're referring to the first (no notice) vs the second (dead comments)?
Shadowbanning is, to me, banning that results in the user still believing they aren't banned and that their posts appear, to them, to be posted normally. Shadow banning means the user doesn't even know they were banned and still sees their posts being posted as if there has been no change.

They may only notice the difference after they have logged out and then checked to see if their post has actually been posted like normal. It seems insidious, perhaps nefarious was too strong a word. I can see where some people might have earned such a ban, however.

Given that description, would you mind elaborating on what you would consider a prescription, in the context of HN?
Trust system for invites and transparent moderation.