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.

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.

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.

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.

RE: I largely agree with this but it doesn't shield them from criticism.

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.