1. 4

In my experience (and opinion), The Register is a snarky tech website, that often publishes clickbait, misleading (case in point https://lobste.rs/s/ppympb/oracle_finally_targets_java_non_payers), or just plain mean articles. They do minimal original reporting of news as far as I can tell, and any news that they print and republish usually has another source which is written better, and takes a more even handed tone.

The two Register articles currently on the front page:

have better sources at

I don’t think the world needs more snark, nor should it be encouraged. What does the Lobsters community think about banning submissions for any links from The Register?.

  1. 6

    I don’t mind snark, personally. I actually thought the Reg article about the AWS outage was pretty funny.

    1. 3

      I don’t think it fits why people come here, though. 90% of the internet is insincerity, snark, and half-assed content.

      1. 3

        Yep, Reddit is full of snark and meanness, and a part of HN is people “well-actually"ing each other. I come to Lobsters for thoughtful articles and reasoned comments. Put another way, I would hope that no-one would comment on Lobsters with the same tone that The Register uses in most of its articles.

        1. 1

          I don’t think it fits why people come here, though.

          I disagree. Otherwise those wouldn’t have been upvoted to front page

        2. 1

          I don’t mind the snark so much as the near-absence of fact checking. Stuff on The Register is often flat-out wrong, but if it makes for a good joke they’ll publish anyway.

        3. 2

          I think the best solution would be to allow users to maintain their own website blacklist—I know I’ve wanted this feature in the past. Perhaps a PR is in order?

          1. 1

            The last time this came up I posted a userscript that can block sites by domain or users by name. It’s trivially adapted to block as many domains or users as you like.

            I agree with this post that The Register has been reduced to snarky rewording of actual journalists and can be totally ignored, but I’m not volunteering to add a domain-blocking feature to the codebase. I’d rather just see every story linking to The Register merged into the real source of the story - we’ve had sources for both Cloudpets and AWS on the homepage, too.

            1. 1

              I think that could lead to some problems:

              • Less content for everyone: If you blacklist a source on a global basis, users will be forced to look for other sources (or just don’t bother and leave, depends on the user) to post the same news: The amount of content everyone gets is the same. However if everyone just starts having their own blacklists it doesn’t mean they magically get the same content from other sources, they just get less. Not very different from just hiding posts imo.

              • “Double posting” probably not the correct term, but the first that came to mind, basically:

                1. User A posts news about X from website A
                2. User B has blacklisted website A, doesn’t see a post about X, so they post their own source
                3. User C sees 2 (and potentially more) posts related to the same thing

              But indeed, it would be the less intrusive option if people is really annoyed from one particular source.

            2. 2

              In favor for all the reasons you stated.

              1. 1

                There may be a line somewhere between “free for all” and “ban these sites”. What if there were a feature which would flag a site as “suspicious” and encourage submitters to verify stories elsewhere or look for a better source when submitting?