Lobsters is a community-driven platform for sharing and discussing links to articles, tutorials, and projects related to technology and programming. Readers can learn about a wide range of topics, from software development and system administration to cybersecurity and artificial intelligence. With user submissions, comments, and voting, Lobsters provides a platform for collaborative learning and knowledge sharing among technology enthusiasts.

Lobsters

Open-source communities face pollution from low-effort, dishonest projects that prioritize marketing over substance. These "slop projects" mimic the aesthetics of legitimate open-source work with fancy websites, contribution guidelines, and roadmaps, but lack real problem-solving value. The author argues for cultural gatekeeping to preserve open-source values, distinguishing between beginner mistakes (acceptable) and dishonest performance (harmful). Red flags include AI-generated content, premature community scaffolding, tech-stack-focused descriptions, and projects announced before implementation. The solution is simple: build real things that solve actual problems, or be honest about learning projects.

your project fucking sucks

FINALLY, a headline on this app I can get behind.

I believe there is no real solution to this problem. We gave them the keys and now they are using them. Years ago, the developer community and (consequently) the tech side of the Web were essentially inaccessible to non-dev people. In the last 2-3 years, things have changed very quickly.
Take for example job posting boards, like LinkedIn, speaking of job postings in the dev field. The board is invaded by agencies that look for AI trainers, companies like Twine spamming the same job in different posts and fake companies posting jobs opportunities that are actually job referrals from other platforms.
This is the world that we created.

My first thought: “Why is this author so angry?”
Then I realised in essence it is the age-old and standard argument for elitism. Who will be the authority of which projects deserved the right to “be?” Just another committee of people deemed “worthy” to judge these matters? Or make it democratic — allowing an up/down vote system like we have here on daily dev?
And I’m as guilty of it as the author. For me, personally, it is the amount of brazen fake news cluttering YouTube from videos taken from the news broadcast of a few months ago, and then creating YouTube content with a clickbait title and an upload time that always seems to indicate that the clickbait title is “breaking news” while it is actually hackneyed common knowledge that was current several months in the past.
And when you go to the channel, you realize that they re-upload their entire content continuously and potentially outsmarting the YouTube gate keepers and sneek into the pool of monetised content literally tapping money from the system in a very disingenuous manner.
And then you remember that there are individuals in world leader positions running very slight adaptations of the same tried-and-tested con. And when confronted with the point that they are polluting the common area, they shrug their shoulders with impunity and an unsaid: “What are you going to do about it?”
We live in a world where the freely available public platforms and the algorithms supposedly designed to moderate which of those information bytes are worthy of the paying public’s attention very evidently need additional moderation since they tend to optimise for mass monetary earnings rather than the quality of what is disseminated and allowed to present itself in the constantly shapeshifting stream presented to “consumers.”
But here’s the thing: we’re already using additional moderators. Platforms like daily.dev exist precisely to curate from all the new content out there, filtering what flows into our available options when deciding where to focus our attention. The question isn’t whether moderation happens — it already does — but rather whose interests that moderation serves.
How do we trust these platforms when slop still makes it into our consciousness? I don’t think there is a “solution” other than flagging operators who really act in bad faith to the maintainers of the platform through which it found its way to us. And if they do nothing about it, we realise and calibrate to which extent that platform is really of service to us or alternatively just using our attention as a commodity to shove in front of the highest bidder resulting in max yields by the platform.
The author’s frustration is understandable — there are genuinely problematic behaviors like dishonesty about project status or begging for contributions on brand-new weekend projects. But the piece conflates that with things that might just indicate inexperience or legitimate learning. The author writes “DON’T pretend your toy project is something revolutionary,” but perhaps the better message is “DO be transparent about what your project actually is.” That shifts from policing to encouraging honesty, which feels more aligned with the collaborative spirit the author claims to defend.
Those YouTube clickbait farms I mentioned exist because they’re profitable within YouTube’s attention economy. YouTube could crack down harder, but there’s a reason they don’t — those farms generate engagement metrics, even if that engagement is largely frustration and disappointment. The platform’s incentives aren’t fully aligned with ours.
The messy reality is that platforms like daily.dev, Hacker News, Reddit, etc. give us better signal-to-noise than raw firehoses, but they’re not perfect and never will be. There’s no algorithmic silver bullet that will perfectly filter signal from noise. It requires ongoing, active discernment on our part — staying alert, reporting when appropriate, recalibrating trust based on platform behavior.
Our attention remains our responsibility to manage. And yes, I think the author’s point is interesting and that it is something which we will always have to deal with in an as non-toxic as possible manner. The alternative — hoping for some perfect algorithmic solution or centralizing judgment in some “quality committee,” is either naive or recreates the very problems the article complains about.
What I wondered about was which platforms the author uses to curate the FOSS with which they are confronted or delighted?