I’m all for freedom of association.

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.