[cpurdy]

I don't think I've ever posted any articles on Lobsters, but there are a bunch of users there that use the "report" feature any time that they see a post that doesn't support their own personal opinion. That aspect of the site does get old, fast.

But most of the users there are cool. Unfortunately, it only takes a few bad users to make the experience of posting uncomfortable.

[jldugger]

> but there are a bunch of users there that use the "report" feature any time that they see a post that doesn't support their own personal opinion

how can you tell?

[cpurdy]

There's a URL for each user that shows their standing. Any recent (last 30 days) reports are listed there. You can't tell who reported you, but you can tell what they were complaining about (which post, what reason they gave).

The URL is reddit-like, i.e. /u/username/standing

The problem is that there's a downside to being reported, but there's apparently no downside to reporting people. Since there's no down-voting of comments on lobsters, and since reporting comments is apparently free and unlimited, some people seem to use it as their down-vote. And since it's anonymous (the reporting person's name isn't included in the report to the person being reported), and since reporting appears to have no limits or downsides, it inevitably creates some twisted incentives.

I currently have no "reports" there, but that's because I (mostly) learned my lesson: Post your own opinion at your own risk. i.e. You'd better make sure that your opinions aren't unpopular with any users there, and particularly not with the dominant group.

I think someone else mentioned that the things that they posted that were reported, were also the things that received many more upvotes. I can personally confirm this from my own history. However, I don't find this surprising: If something evokes a response that could cause someone to upvote it, it shouldn't be surprising that it would evoke a response that could cause someone to report it. And receiving kudos for an opinion does not absolve that opinion of the responsibility to adhere to the rules and standards of the site.

Coincidentally (and AFAIK not related to this thread here), I did have a comment moderated (i.e. deleted) within the last 24 hours. I'm of mixed feelings on the rationale for the moderation. It's a thread that contains highly-upvoted comments like "I hope those responsible get sued to oblivion. This kind of stuff should result in a corporate death penalty." My comment was: "Just waiting for a case like this to make it up to the US Supreme Court so they can rule that it’s a constitutional right of companies to do this." Apparently, my post was "political". (I can only assume that the "political" aspect was my implication that non-human legal entities like corporations should not be granted legal rights by SCOTUS that expropriate or otherwise displace the rights of actual human beings.) The thread: https://lobste.rs/s/8igrxm/train_firmware_reverse_engineerin...

On the other hand, I do agree that some portion of the topic is very technical in nature (and the technical aspects are interesting), and it's hard to discuss that portion of the topic if people are constantly commenting about relevant aspects of the legal system or whatever. So since the post wasn't specifically about the legal aspects (or "political" aspects, if you insist), I can kind of see the point of the moderation.