Ask HN: Getting a Lobster.s Invite in '22
Apologies if this sounds as if I was trying to start a controversial or inflammatory thread. I'm just a bit tired of the comment section here and Lobste.rs seem to be a bit more friendly. This is not a thinly veiled comment/hot take about the state of HN.
Getting invites using their IRC used to be easy, but now it takes ages, so I thought I'd ask here.
(
28 comments
| 3 points
| on HN
)
How long, exactly? Weeks? I'm only now hearing about lobste.rs and I'm also interested.
Making it hard to get an invite, and not inviting strangers is by design, as I understand.
[1] https://lobste.rs/u/gregdoesit
wow, that's pretty wild. May need to "invite" a couple of my own backup email accounts then? Didn't realize that's a possibility.
https://lobste.rs/u/jitl
BurntSushi was most definitely not banned; he removed his own account.
I don't understand why people lie so blatantly like this. Please stop.
[1]: https://twitter.com/burntsushi5/status/1399543042261061633
> I don't understand why people lie so blatantly like this.
Why assume malicious intent? Couldn't he just be wrong?
"lie" does indeed carry some connotation of bad intent, and I am totally fine casting that here. I show no quarter to falsehoods, especially today, and especially when they're clearly being used to support a narrative.
This isn't some easy to mix up thing. I went on public record saying why I left. And there was an entire discussion about it. There was never any confusion about why I left. If you're still going to say things that are untrue to push your own narrative, then I'm totally fine calling you out as a liar at that point. It's not even like they just got mixed up between "banning" and "leaving," they also went out of their way to make up some bullshit about why I got banned. There has never been any kind of issue of self-promotion between me and Lobsters, at least none that was ever communicated to me and none that I or anyone else ever publicly communicated.
If the OP wasn't a liar, then they're at best negligent.
And if my behavior is what speaks out to you as bad, then you don't understand Brandolini's law.
Misinformation. Noun. False or inaccurate information, especially that which is *deliberately intended to deceive*.
I stand by my statement.
> I went on public record saying why I left. And there was an entire discussion about it. There was never any confusion about why I left.
Which he clearly hasn't read. Not everybody lives online and not everybody is personally familiar with you and your situation. It certainly doesn't explain why you're inappropriately assuming malicious intent.
> If you're still going to say things that are untrue to push your own narrative
Where is he trying to push a narrative? I looked at his post history here and on Lobsters before posting. This is the first time he's ever mentioned it or brought it up.
> And if my behavior is what speaks out to you as bad
Yes. Even moreso now that you've explained. You could have corrected his statement without acting like the world's out to get you or that he intended you personal harm.
> Which he clearly hasn't read.
Wait... so you can know what they've read, but I can't know that they're a liar? Talk about having your cake and eating it too!
> You could have corrected his statement without acting like the world's out to get you or that he intended you personal harm.
Get off your high horse buddy. The HN guidelines don't mean you can't call a spade a spade. What was said was so blatantly false that it's reasonable to assume it's a lie IMO, and now you've started a shit fight because you didn't like that I took just a modicum of liberty.
Congrats in your successful troll. But I won't make that mistake with you again.
You are free to define words for yourself however you want, but "deliberately intended to deceive" is not a common requirement for "misinformation" AFAIK. e.g. it does not appear in e.g. Merriam-Webster or many other dictionaries; most just define it as "Information that is incorrect" or some variant thereof, which is also how I would use the word, neutral of any value judgement.
And even if it was, "especially" does not mean "exclusively". In my observation most "misinformation" is not spread deliberately; the root of it may be, but not the people who spread and amplify it.
Basically, you used my name to support a narrative that Lobsters moderation is too heavy handed. But I have actually thought that Lobsters moderation wasn't strict enough. I wanted more moderation, not less, in order to raise the level of discourse.
However, a site that is defined as being dedicated to controversial topics is likely to turn into a flame-fest or an echo-chamber quite fast. Do you have a proposed mechanism for preventing that?
[0]: http://arclanguage.org/install
Mods sent me a nastygram about it - apparently they checked the logs to see that I had originally submitted with a “disallowed” tag - as if I should have known that the message actually meant “you may not post this article now at all because you initially picked a tag that is disallowed for newcomers.” My bad, what a totally intuitive unwritten rule you have there - “any error from the system means you should just go away.”
Said nastygram also threatened to ban me for self-promotion. I didn’t write the article in question, so I’m really not sure what they mean over there by “self-promotion.”
I replied to the nastygram seeking some clarification on what I was doing wrong, but never got a reply. Haven’t bothered to interact since, because apparently a mod is pissed at me for reasons I truly cannot understand, and I don’t want to get my friend’s account banned for having invited me.
Doesn’t seem like a great place to me.