Communities of Not

2026-06-06 · Source: Armin Ronacher's Thoughts and Writings · Field: Science & Research — Social Sciences & Behavioral Studies · Depth: Fundamental Awareness, quick

Summary

The article "Communities of Not," published on June 06, 2026, examines groups that derive identity from abstaining from something, such as childfree, anti-car, or LLM-skeptical communities. While these groups can pursue positive goals like autonomy or code quality, they frequently make the refused item their central identity. This often escalates beyond criticism into policing and hatred, targeting individuals who deviate from the group's stance. For instance, a developer trying LLMs might face shaming, out-of-context quoting, and discrediting from the community, which perceives their actions as a betrayal. The author, having experienced similar tendencies, urges readers to practice acceptance, de-escalation, and openness, rather than allowing rejection to justify collective harassment. The recent "mob against rsync" concerning LLMs is cited as a specific instance prompting this reflection.

Key takeaway

For developers engaging in online discussions about new technologies like LLMs, or community managers fostering healthy environments, recognize the dangers of "communities of not." These groups, while often starting with valid concerns, can quickly turn into spaces for shaming and harassment against those who explore divergent paths. You should actively resist participating in or enabling such mob behavior. Instead, cultivate an environment of acceptance, de-escalation, and openness to new ideas, even when they challenge established norms.

Key insights

Communities defined by opposition risk devolving into policing and harassment against those who deviate, despite initial positive intentions.

Principles

• Identity from opposition often leads to policing.
• Rejection of a thing can justify mob behavior.
• Default to openness, resist catastrophic readings.

Method

The article encourages a personal approach: breathe, slow down, de-escalate, and resist assuming the most catastrophic reading, defaulting to openness.

In practice

• Avoid shaming individuals for diverging views.
• Question group negativity in online spaces.
• Practice de-escalation in community interactions.

Topics

• Community Dynamics
• Online Harassment
• Group Identity
• LLM Skepticism
• Digital Ethics
• De-escalation

Code references

• RsyncProject/rsync

Best for: Software Engineer, General Interest

Related on AIssential

• A New Policy Framework for Governing Collective Sentiment in Online Communities — Governing collective sentiment proactively prevents online harm by addressing community emotional climates, not just individual content violations.
• Investigating Counterfactual Unfairness in LLMs towards Identities through Humor — LLMs exhibit counterfactual unfairness, applying stricter safety policies and attributing more malicious intent based on speaker-target identity.
• Will the backlash against AI turn violent? – podcast — The attack on Sam Altman underscores the potential for anti-AI sentiment to escalate into violence, driven by existential fears.
• Under a cloud: the growing resentment against the massive datacentres sprouting across Australian cities — Rapid datacentre expansion in Australia faces significant community backlash over environmental and social impacts.
• Research indicates that the resistance to AI is not merely a matter of technological skepticism but is rooted in the preservation of identity and the psychological need for cognitive consistency. — Users avoid AI for worldview-sensitive tasks due to perceived ideological bias and the psychological need for identity preservation.
• Easier to Mislead Than to Correct: Harmful and Beneficial Revision in LLM Conformity — LLMs are more easily misled by peer consensus than corrected, even with reasoning interventions.

Open in AIssential →

Editorial summary, takeaway, and curation by AIssential. Original article published by Armin Ronacher's Thoughts and Writings.