I don't think you want to store your source code in a place where they ban projects based on politics [1]:
> Allowing these projects is not a neutral stance; the effects to the environment are severe. The "DarkFi" (seemingly some crypto designed for criminals, citing an FBI director) project for example uses a "PoW blockchain" (per their readme). PoW (Proof-Of-Work) projects waste an astonishing amount of computational energy, with Bitcoin alone using more energy than the entire countries of Argentina or the Netherlands. This energy is almost always from fossil fuels, which directly contributes to greenhouse gas emissions and undermining any global efforts to fight climate change.
> This is not a neutral space, Codeberg is political. If you disagree with someone, be constructive and don't call them merely political and think that's a reason for the discussion to stop.
Cryptocurrency is bad, but LLMs are fine? What next? Maybe you can't store your simulation source there because it is deemed to resource intensive for the expected results? When did source code itself become dangerous?
I'd rather companies actually care (or even just care about seeming to care) about ethics, rather than only caring what makes the line go up the fastest, yes.
A company that treats ethics as optional, or that thinks "it's a business" excuses every imaginable sin, is one that will happily screw you and me over too.
Also, in the long term, making climate change worse is a catastrophically bad decision for absolutely everybody. Companies just have to look past the ends of their own noses to see the immediate, quick payout of not giving a fuck about it is like accepting payment to dig their own graves.
Also, this is probably, in part, about all the cryto scams everywhere. Companies don't like legal trouble.
Anyway, anybody who's sane backs up their source code. If a company burns you, and it's not a monopoly, you leave it. It's not a problem.
That money had to have come from somewhere, whether it was taxpayers or individuals. What if I donated? Is it cool to just roll over and allow political groups to hijack a previously neutral service?
Also there are other projects hosted there, and network effects involved.
Probably if you become a member you'll have more ability to discuss with the other members and the board and the operators, yes.
Clearly they are setting limits on a case-by-case basis where needed. If something like GNOME was on Codeberg, they'd happily raise the storage quota for them. So they can also exempt you from the AI code rule if you have a really good reason, which you don't.
They have noted somewhere (it's linked in this thread) that most vibe-coders act like they're big and valuable software projects (like GNOME), and use commensurate resources, even though they aren't. This is what they want to block. If you were actually GNOME and you were vibe-coding, they'd probably let you.
This step perfectly aligns with the political direction Codeberg had from the very start.
Who are you to now come in and demand they change to fit your political stance?
I don't understand the complaint. This is the most participatory governance model of any of your options for this service category. If that's not enough for you, you really should just host your own.
Then it's moved in a direction you don't like and you can withdraw? What happens when someone you don't like, that you donated money to, changes stance?
Codeberg? Did they? I know large corporations do it because they fear commercial retaliation, but Codeberg is a registered German charity by German citizens living in Germany and has absolutely no reason to give a flying fuck what the US president thinks. Which is incredibly based.
Can't every company do that at any time though? How is being on the other side of an ethical line different or more risky from being on the other side of a spreadsheet-driven line. One day you're in a green cell and it's all good, the next you're in a red cell and on the other side of what they care about (just green cells).
The decision to stop hosting such projects on codeberg will change nothing, it will just make it clear that its not a serious competitor.
Its like how the EU kneecaps everything related to energy because of the climate while literally the best case scenarios for the EU lawa is to be 0.1 colder, because the EU isn't the bigger emitter.
It just doesn't matter.
The biggest problems with energy policy in the EU haven't been about climate. If they were they wouldn't have been shutting down nuclear to burn Russian gas, nor would they have been suffering the high prices when that Russian gas got less available.
Moreover, the EU is a large market. If they e.g. switch to electric cars, it's not just them switching to electric cars, it's all the carmakers who want to continue selling into that market, who in turn design electric rather than ICE cars that they sell everywhere and increase the economies of scale for battery production which makes them more economical everywhere.
I didn't say it violated the first ammendment. I said it violated the principle of free speech. It's the same principle that justifies your ability to post in this discussion here, right now, despite the fact that you don't believe in it yourself.
Maybe we should campaign to ban all left-wing aligned projects from all major git hosting services. No big deal right? After all they can just go somewhere else. No, clearly this is not reasonable. But I say this to demonstrate that your ability operate in society at large depends on the same principle of free speech that you do not extend to others.
Hey. It isn’t the same principle. We have guidelines here, too. For instance: “ Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.” “Avoid generic tangents.” Etc.
> It's the same principle that justifies your ability to post in this discussion here, right now, despite the fact that you don't believe in it yourself.
HN has rules. I can be banned if I violate them.
It seems this very site does not uphold the free speech principle all that much.
> Maybe we should campaign to ban all left-wing aligned projects from all major git hosting services.
Sure, if it suits them. Fine by me. I believe in freedom of association.
There are some limitations for certain public services to avoid discrimination and segregation, but apart for that, I don't care.
In fact, I host my own Gitea instance for my private projects.
> But I say this to demonstrate that your ability operate in society at large depends on the same principle of free speech that you do not extend to others.
It absolutely does not. Speech was not completely free in any country I lived in, and society worked out fine.
There is a degree of freedom within the democratic framework of those countries, but there are absolutely rules limiting speech. And it is fine, societies are all about compromises.
> with Bitcoin alone using more energy than the entire countries of Argentina or the Netherlands
Btw this particular comparison can be traced back to a single Guardian article from 2021/2022 or so
It's a very weird comparison imho cause what they did (in the original article) was sort all the countries by energy usage, and notice that Bitcoin lies between Argentina and Netherlands. I thought a better comparison would be to consider that air condition uses 20x the amount of electricity globally compared to what Bitcoin uses. You can find a whole lot of other comparisons here: https://ccaf.io/cbnsi/cbeci/ghg/comparisons (the airco comparison is about halfway on the page).
Now I'm not trying to argue that bitcoin doesn't waste a lot of energy, it totally does. It's still a lot of energy and proof-of-work does seem really wasteful. Fortunately not all crypto currencies use proof-of-work.
It's just ... it's a stupid comparison. it doesn't really make anything any clearer to the reader by knowing that the global energy usage of Bitcoin ranges between NL and Argentina.
Anyway, it's not wrong. it's just .. yeah it's a lot? I guess? a country is a lot? Is it just households or also the country's industry? Anyway.
My main point, however, is that quoting a ~4 year old piece of not-so-great journalism shows exactly how much original thought these people gave to the subject. They're basically repeating a line that hardly made sense 4 years ago.
Edit: BTW I want to add, they're giving away a service for free and therefore it's their good right to decide who gets it and who doesn't. And it's my good right to think those reasons are stupid.
> Now I'm not trying to argue that bitcoin doesn't waste a lot of energy, it totally does.
Bitcoin doesn't waste energy, it uses energy to encode and secure the blockchain. The federal reserve (corrupt as it is) does not waste energy to print dollar bills, it is just part of the process of creation.
That's not correct. The complaint isn't about data processing energy, it's about the energy purposely wasted in the "how much energy can I waste today" e-dick contest that gives you the right to print new bitcoins. Of course everyone is wasting as much energy as they can.
It isn't "as much as they can", it's as much as is profitable. Which currently means that if you're paying more than about $0.08/kWh for electricity, it isn't profitable and there is no financial incentive to do it.
Of course, this means that people with access to cheap electricity still have the incentive to do it, but now who are they? Well, the places with the cheapest electricity fall into two categories. First, the ones like Iraq that heavily subsidize the cost of electricity, but those countries tend to ban cryptocurrency mining because their intention isn't to subsidize it and that's otherwise what they would be doing.
Second, the places with a large amount of hydro or renewable generation, which then have cheap electricity whenever the intermittent sources have high output. So for example, the country that does the most Bitcoin mining by a fair margin is the US, and the top US state for it is Texas, which despite its reputation actually uses significantly more renewable generation than both the US and world average.
Moreover, cryptocurrency mining instantaneously becomes unprofitable when the price of electricity increases, so when those places with a lot of renewable generation see a period of low output and increase the price because they have to switch on fossil fuel peaker plants instead, the Bitcoin miners immediately shut down because paying the higher prices would be losing money. But loads that disappear quickly in response to higher prices like that are exactly what you need to increase the amount of renewable generation in the grid. You have 1GW of Bitcoin miners and 1GW of ordinary consumers and you can use 2GW of solar generation without needing to backstop it with anything because when solar output is at 50% the price goes up some and the Bitcoin miners drop out until the clouds clear.
With the result that mining tends to happen using excess renewable generation and funds and supports the increase in renewables as a percentage of the grid.
You know what's a real waste of energy?
The federal reserve increasing the money supply by 50% in the last half decade and inflated away the savings of hundreds of millions of people that spent tens of thousands of hours of their lives earning that money through blood, sweat and tears.
Who is keeping significant savings as cash in a mattress? Anyone holding investment assets sees nominal asset prices increase along with inflation.
The thing that really screws them is that the government calls the nominal but not real asset price increase a capital gain and wants to collect tax on it.
The core argument they are making is one of resources, I can find myself seeing their point. Another abuse of the service would be to convert videos into ASCII text and check them into git, for example.
The issue with the crypto argument is that it is purely political, it is not affecting the service at all. You may think that you agree because it happens to align with your political sentiment, but it's entirely possible they come for your projects next.
Yes if you compare a proof of stake blockchains (most of them) and the banking industry, crypto has a far smaller environmental footprint.
Ethereum (since PoS) was designed to allow anybody to run a validator or even a full node out of modest hardware. The result is that the entire network probably has a smaller footprint than a single small/medium size bank.
While I can't confirm comparisons to a "small/medium size bank" specifically (cause I have no idea how), I can perhaps clarify a bit
Ethereum moved to proof-of-stake in 2022, and it was initially expected to use only 1% of the energy it used when it was proof-of-work.
Turned out they were under-estimating the savings. According to studies by the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance and the Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute, Ethereum's 2022 switch to Proof-of-Stake reduced its global network energy consumption by over 99.98% overnight.
As far as I understand, this was made possible because the Ethereum protocol was set up to be made extensible like this (even though big changes like these are hard), while Bitcoin on the other hand, is stuck on proof-of-work forever, since its protocol does not allow for changing it.
There isn't really a technical difference that made PoS viable for Ethereum but not Bitcoin; it's a hard fork in either case. The differences are more cultural -
- For better or worse, Ethereum has more centralized leadership (mainly the EF) which helps coordinate upgrades. Hard forks happen pretty regularly, and don't typically risk fracturing the community, unless the changes are particularly controversial (see Ethereum Classic).
- PoS wasn't that controversial, since it was planned from the beginning (see the difficulty bomb). Some users still resisted the switch - see the EthereumPoW fork - but for the most part the community was on board.
- The Bitcoin community OTOH values ossification. It rarely accepts proposed hard forks as "still Bitcoin"; that has only happened a few times in its history. The community's response to most proposed hard forks is "interesting, but that's not Bitcoin, call it something else."
- The Bitcoin community is also more ideologically and economically invested in PoW, so a proposed PoS fork would be extremely controversial, and would fracture the community (at best, if it gained any traction at all).
The centralization and PoS makes Ethereum unsafe. What's the point of moving from a currency that a government can unilaterally control to a currency that the Ethereum board/stakers can unilaterally control?
The point of PoW is that it resists monopolization unlike PoS.
The centralized leadership has no hard power though; the community normally goes along with changes they propose because they're normally sensible. If they go rogue, people will stop following their proposals.
In Vitalik's words: "If someone puts a gun to my head and tells me to write a hard-fork patch, I will definitely write it. If I publish a patch to delete a bunch of accounts, how many people here would download and install the update and switch to that chain? I see relatively few raised hands. This is called decentralization"
PoW is trivial to control in its' today form. When the network hash power is dominated by three players, you know every address you need to pay a visit.
Validators are low requirements, in the RPI ballpark and and a lot if them are combined on a single host.
Then you also need some full nodes to access the data or submit transactions. So you can consider them part of the core infrastructure and those have higher requirements in terms of bandwidth and speed/capacity of storage but also CPU. But still a mini PC is fine.
Let's say a bank have 10k employees, you already might need more computer power just with their "laptops".
Now Ethereum is a global network competing with all the network of banks all around the world.
So you can do a quick calculation its footprint is magnitude lower.
Are we going to pretend that hosting open sourse software for free is an apolitical thing?
Neutrality itself is very political. You may prefer it, and that is fine; sometimes I prefer it as well.
But within the confined of the law, it should be a non-issue that a free service is not neutral.
To be frank, I think that the majority of people screeching about Codeberg here are totally fine with "right to refuse service" when it comes to businesses (as if that was not political at all).
Not the biggest fan of crypto myself, but allowing LLMs and "AI" stuff with open arms while condemning PoW crypto is hilarious. They should just say they don't like crypto at that point, because LLMs and datacenters for them are causing way more harm. Even if their qualms are fraud and abuse, I have some bad news for them about what people are using LLMs for lol
Companies chasing profitmaxxing (to use a fashionable pattern) are just as political, do you complain about those too? Anyway, the answer is the same here: If you don't like it, just don't use them.
I'd say Microsoft is pretty political. But you're welcome to continue using Github. No one's asking you to host your FOSS projects (for free) on Codeberg.
A million scammers forked around and found out - and to ban that is politics?
At least you went straight to whataboutisms - instead of introspection. "Why cant we have the sweets, the others are getting-" instead of "Why did we built something that allows the worst of human nature to run rampant- and how could we do better"..
And has a very vocal/opinionated owner. You know what you're getting with Sourcehut. (And I don't mean that in a bad way).
Rightly or wrongly, Codeberg had a different feel. For a while it felt like it was trying to be a refuge from Github. But then again, maybe that was projecting something on them that they didn't intend.
Once again, the stability of a BDFL is vindicated.
Democracy works ok in extremely complex systems like giant distros—Debian’s governance is slow but functional—but it seems to need guardrails around the process. (From what I can tell, an excruciating process is the best guardrail. Glacially slow decision-making means that mobs burn themselves out before they get to voting.)
I wouldn't call Drew DeVault stable, he crashed out after 4chan simultaneously exposed his creation of the RMS report alongside his huge loli porn fixation.
He may not be, but the product has been. Same goes with Theo and OpenBSD.
Hyper-productive people are often volatile. Putting up with it is a necessary tradeoff, as the systems they produce often fill a niche that nobody else will serve adequately.
Guys like Theo have a baseline to uphold and I think decades of dealing with the public on an open project with specific goals that need to be met would turn anyone sour. People respect him for his actual work though, like they used to with Torvalds before he got bought out by IBM.
Drew I think is just kind of a dick who has a history of putting his personal crusades before delivering a product people want. I remember a few years back sourcehut being reported as unstable and he went and lashed out at people who were complaining to him about it instead of fixing the issues. And he banned crypto projects cause he doesn't like them, at least Codeberg held it to a vote.
Patrick Volkerding is a pretty stable guy, I think he's the model more BDFLs should strive to be.
Patrick is an unusual exception; I’d actually put people like Drew, Theo, and pre-corporate Linus in the midpoint. The opposite extreme of Patrick would be unfortunate cases like Reiser and Ian Murdock.
I think Drew suffers a little from lack of focus. I greatly appreciate his work on Harelang, sway, and aerc for instance, but these are quite far from his Sourcehut work. (I can see how aerc and Sourcehut dovetail with the plaintext email focus, at least.)
Stability? A BDFL can make decisions at a whim that radically destabilize and change the project. Lording over and causing immense harm to the community without any sort of accountability is a recipe for disaster.
Good for everyone? A BDFL can unilaterally make decisions that prioritize their own desires over everyone else. It becomes about their personality rather than the project.
Functional? A BDFL is less functional, seeing how there is no requirement that the BDFL do anything that the community of people actually wants.
If you're saying you're opposed to democracy because you don't like the decision that codeberg reached democratically, the BDFL can do the exact same thing. Except the process is far worse, because there is literally no input from anyone else on making the decision.
You can say all these things, and yet my experience with BDFLs in reality has been the opposite. More often, they make good decisions that continue their vision for the project, rather than abruptly redirecting the project. This is because productive people are often relatively consistent in their vision and direction.
Small community “democracy” OTOH often devolves into ochlocracy, or reactive mob rule. Small communities are easily swayed, don’t often have a durable vision, and can easily be infiltrated by people who don’t have the best interest of the project (or the users) at heart.
The only thing that can offset these effects is a heavy process, like Debian has, which slows down the mob and forces everyone to consider all sides of the issue. This can actually work! And for some projects it’s a better fit than a BDFL.
I think there is a slight difference between open source and government there. With open source you can just leave and pick another one. Or start your own.
Well I suppose that's also technically true of governments...
If this, or the vibe-coding ban upsets you, you're not the target demographic of Codeberg. It's not a big tent project looking to host all the code in the word, like Github is. It's for principled, quality, open source, community-first software. Look at the explore page to see what that means: https://codeberg.org/explore/repos?q=&only_show_relevant=tru...
The entire point of Forgejo, the git forge that Codeberg runs on as well, is that you can run your own very easily. I've stopped having private repos on Github completely in favor of my own Forgejo instance, and it's way smoother and nicer. Codeberg was never meant for private repos, but if I get around to starting a new floss project that I want to put out there, Codeberg would be a great option!
And sure, right now there is no cross-forge collaboration, so you need to have multiple accounts. But forge federation is planned, eventually you should be able to contribute to your friend's project from your instance. If you don't wanna wait, go look at https://tangled.org/ or something.
The problem is that if you are the target demographic now, you’ll never know if you’re still next year or if you’ll be deplatformed and as such it makes for not a very reliable code host.
Slippery slope. AI and crypto are legitimetely controversial new technologies, though both have their uses. I can't imagine "offline mapping application" or "Linux CLI utility" or "self-hostable web app" being categories of software that become controversial in the future. Besides, migrating a repo to another Forgejo instance is simple enough.
But this is silly.I can't imagine any "offline mapping application" or "Linux CLI utility" or "self-hostable web app" will be produced without AI in any near future and be better for that.
The ban is not for "all blockchain-related projects", it's for "projects that harm the reputation of Codeberg" with the newly added clarification that they may include cryptocurrency projects for example. Moderation is not very proactive on Codeberg. This terms addition basically gives them clearance to ban a cryptocurrency project that is deemed to harm the site's/community's reputation by for example being a scammy shitcoin.
> with the newly added clarification that they may include cryptocurrency projects for example.
Yes. That's what the post you're replying to is discussing. 'Cryptocurrency projects' is a bizarre example of a project that would harm Codeberg's reputation (which they have harmed themselves by their odd stance in this matter). If you are unfamilar with blockchains, transaction fees for blockchain programs are paid using tokens (which used to be called 'cryptocurrencies').
Why? Banning abuse is fine, and disliking Cryptocurrency projects at a moral level is fine, but running a coffee hosting service and putting your moral judgements on projects like this just seems childish and unserious.
I'm also apparently banned from reading the article, despite having no previous usage of Codeberg or any history with the project, so I can't even see their reasoning.
In the words of the person who announced the ban, when moderating a discussion on it 8 months prior:[1]
> > Dear Codeberg, please push out and ban these political fighters.
> This is not a neutral space, Codeberg is political. If you disagree with someone, be constructive and don't call them merely political and think that's a reason for the discussion to stop.
the maintainers of Codeberg do not believe that they are a "coffee hosting service" that neutrally hosts code from a variety of perspectives. Their view is that hosting code is a political act and this is backed by the donations funding Codeberg's operation.
> the maintainers of Codeberg do not believe that they are a "coffee hosting service" that neutrally hosts code from a variety of perspectives.
They do not believe this because this is simply not the reality we live in
> Their view is that hosting code is a political act and this is backed by the donations funding Codeberg's operation.
They are correct in this view. No matter how "apolitical" platforms like Github and various maintainers of open source projects pretend to be, the reality is that creating, hosting and distributing code is highly political and should be treated as such.
Yeah. It's like everybody's forgetting that github also bans things, such as certain projects that receive DMCA takedown requests.
And github pushing its LLM garbage into Visual Studio. If banning crypto or LLM's is political, so too must be pushing them on people who don't want them and very loudly object.
It's only 'political' when someone is trying to divert from the actual, specific subject of a discussion. It's a thought-stopping tactic, not actual substantive criticism.
No, it's not. If you see everything through these political lense, you end up constantly in a us vs them mentality. Or a "you're either with us, or against us". I don't think it's healthy.
It really is. Hosting requires a server owned by a company or private individual located in a country. The goals of these companies/individuals and the pressures put on them by their countries are quite political - and as a result hosting becomes political.
Not always, but usual. It isn't that strange for a library to have a copy and it isn't that strange to check it out although the librarian is definitely checking you for swastika tattoos.
Well, if you're not part of the community, what do you care?
Are you saying you are opposed to this on the grounds that anything could happen in the future? That doesn't really make sense. Yes, anything could happen. Yes, people change. That is true in nearly all contexts.
If you're asking in good faith, you participate in the community democratically and try to influence others. Just like normal.
There was a vote held for this decision, it was 306-154.
It's a bit of an inappropriate comparison though, since restaurants are ubiquitous and reasonable GitHub alternatives are vanishingly rare. People are quite rightly more troubled when providers in a low-cardinality space become unviable.
You can literally take the exact same software that Codeberg uses, Forgejo, and stand up your own alternative with different policies, with the only real cost being operational in nature. It seems less the case that it's a "low-cardinality space", and more that people feel entitled to other people's labour under their own terms.
Only GitHub and Gitlab have a large intersection of features. You can probably choose around one from the rest of the list, if they happen to have what you need.
They have 1085 Voters, only 306 Voters voted for the proposal, and it passed. That might clear their governance requirements on paper, its certainly not a majority of their eligible voting community.
Ok, have you ever been part of a directly democratic organization? Not everyone shows up to every meeting or every vote. An organization I was a part of had quorum at 10%.
I was very tempted to reply with a ”always has been” astronaut meme, or possibly Morpheus ”what if I told you” meme. But I would not have contributed in a good manner like that.
The way I have come to understand it is that everything is indeed political.
An I mean it, even driving at the speed limit is in a sense a political act saying ”I respect the laws by our politicians”.
Working 40 hours a week is a political number.
Or another example from where I live, there are two major grocery chains, one of which has owners who were recently convicted of insider trading and price fixing, and openly supports anti-LGBTQ movements. Shopping there is a political act implicitly supporting their political cause and accepting their crimes as okay, even though it might seem far removed.
People sometimes want politics to be neatly siloed away, but politics is deeply embedded in our society and I think we would be better off embracing it instead of fighting it. Because maybe then discussions about it can be more productive.
> Or another example from where I live, there are two major grocery chains, one of which has owners who were recently convicted of insider trading and price fixing, and openly supports anti-LGBTQ movements. Shopping there is a political act implicitly supporting their political cause and accepting their crimes as okay, even though it might seem far removed.
The trouble with this reasoning is that it's always an isolated demand for rigor.
This other of the major grocery store chains, does it sell food produced by factory farms or huge unsavory agribusiness corps? Are any of its major shareholders the Wall St jerks who do all the sort of thing Wall St jerks do, or anyone else who isn't a good person? It probably sells to anyone who walks in the door without checking who they are, so they could be far-<disfavored side> extremists. Can you support a company whose customers are such people?
The world is extremely interconnected. As soon as you open up looking not at what some company or person is doing themselves but at what anyone who works for them or supplies them or buys from them is doing, there will be someone you don't like. And then whether you're refusing to do business with them depends not on whether that is the case, since it is always the case, but instead on who is whispering in your ear to tell you who to hate.
There is no ethical consumption under capitalism, you and I know that.
The other major chain is a consumer’s cooperative, which is owned by the members and has no stock dividend or major stock ownership. Instead ”dividends” are paid on basis of how much you money spent at the stores (somewhere around 0.5% is repaid as redeemable cheques I think). Each region of stores has yearly meetings where members are allowed to voice opinions and discuss proposals on things like that. It’s certainly not perfect, but that doesn’t mean it’s not better.
> There is no ethical consumption under capitalism, you and I know that.
Why did you include the qualifier "under capitalism"? Is it ethical to be supporting Mao or Stalin rather than Rockefeller?
> The other major chain is a consumer’s cooperative, which is owned by the members and has no stock dividend or major stock ownership.
That's great, now how does it get you out of the problem? Not only do you have all the other members profiting from your consumption and by the numbers some of them will be undesirable, the coop itself is still part of the system. When they take out a loan to buy the building or pay rent to a landlord, the money goes to the bank/landlord. The coop has to pay the market price for the space in the city with the crooked zoning board, driving up profits for the real estate speculators paying them off. When the coop sells you a box of Cheerios, the profits still go to Nestlé, which has been involved in scandals on everything from baby formula to environmental pollution to labor practices. The other major companies have had their own scandals and the minor brands are often the same product in a different box.
And you're missing the most fundamental part of the problem: You don't actually know these people. That shareholder of the other grocery chain, were they convicted of insider trading because they did it, or because the prosecutor filed a charge they couldn't prove and then had to save face by offering a deal to pay a fine less than the legal expenses would be to vindicate themselves in court? The anti-LGBTQ movements, was it a billion dollars to a warlord murdering gay people, or a thousand dollars to a PAC that thinks there might be a reason women's sports exists separately from men's? These things are at least a difference in degree, and that's what matters when you're choosing between alternatives that are all less than perfectly pristine. Moreover, you would need to know not just all of these specific details about them, but all of these specific details about everyone else, before you could determine who is actually better on balance. Is that guy better or worse than Nestlé? When you go to the coop, do you know for every product which company makes it, and who they do business with? Nobody can hold all of that in their head and much of it isn't even public information.
And then we're back to the actual problem. Who is telling you who to hate? When nobody is perfect, anybody can be made into the villain just by selectively highlighting or exaggerating their flaws and ignoring the ones in the alternative.
Just because most of everything has a political angle/facet does not mean it defines my life as much as it seem to do to you. It just serves to help me articulate my choices in life.
I would like to know how taking an active moral stand as Codeberg is doing is lazy. Especially when put in relation to armchair analysis on social media.
Your post I responded you had said "I have come to understand it is that everything is indeed political."
Now you concede a bit:
> Just because most of everything has a political angle/facet does not mean it defines my life as much as it seem to do to you.
You are morally lazy if you think magnifying the political aspect of any relationship is sensible. You've defined no limit to it, which has obvious outcomes. An intuitive limit is insufficient.
You've also got confused and accused me of 'making things political' when my comment is very clearly recommending the opposite - a sort of childish "no you."
> Or, well, you could pay attention to the individual humans involved?
I think your implication is that Codeberg have recently demonstrated they’re the kind of people who banned multiple significant categories (there’s probably a better word?) of software this week, so they probably will continue and ban a a number of additional software categories in the coming year(s)?
They are voluntarily choosing to be a publisher. Publishers are responsible for the actions that the users do on their platform.
States are happier with and want more publishers as it's easier to censor, add surveillance and control them than neutral platforms.
The few past times when Cloudfare censored politically was interesting as they quickly made apologies because they want to be seen more as a neutral platform than a service that nation states can control.
It's why modern internet legislation across all parties and across all nations is geared towards changing platforms into publishers.
And it's why the services that we would have seen to be independent and neutral in the past are choosing this new paradigm.
I'm trying to find more information about their politics. But all I found was their bylaws and a gay flag. Maybe I'm supposed to read between the lines?
In the left-wing spheres here, terms such as "political act" or "solidarity" are just bloat used to make your message sound more left wing. It's a faux pas not to virtue signal in a way that sounds radical and ensures that it won't affect anyone from outside your bubble as well.
An example from recently would be posters for an expensive kinky rave in Berlin offering discounted "solidarity tickets" for refugees, trans folks, sex workers, and BIPOC people. The dress code alone ensures that it's only friends of friends using these labels who will get in anyway.
Pluralism is when strangers are forced to host my code for free. The idea of somebody else putting their time and money into something and then not giving it to me is philosophically worrisome
No, there's a big difference between "net effects are not guaranteed to be perfectly neutral" and "I am going to intentionally put my thumb on the scale".
The position that everything is political so therefore opinions are mandatory intentionally conflates these things.
My issue with this is not that codeberg and its members want to uphold a certain set of political beliefs. Any private organization is free to do that. It's that they haven't defined the rule that's supposed to encode those beliefs.
As written, the rule is a non-exhaustive example of "content that harms codeberg's reputation". Someone asked in the pr whether "cryptocurrency-related" is defined anywhere and it merged without an answer. The responses to wording concerns was essentially they will figure it out later. Moves like this don't fill me with confidence.
Real-world lines are blurry. If you try to define a bright line, someone finds a loophole. Like the other thread (about codeberg banning vibecoded projects) had arguments about whether a project with 49.999% generated code would count. Which is based on a category error - things just don't work that way.
It sounds like Codeberg needs to define both clear guidelines and a systematic process by which potential violations of the policy can be fairly reviewed and/or appealed—table stakes for a system that’s going to be integrated into your project as a hosting provider and community hub.
What you seem to be arguing for is seat-of-the-pants reactive mob governance. Functional communities and societies don’t work that way.
Yeah, well we’ll see what the future holds. Based on past experience, without well-defined procedures, I expect activists will eventually seize control of the process and go after devs/projects that they have personal grievances with. I will not use or recommend Codeberg until they put some structure around this.
You're still not understanding the point. It's not about an organization being "private" or "public" (what does "private" even mean?). Everything is political. When you try and cleave society into things that are and aren't political, what you are doing is creating a normative set of things that aren't allowed to be challenged, on the basis of your claim that they aren't political, obscuring/obfuscating their actual underlying politics, and everything else is pushed outside of it. It is an attempt to create strict boundaries around the limits of discussion and action, which is itself a political act!
>When you try and cleave society into things that are and aren't political, what you are doing is creating a normative set of things that aren't allowed to be challenged, on the basis of your claim that they aren't political
What are you talking about? Whether something is allowed to be challenged has nothing to do with whether it's political. Actually, what even is not allowed to be challenged? I struggle to come up with a single example.
Yes, in communities that try to claim that certain things are "political" and certain things are "not political", "banning cryptocurrency" could be rejected on the basis that it is "political". The point is that saying something like "we don't do politics" is absurd. There is always an underlying politics, even if it has been normalized or obfuscated, repressed or unexamined. Reread my above comment.
Is the set of acceptable uses for shared infrastructure not a political question? What's different between mining crypto on a free CI server, letting my cows eat all the grass at the park, or dumping industrial waste into the river?
Most people distinguish practical questions from normative questions. Practical questions may have some small political component, but usually it’s not useful or constructive to consider them as political issues.
Some practical questions have an obvious political dimension, in which case it’s fair to consider that component, but people will often argue over whether the question is “political enough” to justify debate. To deal with this, you need processes to ensure that debate is contained but not overly restricted on this kind of issue.
Making every question political is a trick right out of the OSS Simple Sabotage Field Manual. Whether to pay the hosting bill shouldn’t be a political question. Whether to change hosts may or may not be, depending on the reasoning.
It's political as in it contains politics. Yes paying the hosting bill is political for at least three reasons (belief in the value of money and capitalism, belief that specific host should not be boycotted, belief the whole organisation agrees you get more value from the hosting than from keeping the money). That doesn't mean a political debate is needed every time it's time to pay it. It does mean that if someone says "hey this hosting provider is also hosting kiwifarms, should we really give them money?" a response of "paying the hosting isn't political" is incorrect.
You didn't answer my question about what is not allowed to be challenged.
>Yes, in communities that try to claim that certain things are "political" and certain things are "not political", "banning cryptocurrency" could be rejected on the basis that it is "political". The point is that saying something like "we don't do politics" is absurd.
I don't understand what you're saying. You switched tracked halfway through the thought from talking about communities that distinguish between things that are or aren't political to rejection of taking political stances.
What is usually meant by "we don't do politics" is that an institution or organization will avoid picking sides on political issues. This is not merely not absurd, but pretty much necessary for any organization that doesn't have ideological goals and doesn't want to foster internal factions.
Like the sibling comment said, just banning cryptocurrency might be political or it might not, depending on the reason for it. Rejecting reasons such as "crypto bad" is a tenable position if an organization seeks to maintain a neutral stance.
Every organization has ideological goals. That's what I'm getting at. Sometimes they are unable to recognize it because it's been normalized. What you define as "neutral" is not actually neutral. Such statements are themselves attempts at controlling what is normal/acceptable. The terms of acceptable discussion is context-dependent, but trying to set them at "politics" is contradictory, as I've explained.
To name one easy example, for-profit companies don't have ideological goals.
But just for the sake of argument I'll grant it and amend my statement: What is usually meant by "we don't do politics" is that an institution or organization will avoid picking sides on irrelevant political issues. A cat shelter doesn't need to have an official position on abortion to function, and in all likelihood having one would be counter to its purposes.
Maximizing profit is already an ideological goal. Some companies have others subordinate to it. For example Microsoft is committed to stack ranking, Google is committed to only promoting people who ship new products and then kill them, Apple is committed to each team not knowing what the other is doing so they don't leak it, and Oracle is committed to suing its customers for more money.
No I understand that. But the point I am making is saying that is much stronger than saying "our policy says we won't host crypto projects going forward". The latter is fine, any service provider can set terms as they fit within the law. But if you claim you are highly political, you must invite further questions into it.
How does Codeberg handle the diverse mix of politics within it and manage its influences? If we give the organization a character by calling it political, we create an obligation to explain further.
Overall, again I feel this is a self-own to project idealogue this hard since you flavor it in a specific way that is not inclusive.
No dude. Most things are not, in fact, political. When I enjoy a meal, that isn't political. When I hang out with my family and friends, that isn't political. When I sit down to read a nice book with a cup of cocoa, that isn't political.
The notion that "everything is political" is an indicator that someone has an extremely toxic relationship with politics. Basically you're projecting your unhealthy level of political engagement onto everyone else, and insisting that we all have that manner of thinking (but are just denying it to score political points). Well that isn't true, and for your own sake I encourage you to stop that. You'll be much happier when you stop making life about politics.
> No dude. Most things are not, in fact, political. When I enjoy a meal, that isn't political. When I hang out with my family and friends, that isn't political. When I sit down to read a nice book with a cup of cocoa, that isn't political.
What do you eat and what do you refuse to eat? Which restaurants would you go to or not? Which companies do you buy from and why/why not?
Who do you meet with and who do you avoid? What do you talk about and which topics do you avoid?
Where is your cocoa grown, which brand do you buy and who ends up making money on your purchase?
Even if you reduce it to that, you still endorse (or at least accept) the side effects of the production of what you eat.
If you eat meat, you are okay with the effects it has on climate change, and that’s political. If you do the opposite and don’t eat meat, that’s also political.
If you consume food from non-organic agriculture, you are okay with species extinction, especially insects.
If you buy the cheapest foods, you are okay with the working conditions and low pay necessary to reach the price. If you buy a more expensive option, who in the value chain benefits from the increased price and who doesn’t?
Almost everything that you do is political in some way.
That's disregarding that the people in power routinely make it as difficult as possible to have a choice. If you buy the cheapest foods, maybe it's because you want to eat and pay rent, and spending any more than that would render you homeless. Becoming homeless will not save the poor in another country, even if your purchases to avoid becoming homeless would have contributed a vanishingly tiny, indirect amount to their plight.
I agree that everything is political, and it's good to make choices as ethically as you can, but sometimes it simply isn't possible to be perfect. You can't even know about all the problems without studying them like a full time job. Ain't got time for that. Gotta eat.
The "agonize over every purchase and vote with your dollar" paradigm gives the most votes to billionaires.
Should people think about ethics when buying stuff: yes.
Does failing to recycle a bottle properly, or buying a cheap chocolate bar that may have involved underpaid or even slave labor somewhere in its supply chain, mean someone is evil? Nope.
I wish people would spend less time agonizing or moralizing over what individuals do (even though an individual is easier to influence quickly) and more time going after the broken systems, stupid laws, and malignant CEOs that actually lie at the root of the problems.
What food do you eat, and where do you eat it? How much does it cost? Culturally, where does it come from? Who works the kitchens? Who cleans the place?
> When I hang out with my family and friends, that isn't political.
Where do you hang out? Who else goes there? Who even are your friends?
> When I sit down to read a nice book with a cup of cocoa, that isn't political.
What book are you reading? Does the country you live produce the cocoa you are drinking? Do you know where it comes from?
Everything is political to an extent, even the reason we have this discussion in English when English is not my native language.
I am not saying you have to think about those things all the time; that would be exhausting. But ignoring it and pretend everything is separated into its own nice little happy vacuum is too naive.
So I am very pedantic here, but yes it "can" be seen as political. You made the decision that your free time is more important than working and generating value.
I understand "everything is political" more in a sense that we as a society have the burden to shape our own rules, and saying "I only live in the society, but ignore the burden of making rules" is not really possible. In that case you actively decide to let someone else decide for you.
>You made the decision that your free time is more important than working and generating value.
How is that political? It's just a decision based on competing priorities. By this interpretation an animal's decision to either sleep or eat is also political.
I don't understand how the two are related, though. Voting yearly as a community does not make things "political" if the issues are not politically challenged themselves. For example, if a group of people get together and decide "hey we want to watch 10 movies this year" that in itself is not a political action. It's a governance action. But if they say, "Hey, let's watch these 10 movies but not watch 1 because we all think it is wrong to capitalize on bananas," that is a political action. In the first one, your individual politics do not matter for consensus but in the second one, it does and as a whole you need to take a stance on a subjective political matter as an organization. And if you take a stance as an organization, you must also accept the consequences of not being impartial which they don't seem to do. "It is political but the details of how/why/what votes are decided, how we think of politics, how it influences our worldwide, our basic ethical code etc are all unknown. BUT IT IS POLITICAL so buzz off." is not a good stance in my opinion, especially for a version control tool.
"So buzz off" (whether a direcy quote or not) seems like a sign they accept the consequence of some people buzzing off.
If they didn't do this, they'd have to accept the consequences of those people not buzzing off, or potentially a different segment of people buzzing off.
Doing nothing isn't an apolitical option either. That's a choice too.
It's the lack of attention to detail that bugs me. It's just bad policy making. Writing good policies that encourage the right behaviour and discourage the wrong behaviour, policies that promote a good culture, are HARD.
Saying "no crypto" has a wide range of impact, from pushing away crypto projects, to pushing away businesses who see it as an overreach, to pushing away free speech advocates.
Maybe they want to push those people away with their policy. You know, business who see their ethics stance as an overreach, and free speech absolutists, maybe Codeberg is fine with those people not being around.
We've had enough time with crypto as a technology to see that it provides strictly negative value to the world. Banning all related projects wholesale is not unreasonable, in my book.
Well, GitHub seems unlikely to randomly ban your project if it fits within an entire category of services some admin arbitrarily decided they don't like.
This was voted on by the association members, with ~500 votes as far as I've seen. It's not the arbitrary politics of "some admin", rather the arbitrary politics of mob mentality.
Do you just care to provide code, or do you want people to be able to create issues, send PRs, make forks? Open source is social, and self hosting git forges isn't the answer for many projects (especially as spam is a big problem, and has been for years, even before LLMs).
I guess that brings up the question of why do people use Codeberg in the first place. From what I understand, it's a decision based on values right rather than cost, functionality, or convenience. Well here you go, more values, enjoy!
I used it for a while because I write free software and Codeberg was aligned with that. I went back to GitHub because I couldn't get their CIs to work. Now that they banned "heavy LLM usage" I won't be going back there I guess.
I'm also banned from the site for some reason despite never having been there before. Though I suspect my IP is on someone's naughty list for some reason seeing as I get far more captchas on the internet than I feel I should be getting.
Equating someone not wanting you on their website with tyranny sure is a take.
You’re welcome to host it at your own venue. Or , I guess, to keep whining that you’re not being given free services by someone who dislikes your work.
And it’s easy to detect slop that sucks up infrastructure resources just by looking at commit rates. For example, Peter Steinberger made 271,281 commits. No wonder GitHub goes down regularly because of the increase in slop activity.
Let this be a reminder to never trust any service be it one ran by a billion dollar company, to one ran by volunteers. You will be eventually screwed over. Make backup plans, and self-host whatever you can so nothing can be taken from you. For Git forges, I personally recommend Gitea[1], or Forgejo[2] (a Gitea fork by Codeberg)
Yeah. Buying my own domain and migrating my email to it is one of the best things I've ever done. Setting up wireguard into my LAN permanently changed the way I used computers. Looks like it's time to get myself a VPS and just start hosting even more stuff.
Sovereign personal infrastructure is amazing. Highly recommended. Dealing with the government's rules and their politics is obnoxious enough. I'm starting to really lose patience with all of these communities.
Self-hosting based on an external project is still a dependency on Someone Else to keep it up to date, unless you have both the time and skill to take over maintenance of that project.
It’s probably not too important to choose a service that you think you can trust fully, because that trust might be broken at some point. But having an identifier that can be swapped to different backends, so people can find you again when the host inevitability changes, is a stronger strategy.
I think the importance of owning domain names will increase, and using those as the canonical identifier of a project will give it more permanence. The procedures for seizure and censorship with domain names are better established and understood.
I’m referring to the self hosted part. The outside world can send pull requests via the public GitLab mirror, or they can actually also access my self hosted GitLab instance via its public address - although I doubt anyone would bother.
(Pull requests also can, and should, be sent via ways such as submissions to mailing lists.)
As with the AI ban this was a community decision done by a majority vote. It seems that most people commenting or writing articles in the last few days don't have a Codeberg account or never visit the forum.
iirc, it's a consumer co-op. So think of it as a vote of all users willing to pay for the membership to the service, who (correspondingly) are more likely to be power users/"activist" in the "activist investor" sense.
This can be contrasted with a private company, which will often have a "activist investor", the actual owner!
Given that the actual number of paying users is probably low, it sounds like it would be relatively cheap to disrupt policy for someone with deep pockets.
consumer co ops are broken because you can pay to get in. any bad actor whos rich enough can get thousands of people to join and vote in a corrupt way. and if you make it invite only you defeat the whole point.
imo the best way to fix is with a hybrid model where consumers pay member fees to get discounts but decision making is down to workers, basically how it was before shareholder supremacy.
How is this a failure mode? Sounds like a good idea to me to let the members decide who they want in the club. Just wish this could also be done for national borders.
Codeberg is a community steered project. If participating isn't something you're interested in, it's probably not the right fit for you. There are other Forgejo hosts (you could even be one yourself) where you can be the king of your own castle.
I think their own community can make their own rules. My only thought in doing so the description of what they represent would then be subject to those rules.
They state "The mission of Codeberg e.V. is to build and maintain a free collaboration platform for creating, archiving, and preserving code and to document its development process."
It seems like they might now need to elaborate that they mean "free as in beer".
Yes it's community run and you have to be member to get a vote. Paying fees as member is one of the most common ways how similar structures work outside software. Even politcal parties work this way.
An e.V. (eingetragener Verein) is a legal structure in Germany, the tldr is (I'm not a lawyer this isn't legal advice):
• there has to be an annual assembly where all members get invited to
• members may send in proposals, which get voted on during the assembly (in codebergs case the voting is done asynchronously, you get like 14 days to fill in your votes)
• members elect the people on the board
• the e.V. also needs to have formal bylaws for which any change has to be voted on and it's a bunch of paperwork to change them (see https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/src/branch/main/en/bylaws....)
A member is someone that signs up and pays a membership fee (currently that's at least 24€/year, see https://join.codeberg.org/).
So yes, the people that pay get to vote. But we're also the ones sending money in to pay for the servers (which is the main source of income for Codeberg), since the e.V. is considered charitable I'm pretty sure this is legally a donation but im not gonna pretend to know things about our tax system.
I get that this sounds strange to people outside of Germany but it's a very common thing here, your local football club is an e.V. for example.
It's also not that rare within the foss/software/nerd space, KDE and the CCC are both Vereine as well.
The “majority” is a fiction. I received no email from Codeberg, nor was I aware that a vote was taking place. I use Codeberg as my main code forge. My projects are not vibe-coded, but some are indirectly related to cryptocurrency in that they use some of the same technologies. This decision appears arbitrary, and I no longer trust Codeberg to host my code for the long term. What will the 'majority' come up with next year?
e.V. members get to send in proposals which are voted on in the (yearly) general assembly, this was one such vote.
So everyone who voted is known by their full name and address (a legal requirement for an e.V. in Germany). There is no sabotage here.
putting aside the saying that goes something like "51% of the animal population votes to eat the other 49%", it takes a special kind of person to be both aware of such a vote happening and also care to participate in it.
codeberg has outed themselves as an unserious undertaking. they will not be known for anything else now.
I don't like crypto but this is poor reasoning, hastily implemented, and given very little time for discussion. There does not seem to be any concrete plan for notifying impacted projects or giving them a roadmap to migrate.
This is unprofessional and severely harms their credibility. It's not what was done but how they did it, and I don't doubt that subsequent policy changes can and will be implemented in the same manner unless it's addressed.
This was proposed 8ish months ago, and the annual assembly had this open for votes for 2ish months. I do think there was time for discussion, but I agree that there is poor reasoning.
Making the proposal fit all the nuances would no doubt be a nightmare in an association structure with so many members distributed around the world, we've had 6h+ long meetings for deciding on wording of a controversial policy in our e.V., and that was with everyone involved in the same room.
Codeberg may simply not be the right forge for many projects, which is probably fine, but does leave a gap for a good non-big-tech forge alternative (tangled isn't a good alternative, fwiw).
It's not about crypto, its about process. Compare this action to one by Debian or Wikipedia where there's a formal proposal, time for written pros and cons with convincing arguments for each side, and a meeting where the vote is held and impact to stakeholders is discussed.
You can't make large changes like this without undermining your viability as stable infrastructure.
This attitude is toxic and will drive off other projects that aren’t associated with crypto. Once you have to factor in political risk with your source hosting, other alternatives become more appealing.
At this point any project that’s even vaguely controversial ought to be looking at fully decentralized solutions like Radicle.
Your willful lack of understanding is remarkable. There are non-scam uses of crypto, although I admit that there are more scams right now than non-scams. Regardless, painting all crypto devs as “scammers” is as absurd as painting political dissidents as “subversives” or “traitors”. It’s manipulative language, and it opens the door for classifying other software as “good” or “bad” based on highly flexible public opinion.
You don’t think Satoshi Nakamoto had credibility or professionalism? It’s not fair to lump the bad seeds in with the good. Imagine if I said the US Dollar was a scam because drug cartels or AI companies use it.
That comparison to USD strikes me as disingenuous.
Currency is a measure of social trust; it allows social contributions to be measured in a fungible unit. Cryptocurrencies erase this concept of social trust under the purported claim that anonymous transfer of “money” is good for society, forgetting why humans created currency in the first place. Anonymity abets money laundering, illicit drug trade, human trafficking/slavery, and CSAM, along with a raft of other antisocial behaviors.
Yes, you can do all of the above with USD, but you’ll have to put a lot more effort into doing so. Hence, it is fair to lump the bad in with the good for crypto (IMO) because it’s unclear how the benefits of crypto outweigh the antisocial behavior it enables. What has society gained in return?
You have it backwards, most cryptocurrencies transactions are, at best, pseudononymous, where, by contrast, cash transactions are anonymous by default.
> What has society gained in return?
A currency technology that doesn't rely on central authority, slavery nor imperialism to exist.
USD includes cash. In fact, cash is the preferred payment method for criminal things, contending with Monero, so complaining about its inclusion is certainly something.
Going even further, cryptcurrencies, being distrusted ledgers, still fulfill the ability to test for someone "social trust" within a transaction, anonymous or not. Also, it's not like we, as the whole society, have access to your transaction history at all times with USD (which we do with Bitcoin, funnily enough).
Anyone who lives in a country with high inflation and unstable monetary policy can now use crypto to store wealth. Calling crypto inherently bad is pure first world privilege.
So what, then? Disallow code that isn't deemed credible or professional by what metric? This whole thing is getting too political. I just want to write open-source software and let the users decide its worth.
In the prior words[1] of Gusted, one of the board members that announced the ban:
> This is not a neutral space, Codeberg is political. If you disagree with someone, be constructive and don't call them merely political and think that's a reason for the discussion to stop.
Pretending to run an inclusive git hosting service for FOSS and then attacking your own users because their code is the wrong type of algorithm isn't politics, it's just being an asshole.
Kinda seems like you're doing the exact thing the parent comment is talking about, except in addition to laundering your disagreement through the lens of "politics", you're just adding the word "asshole".
Nope. It's not "attacking own user base". These comments are ridiculous now. It's safeguarding a open project by removing scammers and abusers that exploit it. Scammer should host their own or use github.
That doesn’t answer the question. What is the underlying ideology/value system? Lots of people would disagree with your second claim, so if that’s what they believe then this itself implies all kinds of nonstandard values.
Just because the fundamental principles cannot trivially be summarized into a single sentence, doesn't mean they don't exist. It's a member association, and the fundamental principles form organically from its membership. That's... how social groups work.
Welcome to the world. Things do not magically happen, they are done by people. If you want something done right you have to do it yourself. To lessen the load you could also form or join a group of people who want it done the same way.
Time to move off of Codeberg. They provide a service, that's it. I don't want drama from my service providers, and censorship incurs drama. I think some censorship is needed (hate speech, CP), but I do not want projects deleted because someone running the service doesn't like how I make them, or what they are for. They have the right to do that, but I also have the right to vote with my feet and go elsewhere, and I'm doing that. LLMs assisting coding has it's place, crypto has its place, both have been overhyped and so we're now getting a rubberband effect as people express hatred of these things based on the hype - not on their legitimate purposes.
They should probably put their political doctrines and ideologies on the home page so people can know if their projects fall into the category of undesirables before they make an account, since the list seems to be expanding.
Otherwise it's hard to tell what will be banned next.
Google/Microsoft offer services in exchange for money. They are not tax exempt charities purporting to do beneficial work for society to earn that status. And they don't block your usage based on your perceived ideology.
Who's to say we were never going to use Codeberg? I actually had quite a favorable impression of it before now, as I know many projects that had to flee to it thanks to GitHub's terrible DMCA system and Microsoft randomly locking their accounts.
I'm not personally a fan of this move or the vibe coding rule. That being said, I genuinely wonder how many people complaining about the rule are personally affected. Seems weird to me to complain about a service setting its own rules when you don't engage with it or contribute to it.
It's HN. They like to think they are better than reddit, but in the end this site is a huge echo box, and any outlier causes these reactions, particularly when it's something or someone taking a moral/ethical stance
Yes, many years ago in college we would describe HN as "reddit with a college degree". The same " echo chamber" arguments, but more snob and with less spine
They don't have to be affected to be worried. It's how it was done and possibilities of further bans that is worrisome.
I have small open source projects that I won't move to Codeberg ever now because I don't want to waste any mental energy pondering if I might get banned in the future.
For example I have a stock trading backtracking strategy test tool. Will they ban anything related to fintech in the future because it is deemed evil? I don't want to have to think about that.
Will they ban my crappy game macroing tool to automate some simple repetitive game actions because it is considered cheating or against some game ToS? I don't care and I don't want to have to care about a possible ban. It's a glorified auto clicker to prevent RSI health issues ffs.
Great, nothing of value was lost. I get that you aren't used to people bending over backwards trying to try to cater to you in order to sell you something and get your money. And the kind of social power dyamics that creates. But in this scenario, a group of people deciding democratically what to do with their platform, your hypothetical future potential (mis)use of their resource is really quite meaningless.
The mindset of today's Germans hasn't changed much over the last century, only the symbolism is banned. As can be seen by the most recent election results.
I don't see what it has to do with Codeberg though.
Publishing platforms’ censorship policies affect readers because they affect discovery and decide, like a parent, what you should or should not be allowed to read.
Weird example. Kids don't get to choose what parents they have. Nor can they just get rid of their parents if they don't like them. There is no reason you have to use codeberg when you can choose another platform or host your own.
I'll be more sympathetic to your view if similar rules are imposed by GitHub, given its network effect and many software ecosystems' dependency on GitHub on an infrastructural level. But codeberg is not that.
Crypto shills have alot of money and bots to push their agenda. Issue is the community is so toxic and scammy at this point it might be more disliked than AI slop by anyone with a pulse.
If you work for a tech company, I can practically guarantee that it bans a lot of lawful behaviors on its platforms. Paypal bans or restricts online dating, cigarettes, and firearm accessories. Youtube demonetizes swearing. Facebook prohibits the sale of bodily fluids (I don't want to know what triggered that policy) and "used cosmetics".
If you're not interested in stuff like that when your company is doing it, but are up in arms about some other platform deciding that they don't like crypto, I think you should look in the mirror. Their reasoning is probably the same: they don't like it and don't want to put up with the task of sensibly policing the category.
Prohibiting fraud or infrastructure abuse is one thing, but declaring entire categories of lawful software harmful to Codeberg’s reputation is another. They've ironically tanked Codeberg's reputation far more from these policy changes than any projects in that category could have possibly. After these changes, it is difficult for any business, or any project seeking stable infrastructure, to trust that its codebase won’t become unacceptable after the next member vote.
Perhaps, but it's important to keep in mind not even a majority of Codeberg users voted for this. A majority of their privileged voters did, which is a small minority of the actual users, and it wasn't unanimous amongst the voters. Over 30% of their voters did not agree with this choice. I'm not building crypto or vibecoded projects and this still makes me seriously question if I could trust Codeberg's current majority voters to not simply target other minority software categories without real justification just because they didn't personally approve of it.
The fact that Codeberg has the power to do this is a good reason not to host your code on Codeberg. The fact that they have ideological commitments that make them think banning cryptocurrency projects is a good idea is a separate good reason not to host your code on Codeberg.
Fortunately Codeberg is a relatively small player and Git forge hosting is fairly competitive and among the easiest types of online service to self-host, so the effect of this on most Git-forge-users is pretty minimal.
Yes, and people should think about this much more than they do, when it comes to more popular services that also make ideological decisions about what user content to disallow.
Full self-hosting without Tor has it too, as your ISP can ban you, as Kiwifarms found out.
(KF got banned from Cloudflare, then had a lot of trouble finding an ISP, eventually made their own, and then had trouble finding upstreams. You might wonder what they did that was so bad but not illegal - that's a long story.)
Exactly, I will no longer be recommending Codeberg moving forward for the same reason I don’t recommend GitHub. Political risk is a real concern for the projects I most care about.
> If you violated the GPL, and your project was taken down, how political is that?
It's political, inherently, but it's not "only" political, or it's not necessarily political on the part of the host. As in, most practical hosts _have_ to obey US IP law. They don't _have_ to ban crypto or LLMs. The former only inconveniences or restricts me insofar as the host is unwilling to go to prison. The latter on their whims or personal views.
Software like Tor and I2P that allows for anonymity and circumvention of state control. Monero. Decentralized E2EE messengers. Nostr. Open source 3D printer slicers. Libreboot. Software for decoding DRM streams. GrapheneOS.
Well, definitely makes me inclined to never use Codeberg for source hosting if they can just get together and decide to ban an entire category of source repo.
Nope, but I thought about moving hosting (or to Forgejo) because of (a) GitHub's issues, and (b) I like the idea of using an OSS code forge
I suppose since Codeberg is a totally free non-profit for OSS projects, it makes it more reasonable for them to ban code for idealogical differences (as opposed to legal).
But if it were a paid service, this would not inspire confidence that it's a place to host my company's code.
Downvoters: if someone indignantly announces they are leaving a service in a manner that suggests its a loss for the service, finding out if they are a paying customer - and in this case, one that can vote on the subject at hand - adds to the discussion.
Codeberg has 0 paying customers. It is a non-profit providing services for free and not a business.
Membership in the non-profit requires fee paid by EU bank transfer and gives voting rights on questions like this but is separate accounting from use of the free sevices.
All this is explained front-and center or codeberg.org.
Yes, Drew did a much better job managing this, and his reasoning was more excusable (people were using the build system to mine crypto and eating up resources). I still don’t like it, but I get it, and at least it was handled professionally.
Codeberg's paying members can off course vote on policies of their own non-profit. More power to them. You have the freedom to not use their service. There are ample alternatives.
I think the real issue is that lots of people somehow got convinced that Codeberg is a somehow better version of GitHub that won't ever be susceptible to the same issues GitHub had, which is mainly too much centralisation and all the risks associated with it.
Codeberg and others setting their own rules (especially if it's done via a community vote and not a decision by some random exec who's just heard a buzzword and now forces everyone to immediately adopt it) is actually a desirable outcome -- given that Forgejo or any other GitLab is open source, so you can (and somebody probably will) create more "hubs". This avoids lock-in by a single "hub" and hopefully will lead to more standartisation and cooperation instead of what we have now with a single largest hub like GitHub.
Wow. I have never worked on any cryptocurrency projects and never intend to, but I will certainly be staying very far away from Codeberg because of this.
There are some levels of censorship that make sense for a code forge - “you can’t do crimes on our servers”, “you can’t host malware on our servers”, etc. But inflicting a subjective moral judgement on an entire category of software sends the message that this isn’t a safe place to host any of your repositories. If the moral landscape shifts in the future, how can you be sure your project won’t be next on the chopping block?
> We acknowledge that many developers have started to embrace LLMs as a tool in their workflows. Some use it extensively and rarely code by hand, others delegate only specific tasks to it. We understand that you want to know how the change affects your projects going forward. While we can't give an easy answer, we'll share some remarks that should address most of the concerns raised in the discussion.
Where terms and conditions are concerned I really do value "easy answers".
Maybe you shouldn’t use a platform that lets the users vote on policy then?
> The second vote was more controversial, but was also accepted with 358 agreements vs 144 disagreements (and 14 abstentions), with a high voter turn-out of around 50% of active members.
> 7. You must not share projects that mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools (including services such as Claude, OpenAI Codex). Such projects having an unclear copyright status (see requirements § 2 (1) 1 and § 2 (1) 3) and furthermore have little safeguards to ensure that they do not include harmful code (c.f. § 2 (1) 5).
They will just put it to user vote, same way all their policy is decided.
> The second vote was more controversial, but was also accepted with 358 agreements vs 144 disagreements (and 14 abstentions), with a high voter turn-out of around 50% of active members.
You just expect platforms implement “no AI content” rules based on what you care about more. I mean you should leave the platform if you want to create more AI life’s work and they don’t let you, not everything works for everybody, but you can’t come out and object on principle when you accept it elsewhere. This is good for the people who want to signal there’s no AI slop in their work.
And if it’s your life work maybe you want to not hand it to every random platform out there, which can change rules on a whim, and instead host it yourself and own it with your own rules.
You’re trying to make a meaningless distinction to justify holding different parties to different standards: comments are HN’s core content, code is Codeberg’s core content.
HN submissions are links to other platform, so not HN content. Codeberg will let you have links to AI generated content on another platform (like a GH link) so that’s not a worthwhile distinction.
Each platform states a “no AI generated content on our platform” rule or guideline. If you want to resolve the cognitive dissonance that was created when you realized HN does it too, may I suggest using a single standard for both rather than jumping on the weakest way out?
HN is a social network. Its value is human comments. People come here to see what the tech circles are saying.
A git host's value is in the source code it hosts, not who wrote it. Before all this, Codeberg was all about free software. This has a very precise definition. Free software communities used to gatekeep based on a very simple test: is it free software or proprietary software? The problem is people have started gatekeeping cryptocurrency, LLM usage. The definitions are imprecise, there's no telling where it's going to stop, and it causes needless fragmentation.
I was thinking recently about Dijkstra's position on proving the correctness of your programs, and how by his standards, we've all been going by vibes long before AI.
Well, I don't agree that they have NO idea of what slop is. Basically everyone has some idea, see how often many different people here on HN comment "this is pure slop".
Also your claim "they DON'T WANT to have to define" is unproofable. Neither you nor me have any insight into what "they" want or don't want.
I think, for these two though errors your train-of-thought is already invalid.
Further, I'd even argue that precision in such a definition isn't necessary. Especially that the assumed non-existence of a definition would lead to inaction.
But ... if that would imply that we cannot do any action because we don't have a perfect definition, then I again would disagree. In "real life" we e.g. have laws that defines various crimes, e.g. "theft", "murder", "terrorist act" and what not. None of these definitions is perfect. Often they match, but every so often it's not really clear if they apply. In such cases a judge or a jury has to decide.
And that is possible today with things that people perceive as "slop". Someone could just decide. Based on a (imprecise) definition, based on tradition? Like in the judicial system.
There are also many cases where people don't use definitions and still exactly know what's going on. Look e.g. at 5 year old kids. They start to have an idea of property -- and are already very good to know then "this is mine" or "you thieved it" applies and when not. I am however quite sure they can't recite a definition of property or thievedom.
> I don't agree that they have NO idea of what slop is.
There's no way for anyone reading their rules to know if their projects are slop. It's full of "mostly" and "significantly". That's virtually guaranteed to boil down to "we don't like it".
So "they didn't know how to define it" is about the most charitable interpretation I can muster. Alternative interpretations, such as "the vagueness is a feature since it enables selective enforcement", are also available, and they only get more and more uncharitable.
> Also your claim "they DON'T WANT to have to define" is unproofable.
Had they wanted to define it, they would have done so.
> Neither you nor me have any insight into what "they" want or don't want.
I have insight into their actions, and I'm perfectly capable of inferring context and motives from them.
> I'd even argue that precision in such a definition isn't necessary.
None of this is strictly necessary. Nevertheless, it is desirable that things be precisely defined so that people can know where they stand. Depending on the exact definition, I may or may not be welcome. Therefore I'm not going back there without a precise definition.
> So while the following use cases are discouraged (similar to private repositories), they are likely to be tolerated in practice:
> Side projects and experiments with little resource usage
> Specific tools and custom scripts that would be unlikely to find a community anyway, even if they were not LLM-generated
I really don't want to join a commons where something I make might be "tolerated in practice" based on a given moderator's vibe. Which I suppose is the message I was meant to receive from the issue that passed the vote.
It's an opinionated charity host for free software. Are you actually making free software or just dumping your junk that is technically free but no one uses? If the latter, they're telling you to go away.
They reserved the right to ban anything based on exceedingly vague policies.
Whether something is someone's side project or not is independent of the amount of users or the presence of a community. They can now ban any project with a single maintainer that exceeds an arbitrary resource limit.
Basically they're putting a gun to your head demanding you to always be popular enough to curry their favour.
When you think about how most projects start unpopular by definition, the only way to host on Codeberg is first by becoming popular on another platform and then moving to Codeberg, but if that is true why bother migrating? The moment your project's popularity fades or you lose maintainers, the project will get axed by Codeberg.
So basically the lesson you're getting here is to not trust the altruistic stranger. His motivations are less sincere than the ones of the self interested stranger.
That's a controversial stance. The first statement of not using codeberg hosted projects to train LLMs makes sense. But to outright ban LLM coded projects seems just silly. If the problem is that users have too many vibe coded projects, then limiting the number of projects seems like a more reasonable stance. To completely ban vibe coded projects just limits the number of users that will use them. I get that this is being spun as an effort to save resources, but this is a pretty blunt way to accomplish this. And a great way to alienate a lot of potential users.
It's their service and they can choose what they want to host. Maybe they don't see themselves as competing with Github and Gitlab and so they are happy serving the users they have. But to me this does not seem to be a great growth strategy.
I think you're right, quotas have been around as long as multi-user systems.
Their argument was economic, an economic solution would be good:
"It seems like many ‘vibe coders’ don't realize that they don't actually have a community around them. They build projects as if they had, and spend resources accordingly. We see projects having a lot of code activity, heavy CI/CD testing, frequent and large release binaries. Sometimes, it feels like the amount of supported platforms exceeds the amount of actual users.
To us, it seems ridiculous to see projects with a single developer and virtually no users consuming as much or even more resources than some of the largest community projects on Codeberg, which operate frugal with CI/CD and storage resources. We do not believe it is reasonable for Codeberg to invest our precious donation money into hosting of large ghost projects"
Ultimately, democracy is a respectable form of government and the group is free to change their mind later.
> To completely ban vibe coded projects just limits the number of users that will use them.
here lies the fundamental misunderstanding by many people in this thread.
Is the objective of Codeberg to host as many projects as possible on its own server? I do not believe so!
The question then becomes "what is Codeberg's objectives?"
It's not to become the world's largest code forge instance! It's to build a set of FOSS tools for FOSS software development. Look at [0], for example, which lists alternatives.
But perhaps most importantly, the FOSS tooling can be self hosted, right? There's still a notion of freedom there.
Given that they're a non-profit membership association with explicitly political goals where every new user represents a direct cost to the organization, and not a startup on a comfortable cushion of VC moneybags looking to pump the numbers for a quick acquisition, I very much doubt that a "growth strategy" is what they're going for here.
Silly is how it is handled and communicated. I want clear rules, not a rant that electricity is expensive!
I have bunch of projects and sites there for a year+, most of them are llm generated.
What is a grace period for existing projects to move? What are criteria for deciding what is "vibe coded"? If i get banned, is the repo just deleted, or made readonly...
Codeberg had outage for last 5 days, where some repos could not be commited into. I expected post mortem analysis, not this debate!
Oh, shoot. Though I don't have many vibecoded projects, when I decided to move to Codeberg from Github the first project I pushed to codeberg was a vibecoded one
I guess there is a bright side too: it forces me to selfhost my repos, something I planned to do since years.
I can't recall which, but I'm certain that I've encountered and probably used Codeberg-hosted things, and from that had gathered a vague positive impression of them.
I guess what I'm worried about is that the proprietors of those nice projects I liked (and others) might have chosen Codeberg out of a reasonable set of common assumptions that it was a place for free-as-in-freedom, as they and clearly many of us have always understood it, which were not contradicted by how Codeberg presented themselves up-front. And have now had this sprung on them, after they'd already established themselves there, and might now be facing a miserable and sapping moral dilemma, or even be directly doubting the security of their home there.
My rule of thumb: just use the most mainstream options unless I have a very, very strong reason to do otherwise. The mainstream options will screw you, but the niche options will screw you in totally unexpected ways.
Are these comments written buy bots? It's the mainstream ones that have been screwing people without any recovery options, there were many horrifying top posts in hn itself in last few years.
Yes yes yes, we know. Git is decentralised, you can just trivially push* anywhere!
* - the code. Just the code. only the code. Nothing but the code.
You don't need the issues, the roadmap, the ACL of which human can do what, the API access keys for third parties, the artifact repos. Just. The. Code.
Somewhat arsey in my tone? Yeah. But having done two large scale (100+ repos) forge migrations of our company's client projects (SVN -> github, then later on github -> bitbucket) and seeing people completely ignore the metadata surrounding the code that isn't as easy to "just push" anywhere, somewhat justified.
I strongly disagree: I think this is a perfectly acceptable action. No project is entitled to host their project there, nor is any project compelled to do so, so I don't see why there is any harm in having this instance of Forgejo moderate itself as it sees fit. They have no moral requirement to support all kinds of software.
If you disagree with their beliefs, you are free to host your own instance or find a code forge that better aligns with your beliefs. That is the beauty of free software!
you shouldn't if that concerns you. Any organization or project that's value driven is going to turn people away who feel they run afoul of those values, that's the point. It's a non-profit, they don't gain anything from trying to serve everyone.
Noone is changing their mind overnight. These discussions on Codeberg have been going on for years, and you know, if only from reading HN, that a certain portion of humanity is strongly opposed to cryptocurrency and LLM slop.
There's nothing surprising, new, or shocking about codeberg banning cryptocurrency projects. This is the logical conclusion of them being a non-profit acting for the good of humanity and not for the crypto grifters.
> If you disagree with their beliefs, you are free to host your own instance or find a code forge that better aligns with your beliefs.
Sure, but Codeberg has presented itself as a hoster for Free Software projects, not for Free Software projects that align with some vaguely defined ideology. If they are now the latter, they should start by clearly stating that ideology so users can make an informed decision on whether Codeberg is the right place for them.
The ban on “vibecoded” projects is effectively an invitation to start witch hunts. This is a terrible idea if you want to build a community.
> Sure, but Codeberg has presented itself as a hoster for Free Software projects, not for Free Software projects that align with some vaguely defined ideology. If they are now the latter, they should start by clearly stating that ideology so users can make an informed decision on whether Codeberg is the right place for them.
Well, they kinda do? Go on the main page, it's the second line of text: "Codeberg is a non-profit, community-led effort that provides services to free and open-source projects...". They're community-led, and this was a community decision.
> If they are now the latter, they should start by clearly stating that ideology so users can make an informed decision on whether Codeberg is the right place for them
What do you want to see then? They've made a blog post about vibecoded with detailed explanations [1], a public banner mentioning they no longer allow cryptocurrency projects and restricting LLM content and with a link to the changelog with the differences in terms of use [2].
Should hackernews also mention that allowed content is dependent on its moderators with vaguely defined ideologies?
> Should hackernews also mention that allowed content is dependent on its moderators with vaguely defined ideologies?
Absolutely. And it would be even better if the moderators each wrote a short summary that’s an honest attempt to describe what their individual ideologies are.
I respect institutions that clearly state their biases much more than those that pretend they have none.
Fair enough! But surely you would allow them to update their summary on what their ideologies are, right? People change, after all. And people should know when those ideologies change too.
We should also make sure people read all the blurbs before they join a website. Maybe we should call it the Terms of Service? ;)
Despite most websites having nothing but legalese in there, Codeberg's is pretty short and human readable by comparison. I know most people have been desensitized to it, but I haven't heard of any better way of coveying them at an institutional level.
The problem isn’t about ToS or other kinds of rules, it’s about what drives them.
When I join a community, I would like to be able to predict whether tomorrow, they might ban Chinese projects, or projects written in Lisp, or projects that only run on Windows.
This doesn’t follow from the ToS, it follows from what the platform’s values are. Codeberg does publicly state its claimed values, but they don’t imply these new bans.
> If they are now the latter, they should start by clearly stating that ideology so users can make an informed decision on whether Codeberg is the right place for them.
So far it is now (unofficially) The hoster of Human-made™ non-crypto™ Free Software so far it is fully legal under the jurisdiction or country it resides in (Germany).
That's a lie anyway. I know for a fact that major open source projects have AI contributions merged into main. At this point pretty much all the ones that take over 5 minutes to compile have some LLM generated code.
You are arguing with a strawman. No one said anyone is entitled to host there. They are saying it's just a bad policy because it makes it an unreliable place to host projects when you don't know what will be banned next. You are "strongly disagreeing" with something other than what the OP said.
It’s bad because it’s subjective. It’s a liability to host anything there now - their opinion of your product category could shift tomorrow… oh wait that already happened
Exactly. It's not so much that there are rules, it's that the rules are decided by random popularity vibes. It's not clear what vibes they will be smoking tomorrow.
The least they could do as a nonprofit is make users aware that a core tenet of the service is to promote/ban whatever content the community voting decides any given day, and hopefully what ideology they are following.
Otherwise any serious person would to well to stay away from Codeberg; you don't know if your project will be in the community's sights in the next vote.
That was not a random popularity vibes. One of the discussion was from 3 years ago. Taking a political stand is part of codeberg DNA. If codeberg had no opinions and no politics then it would just never have existed.
Unless your project is very sketchy to begin with, you have nothing to fear. I would understand this kind of fear if we talked about a company whose CEO dictates directions every month or so. But this is a non-profit with sane individuals and debates.
Imagine for a second if that were actually the case. Most rules are determined by physics, science, data, or something tangible. Food safety, aviation, electrical codes, even sports rules are based on math and statistics.
> No project is entitled to host their project there
So tiresome. This is going to lead to an even more fragmented free and open source ecosystem. GitHub is the default choice because it has huge network effects. Codeberg just opted out of those.
Did they, though? Do we have numbers on how many cryptocurrency projects were removed from Codeberg because of this, since GitHub is the default choice? Or are you suggesting that there is going to be a significant split because of this?
I agree that this is probably going to cause some fragmentation, but I'm not convinced that it will do so in a meaningful matter or at the scale at which it is problematic to the free and open source ecosystem.
For what it's worth, Forgejo is working on federation[1], which might address your networking effect concerns?
Codeberg isn't competing against Github for market share, it serves a specific demographic with a specific ideology. Anyone is welcome to use any other host they want for their crypto and AI projects, with whatever policies align with their preferences. Or make your own with blackjack and hookers.
There shouldn't even be "default choices" or "huge network effects" in FOSS anyway. That's just another form of centralization.
Not in fact. On systems with permissions/privileges, you always return a 404 when a page does exist but the user doesn't have permission. Because sometimes leaking the existence of an item is a problem in itself.
I get the idea, but empirically, we know of the existence of that item, it's clearly very public, at least you and I have access to the fact that it exists.
On the security spectrum I'm quite schizoid, but I'd say that's too much security.
Note, curiously enough, the companies I've seen have this level of paranoid defensive security, is Microsoft. Try to send an ICMP ping to servers of different companies, you'll notice that Microsoft servers don't respond to pings. Just thought it's funny that one of the most closed source companies coincides with a source code repo on secops philosophy.
A censor was a state/government official that approved material before it was allowed to be published. It started to become a thing after the printing press revolutionized publishing. You had it in monarchies but also republics (e.g. during Napoleons oppressive regime over europe). And even in recent time, e.g. in socialist 1) countries they had embedded "party secretairs" that checked stuff.
So, censorship as a) from the government and b) checked before publishing to the general public.
In capitalism or --- what we actually usually have --- a social market economy a company is free to get into contracts or not. So if some company say "I don't want to do a contract with people creating XYZ apps" ... than that's not censorship. It's not from the government and no check process before the publishing process happens. It is just freedom ... the freedom of the company in this case.
In some countries the freedom to engage into a contract or not is sometimes limited, e.g. if some service is very important (like electric power, water, banking). But a source code hosting site won't qualify for this.
Executing your own freedom isn't censorship. If e.g. Fox News decides to not broadcast 1:1 a statement of the CCP made ... then this isn't censorship.
But if a US republican regime says "You can't publish info on homosexuality in school books" and some government entity checks these books ... than that's censorship.
1) I mean real socialist ex-countries like GDR or USSR, not what some US people that never heard about "means of production" call socialist, like FRG
Fun fact: They deliberately chose to host in the EU because they were concerned that malicious actors could abuse the DMCA by filing fraudulent copyright claims to take down legitimate software repositories.
I guess software that doesn't fit their world view is illegitimate now.
I was one of the commenters that was staunchly against this proposal on the original issue that was brought up 3 years ago. Imo their entire argument has always been straw man. Anyone who has spent enough time around the core Codeberg community knows how ideologically motivated their decisions are regardless of what they put out in their PR statements.
This incident coupled with the Forgejo one (In which they twisted the whole story and made Gitea look like the biggest villain in FOSS when in fact they orchestrated the whole drama by submitting a controversial PR that many people don't know about) made me quit and keep away from their hosting.
I mean, that's your right, but also they'll get new users too. So much of the internet is drowning in slop that any place that's still brimming with original content will likely see its stock go up, and will tend to attract people who still do original work, creating a virtuous cycle
Sloppy and low effort reply. Claude does a better job. I'd paste the output but it's against the rules on HN.
You can find it on lobsters though, where I did post the full reply along with the prompt in response to the exact same cop out. To this day, it's still the only coherent definition of "slop" in the entire 300+ comment thread I posted it in. Not bad for a clanker, huh?
perhaps wasn't your intent, but this clearly demonstrates the benefit of those kinds of rules for everybody around both on codeberg and here. and you're still here
Yeah I don't know. It's impossible to draw a clear line, but the overall effect is not hard to identify. If your work supports a community and creates value, you can reasonably expect the community's support. If your work leeches from a community, you can reasonably expect the community to turn on you.
To me slop is identifiable by its effect: it is the type of work which leeches value
To me, this all sounds like the kind of fuzzy reasoning and nondescript language that turns communities into popularity contests and backstabbing competitions.
If Codeberg wants to put a flag up to draw in every programmer with a personality disorder, well that may be their right, but it’s not a good idea.
Tough. The world is fuzzy and nondescript. Platform says no porn, you ask if one bare nipple is porn. Platform says English only, you ask if it's okay to use loanwords. These would be good questions if you were programming a computer, but dumb questions to ask about a judge.
The real world (as in society) has labyrinthine processes and procedures, with multiple checks and balances, designed to ensure that justice is at least partially served. Codeberg appears to lack this.
And nations with civil law systems would disagree with your premise. Laws in these systems are expected to be clearly written without excessive room for interpretation. There are obviously still grey areas, but the systems aren’t flexible and open to interpretation like common law systems.
But in any case, we’re talking about a freaking git project host here, not a nation. They can set the rules however they want. But from a developer (user) perspective, they should favor rules that treat projects fairly and with a more liberal moderation policy.
Not to my knowledge, but without a structured framework for those decisions, I have little confidence that enforcement will remain fair and even-handed moving forward. I also suspect that the ambiguity of the “reputation” clause will be abused in the future.
>To me, this all sounds like the kind of fuzzy reasoning and nondescript language that turns communities into popularity contests and backstabbing competitions.
Welcome to society. There is no such thing as a meritocracy.
Indeed it's almost like open source projects can use their collective intelligence and decide for themselves what's acceptable and what's not acceptable when it comes to free git hosting, irrespective of "the norm".
I love that way of thinking, but for me it's not intelligence but rather philosophy, community, and care (three things LLMs can mimic, but ultimately lack to an even greater degree than they lack intelligence)
Yes, the effect is it will become a toxic community where your project can be summarily judged and instantly dismissed as slop because there's an AGENTS.md file in the repository or LLM attribution in the commit messages.
...and? HN is already like that... I'm not here to give people the benefit of the doubt. I'm lookin' for minds at work. At the first sign that no mind is working, I'm gone
AI slop projects, or vibecoded projects, or projects made with heavy llm assistance, or whatever you want to call them are already divisive and the discussions about whether they aught be allowed are already causing strife in many communities.
Right or wrong many users are utterly uninterested in said content and wish that their existing communities could continue as they did prior to the onslaught. Naturally, some communities will decide to attempt to moderate in such a way that supports those users desires. As with most necessary moderation of online communities there will be gray areas and judgement calls and drama and abuse. There really isn’t an alternative.
Codeberg being transparent about having a political bent - which all projects do even if they claim not to - is fine. Wonderful even.
But I think they got this particular political decision wrong, both ethically and factually. Looking at what seems to have passed for "deliberation", it's hard not to walk away with a very poor impression of codeberg (or at least, their process for deciding on such bans).
The crux of the argument appears to have been that blockchains are environmentally destructive - obviously a critique aimed at Proof-of-Work blockchains. Then, many commenters pointed out that the environmental argument doesn't apply to proof-of-stake projects in the same way.
The responses then become just inane and immature. For example, "The dominant cryptocurrency is still Bitcoin and they have no plans to move to Proof-of-stake." - I can't fathom how this statement has any bearing on the impact of other proof-of-stake projects using codeberg as their VCS host.
Through these issue threads leading up to the vote, the arguments in favor of continuing to host blockchain projects are far more reasonable and sober and better informed than the detractors.
If anything, this discussion seems to reinforce the (and my) view that, on long time scales, blockchains are likely to be an elegant solution to humanity's problems of economic inequality and inefficiency.
Moreover, the vast majority of active software development work relates to modern proof-of-stake blockchains like Ethereum, not Bitcoin which is mostly ossified.
I'd argue that it's more democratic than the EU, and has a target audience of members who actually want the service to continue going in this direction. You most likely wont be missed. Thankfully there are a million other places to host your code.
Your point is, they should do nothing about targeted hateful spam campaigns against their users? If someone starts flinging shit at your window, and you protested, I'd tell you to sit down and "quit the activism".
No, the parent was precisely saying it's perfectly fine to take position, and it's nothing new for codeberg. In particular, the linked article was not just about countering spam, but also against « far-right ideologies ». So it's nothing new or surprising that codeberg is political.
This is an interesting development. I think for the forseeable future, more and more people (who run and/or own products or platforms like Codeberg) will continue to be more selective on what they accept on their platforms.
The software we write has been increasingly shown that they are not some unassailable paragon of neutrality and mere harmless artifacts. These things are written by people with intent. Naturally the other set of people who run these platforms would have objections on hosting them.
"Invevitability" gets thrown around these days. I guess this is the other kind of inevitability that comes from the environment we've created.
I see this as a higher evolution of simpler community tech projects, which are incapable of tackling or comprehending these things as a group. And so simpler projects will often neglect or reject taking them up altogether, using various restricting justifications. But the truth is this is a step for the community towards actually thinking about how you exist in the world that you live in and having a say in it. Congratulations.
It's hard to understand decisions like this from an organization offering an alternative to Github since it goes directly against the network effects that they are supposed to be trying to build. I understand the point of banning a project after it comes out that they've commited crimes, but I hardly want the host of my repo to be the authority deciding whether my project is good or bad before the fact.
I'm... unsure how to feel. On one hand I have the utmost sympathy for the idea of pushing people away from disposable software and towards collaboration. On the other hand this will definitely devolve into name calling and vigilantism. On the third hand, Github is already drowning in slop. It takes up huuuuge amounts of resources and delivers a tiiiiny amount of value to the platform per line of slop code
You have to understand that this isn't about everyone being altruistic towards everyone else. When the industry declared that AI would replace humans, even perhaps make every single person worthless, they guaranteed beyond all doubt that the vitriol would reach at least these levels. There's no point in extending kindness to people whose stated goal is your extinction. At that point what's left is war.
Then war it is. Like I told the fine people of Lobsters, they're going to take out a lot of innocent people as collateral damage during their crusade. I've already soft quit that site, and there goes Codeberg as well. What can you do?
I don't disagree, but it is not within my power to do anything to change that. There exists no person who could call off the backlash to the AI movement
I used to post a lot more. I took the "be part of the community" rule pretty seriously and really tried. I dramatically cut down on my participation after the "ban AI slop" meta threads made me feel like I was not welcome due to my AI use. Getting straight up called a "slop fetishist" will do that.
Since then I've been mostly participating on veqq's lobster interview threads. My highest posting volume was in my own interview thread. The interview itself took place before all of these unfortunate events. Veqq is a really nice person, one of a select few who told me they were sad to see me go, even though we have different viewpoints on AI.
Personally, I'm overjoyed to see the internet stratify and the chuds depart for whatever libertarian/accelerationist pastures they're looking for. I just want to chat with human beings about human endeavors. If that shrinks my social network by several orders of magnitude — even better. Much easier to catch up.
Lobsters is the definition of a toxic community. Here at least you can create a throwaway account to have a controversial opinion. There you need vested invited, and get banned if you post some uncomfortable truth. Been there, done that. Same goes for mastodon.social.
Honestly? I don't remember exactly, something about a software project not being automatically bad for not implementing a code of conduct praising certain sexual deviances (woof)?
I clearly remember why my account with lots of photos was deleted from mastodon.social without warning: There was a poll "Have you donated to the Antifa", two options: no / I'm a fascist. I replied there is some more nuance to the topic, also in some jurisdictions the organization is listed as a terrorist organization, and as such it is illegal to do so, link to an example (us in those days, it was in the news). Well, apart from some nice photos nothing of value was lost, also it was a great lesson why you need to self-host and not rely on "self-moderating communities" or megacorps...
Some taboo of that "community"... much like free healthcare or unionization or illegal migration is slave labour (and class warfare against the working class, including legal migrants and legal guest-workforce) in disguise (was banned from a VC funded SV echo-chamber for this opinion) are taboos of this "community".
Guess I'm an extremist... or just Eastern-European.
No, unfortunately I cannot. I decided that the fediverse is not for me.
A friend of mine wanted to host a lemmy instance, but as soon as he opened registration it got flooded with pornography, even worse: mostly illegal. He deleted the instance immediately.
This also gives me some sympathy for the moderation work that needs to be put in, which in turn makes disgruntled, or not fully aligned mods overreach, yet I don't want to be on the bad side of a tired mod.
Also I realized that I'm only mildly interested in the topics people usually discuss on these media. I contemplated self-hosting before, but realized it is not worth the hassle, I have a blog I don't have time to tend, or the important happenings in my life do not belong to the public.
People always say they hate centralized markets, but whenever a market starts regulating to create its own distinct character, they push back.
Honestly, I think this measure actually gives Codeberg a competitive edge in terms of code quality.
I think we're now seeing a pattern where, under a 'free' large market, regulations are being used to create unique market identities. That's my take—it depends on what you regulate, which determines the market's character.
Personally, I've noticed that when Codeberg announced regulations around AI code, most of the comments cheered. But when the same people talk about cryptocurrency regulations, they get angry. It seems like people just want to regulate what they don't like, not what they do.
I won't use Codeberg myself, but I think this policy is reasonable. I've decided that what you regulate defines your market's identity.
Even though I do not host on Codeberg, but I do run my own Forgejo, and have no particular interest in Cryptocurrency projects, I consider this a serious red flag as to me it indicates an activist tendency, for lack of a better word, that I do not want from an IT infrastructure provider.
All IT infrastructure providers are activists. The question is what is their politics? Github pushes for centralization, AI slop, and gathering code for the military-industrial complex. Twitter pushes for techno-fascism under our great and only leader Elon Musk. FSF pushes for liberal left-wing copyleft.
If you don't see the politics behind economic actors, i would recommend taking a closer look.
A lot of these cryto brands get targeted by fake accounts and domains that scammers run to try and leach off of their users. This is why brand protection services like ChainPatrol have become more of a thing. Not even just crypto, basically any brand with an online user base is targeted and AI tools are causing an explosion in scams on the internet
While codeberg can do as they please, I'm worried about the walled gardens we're creating all over the place. Be it non-exclusive open source projects (hi gitea) because it's a meeting point for a subset of extremist politics or services like this (not even talking about x, fediverse, etc. etc.). The open and free web seems dead, it's fragmented into oblivion. I always valued the weird and random exchange of ideas that challenge my own worldviews.
Seems fine to me. It was decided by a community vote; it's their site and their rules. The people complaining about those damn ideologicsts or whatever seem to be missing the point in that they are equally as ideological just in a different direction.
We're just returning back to the foundations of the internet where people setup their own community area and tell you what they will and will not tolerate.
Besides support, the only correct feeling about this "well that sucks, I'll selfhost or open my own source sharing service with different guidelines". I wouldn't have backed this decision - but lots of smaller communities hosting services, backed by different tech, making steering decisions is the right way for the open internet.
Did you even read the blog post or the ToS changes? You're either misinformed or lying. Banning projects that « mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools » is not the same as banning « all LLM assisted projects ».
I don’t think the slippery slope is a fallacy. If a group makes a change in one direction is it not more likely that they will continue making changes in that direction than if they had not made the initial change?
I believe that they (like every other non-governmental service) have the privilege to ban everything and everyone from their service for literally any reason they choose.
But this (and especially the AI ban) is a big red flag and I'm steering clear from Codeberg.
I'm not sure how this interacts with open source principles. I think they are free to do whatever they want with their own website and indeed with open source tooling, but as a host for open source it could conceivably conflict with those principles.
A much debated aspect of open source is that it may be used for any purpose. The JSON licence sparked much of this debate.
More recently there has been suggestions for an ethical source movement, which advocate that source may only be used for ethical uses. I presume they must mean Good old christian, pro family, anti-terrorism, traditional values etc. the usual ten commandments stuff. Or perhaps they had something else in mind, it's unclear, but what ever it is that's the stuff that's allowed and the other stuff isn't.
I mean that's how I personally would define ethical. But anytime someone makes a claim like that, you have to ask "by what standard." And it's usually just "me."
It's not ridiculous. If it was for me, i would ban anyone who use LLMs at all, so banning projects that « mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools » sounds very light to me, a reasonable middle-ground to rally everyone around.
Are you sure you don't feel insulted and threatened because you're yourself a sloperator, so it feels personal to have others criticize your practices from a moral standpoint? (i don't know, i haven't researched your profile)
I'm probably repeating what others had said but might as well join in on the very classic hnews saga of talking about a conversational topic in super autistic detail lol.
On the one hand its there site so they can do what they want and tbh its pretty easy to self host your own git server nowdays (which i do) however the issue i do have with this and really its a wider issue i have with the industry as whole:
I feel like we focus way to much ideology's and moral grandstanding which we then insert that into tech projects so seeing stuff like this makes we want to avoid using this site with a 10 foot pole. Can we just focus on tech not some moral grandstanding about politics, crypto blah blah but i guess thats too hard of a thing to ask or something
If Codeberg becomes a place where you cannot just host any of your projects without caring about its politics like you can host on GitHub, GitHub monopoly will continue. This is very unfortunate, and despite I prefer Forgejo web UI to GitHub's web UI, I'll have to stay off codeberg out of concerns they'll wipe my repos in case, for example, they decide any LLM-assisted code is suddenly disallowed on the platform.
I've just got back from my day, and I see the Codeberg PR has been stormed by new accounts.
Please dont. I posted this here to spark a discussion on HN, not as a license to raid Codeberg. They're at liberty to set their own policies in the same way I'm at liberty to not use their services.
If you want to discuss this and you're not already an account holder at Codeberg, the comments section is right here.
They are not necessarily new accounts, their flag shows this is the first time you engaged with a discussion. You could have had an account for months, and it still flags you as new.
This is crazy. 1. Humans are turning energy in code too. 2. Business cannot afford "ultra-high-end-code" or dont want to. LLM's are the escape hatch for developers in those areas to increase throughput and quality (writing tests). Everything before llm's were already a burning piece of sh*t and now we actually can do smth about it.
1. that LLMs actually improve project quality, which may be true for projects with very clear style guides and test suites (eg. the linux kernel) but may also be false for 99% of projects (are the LLM tests testing good behavior or just random stuff?)
2. that codeberg's orientation is to host code for private businesses (it's a non-profit in which businesses may take part, but that's definitely not the target audience)
It's a shame that such a film of commercial and criminal slime surrounds big new technologies like crypto/AI that could otherwise be used for net good. But this is where we're at.
Commercial and criminal activity are not actually the same.
Also commercial activity tends to happen when everyone involved in the activity comes out ahead, so placing it as opposed to "net good" is perhaps a bit dubious.
It's the whole world. It's the current zeitgeist. Everything is for money extraction and everyone is a resource whose money is to be extracted. Anyone who tries to resist will quickly be moneyless, then homeless, then foodless, then dead. Resistance is futile.
I wonder if we will see a fork of Forgejo and Codeberg (the latter is based on the former) that will allow for this and AI contributions. I would be interested in trying it out.
It's a good decision to ban cryptocurrency projects. Such a project may be mostly fine, but considering overall cryptocurrency shady reputation it's better to keep it away.
The same is for LLM-slop projects. They have little to no value for the society and may be dangerous.
Yeah, I'm not interested in a service that makes their product decisions based on the political hot button issue of the day. Was it only yesterday when they decided to ban "vibecoded" projects? Nobody in comments had a clear idea on what exactly the definition of "vibecoded" is, so half of the discussion was just confusion.
Now it's this.
I want my code hosting to host my code and only consider removing something when there's a legal demand from authorities.
Otherwise you can't be sure that the code you host peacefully today won't fall out of political activists favor tomorrow and be deleted forcing you to scramble figuring out where to move to. Fuck this.
Bitcoin lets me send my friend abroad money with minimal BS, I quite like it (other services like Wise take more commissions and have more delays), but also realize there's a lot of scam prjoects etc. out there.
Then again, Codeberg as a project can do whatever they want. I'm just happy that anyone can host Gitea, Gogs, GitBucket or GitLab or whatever they wnat. For my personal stuff Gitea works really nice with Woodpecker CI.
I'm sure many other hosted platforms don't have such stringent rules, though.
That makes the decision to not use Codeberg even easier for many.
If you are after a sustainable and stable code repository to host your projects then Codeberg disqualified themselves. It goes down regularly as much as GitHub and loses to GitHub on discovery.
Now, you can potentially lose your entire account and projects by posting a repo that can have AI with auto-complete.
If Linus Torvalds (pro-AI) published his scuba-diving software [0] there, which there is a CLAUDE.md file in the repository, it would get banned.
It also makes choosing it easier for others. “Hosting on Codeberg is a good indicator my code is handcrafted”, or somesuch.
I don’t want nor am I interested in arguing whether “handcrafted” is good or bad, just positing that some people would prefer it. May not be great for [i]growth[/i], but it’s not like Codeberg is a service by a megacorp aiming to corner the market (one of the reasons why everything is regressing to mediocre slop these days, but I digress).
That Torvalds plays for the other team is irrelevant. But if we’re mentioning him, one should recall that it was ol’ swears-a-lot himself who said “fork it or just walk away” on a similar topic.
Bad example, you obviously didn't read the codeberg ToS. Codeberg banned projects that « mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools ». subsurface is apparently quality software with different contributors, and in the recent commit history i only saw a handful of commits assisted by LLMs.
subsurface is not slop and is therefore not targeted by the codeberg ToS update.
> Codeberg banned projects that « mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools ».
Since you studied the entire policy, what is the methodology in determining a project that uses generative AI-tools or not that covers the ban? What does "mostly" mean here? Is there a percentage defined? Or did they look at sourcehut's Anti-AI policy and start from there?
This is actually a good example since people can just fork existing "human made" software, (Free software permits you to do that) and run agents on it and hide the "slop" commits to circumvent that policy. Maybe someone would like in Rust and use an agent to do that. Or continue it as is but just adding new features quickly.
> subsurface is not slop and is therefore not targeted by the codeberg ToS update.
...for now and it will eventually have more gen AI code anyway.
subsurface already has generative AI tools committing to the code base and the presence of the CLAUDE.md guarantees that. The same can be said with Vim which has an AGENTS.md allowing AI contributions.
Overall: there are humans performing the moderations. I trust them to have good judgement. This is not a witch hunt proposing to delete every repository where Claude has ever committed.
Personal interpretation: i think, from a very outside perspective (but that's what i'd do if i were in their place), that they'll inspect projects sorted by CI minutes consumed, then individually seeing if that's useful CI for useful projects (eg. fuzzing for tor or whatever) or if that's just slop CI for slop projects running countless steps on 100 commits an hour for software that's used by exactly 1 person (or even 0, who knows). From there, i'd start by failing the CI (and pushes) with a message inviting the user to read their mailbox, and send an email saying the user has been detected as malicious and should move away from codeberg, that existing code will remain available for a year, but no push/CI/issues will be permitted.
This will not remove 100% LLM-assisted project (which then again, was not the case), but might reduce codeberg resource usage by 10-99% depending on how bad the situation already is.
> run agents on it and hide the "slop"
I'm not sure how an agent would be able to hide that it's committing 100 commits an hour with 10k lines each, adding and removing tests as a mere inconvenience. But sure, let's assume so. That's just going against the rules, so the user may get banned.
Not entirely, but I think between the lines yes. They have a 100MB combined limit each person's non-promoted (i.e. not a serious project) repositories.
This is far less controversial than their anti-AI stance which passed today.
I have zero sympathies around crypto projects, generally. "Blockchain" feels to me like a venus fly trap that swallows distributed systems engineers and turns them into pseudo-libertarian apologists for money-laundering.
But I pulled my project off Codeberg today because of the anti-AI positioning. Not so much because of any specifics in their very vague wording, which they've left completely open to subjective interpretation. But because of the crazy toxic discourse on Mastodon and other places around it. People making analogies between people's LLM use and non-consensual sex, and accusing people seeking clarity on what "mostly AI" means of being like "creepy guys" etc. Just beyond the bounds of reasonable discourse and also being offensively trivializing of actual rape culture concerns without even realizing it.
I really thought I liked the codeberg community when I joined it. I'm a copyleft guy. My project is AGPL. I've been tilted pretty far over to the left my whole adult life. I liked not being on American infrastructure. It turns out I don't like these people though. Bye. I'd rather wade in slop than sanctimonious moralism.
Hey, this one wasnt a fit but i think there are still so many options to consider over doubling down on centralization. Maybe P2P is actually a better fit than federated for git and open source collaboration? nostr, radicle, reticulum?
Self-hosting classic forge is great but does require domain name and infra with uptime. These p2p solutions are more like bittorrent where you can clone as long as someone is seeding and git already has commit signature as building block for trust.
I dunno, I just felt for the health of the project and getting contributors it made no sense. GH sucks but it comes with social amplifiers that tend to attract people. e.g. I had everthing over at Codeberg for 11 months but rarely had new "followers" over there, but still acquired "stars" on the read-only GH mirror of it.
I was already hosting my own CI, I never used Codeberg's because I was trying to be responsible with their resources because I liked [past tense] them. Getting back on GH actually means I don't have to do that anymore, I will enjoy leaching from Microsoft.
I do have my own self-hosted Gerrit I use for other somewhat more private things. But self-hosting has its own hassles (backups, security, etc).
And in fact one of those other things is in fact my own project to make a "forge" type thing. Vaguely similar to what Dorsey announced the other day (integrated git, chat, code review, code browsing, llm agent interaction, etc into one dynamic r) but I started on it quite some time ago, it's built on my own bespoke runtime, and it's generally more ambitious ... but also I'm not a techbro billionaire so I don't have the resources to finish it right now and I have to work on other projects.
I'm strongly anti-AI, but i upvoted your comment because it's the most reasonable one (in opposition to the AI ban) i've read so far. I haven't read those mastodon threads, but that sounds like a weird discourse. Are they from codeberg eV members or random passers-by (like me)? Would you mind sharing some links to some of those resources?
Or here, when someone tried to ask for similar clarification: https://tldr.nettime.org/@tante/116880003584050912"You're coming off similar to someone trying to probe the limits of consent instead of trying to honor the request in good faith. It's a bad look.""Opening your conversation with a group by saying "well I'll get to violate your group's values a _little_, right?" does not project the mentality of someone who wants to collaborate in good faith."
Or making analogies to Claude Code users being NAZIs? "@piggo @tante I see such a rule as being similar to the "no Nazis" rule. It works by Nazi sympathizers self-identifying by arguing about the rule."
Both those threads have other examples, and there are plenty more other threads like them. It has the smell of a smug in group that allows no dissent.
I am also 80% certain there were comments on the PR (https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/pulls/1253) along similar lines that were removed but I have no backups or screenshots to backup that accusation.
The first link has been removed (or may be private).
The second link and quotes sound bad, but placed in context they actually sound more reasonable arguments to me.
The "limits of consent" was somewhat misplaced, but in reply to someone arguing in bad faith about bad-faith interpretation of the rules. So it's not comparing LLMs use with rape, but comparing testing the limits/interpretations of rules with rape.
The violating of group values (which in my understanding has semantically nothing to do with rape/consent) was in reply to someone saying if you violate the rules a little, "noone will say anything" (so it was on point).
The nazi analogy was not an analogy at all. Noone implied LLM users are nazis. It's about how to interpret what is slop: the general rule of thumb that the only people worried that "anti-nazi" rules in communities are a slippery slope are the nazis themselves. The author was suggesting the same rule of thumb would apply to slop: those worried about the rule's interpretations are the ones making the slop. (a point i don't entirely agree with but more reasonable than the quote out of context)
All in all, i must say i cringed a little reading some discussions on this topic. And maybe i've missed the worst you witnessed due to deleted posts. But maybe you were also having a strong emotional reaction and the comments taken from afar are not as dramatic as you suggested?
You say yourself you didn't even see all the comments.
Look you can be "anti-AI" all you want. I think this is a crude way to exist in the world -- positioning oneself morally on category rather than contingency -- but fine. But I expect basic decorum in a community. And what I got from those posts was: we decided people who used these tools are not part of our community -- are bad people who have "crossed a line" -- and anything goes in terms of how we respond to them. Despite that not being at all part of the terms of how Codeberg was initially defined or defined when I joined the organization.
Putting a sham "democratic" discussion around it doesn't save it. When I was involved more heavily in activist politics I would have been disgusted if an organization I was working with behaved like this; it's in-group implicit consensus masquerading as formal process.
Anyways, good riddance, I'm glad to be departing from such people, but no thanks for wasting my time.
> You say yourself you didn't even see all the comments.
Yes, and i'm not claiming you're wrong in your feeling that some people were excessive about this. Though i could argue that LLM deployment has been excessive too and this is a very minor comeback compared to the pressure people have faced to adopt LLM tools (eg. at work) or let new AI datacenters ruin their neighborhoods and electricity/water networks.
> it's in-group implicit consensus masquerading as formal process
That's indeed a problem in some circles. However, i fail to see what's the alternative. Letting a debate open for years before opening a formal vote sounds reasonable. That's far from the entryist tactics of building consensus behind closed doors in a secret affinity group then faking organicity and taking everyone by surprise with an "urgent" formal decision. I'm interested if you have feedback on how to organize more "democratically".
> I'm glad to be departing from such people, but no thanks for wasting my time.
I'm glad you feel relieved, and i'm sorry you lost time and energy in a collective where you don't fit in the end.
Well, i guess that's what i get for trying to sympathize with someone i disagree with. I have also been this person who doesn't fit in a group but only realizes too late. My bad for thinking we were having an interesting and honest conversation.
I grew up in a fundamentalist evangelical Christian community. I learned from a very young age what genuine empathy might look look vs the kind of "sympathy" whose goal is to buttress and support the pre-existing biases that the Church purveyed, and also all about in and out groups, and the application of abstract moralism over genuine personal relationships.
I don't think it's honest communication if the fundamental bias of one party is that the other party is "doing something wrong" and can never countenance any compromise, and defines that "wrong behaviour" as the foundation of exclusion from a community.
And that's what we have here with the section of the Codeberg community that took over there. Which you can see in the forum posts I referenced above. And they're now retroactively defining mores and values to make it seem like people like myself were always in the out-group.
I allowed myself to believe that the public conversation had moved past the "free speech means that no one is allowed to control what others post on platforms they run". The obvious cases of it routinely get replies with the obvious counterarguments, so I thought maybe everyone had gotten the idea. Apparently not.
You can disagree with the decision here. That's a reasonable debate. Pretending it's about "pluralism" or "tyranny" is pathetic.
Think about it for half a second: do you think every platform that accepts user content is required to accept all not-explicitly-illegal content? No? Then the only question is where to set the line. Codeberg is making their own choices. If you don't like those choices, I don't even have to tell you to start your own platform, because there's already tons of competition.
The vast majority of crime happens in fiat, not crypto. Monero protects human rights while fiat allows them to be taken away.
For example, Canadian govt used banks to control peaceful protesters to deny them freedom of expression. If they used Monero they wouldn't have had their rights violated.
>The percentage of classical fiat used for crime is negligible, when compared with the percentage of blockhain fiat used for crimes.
If the goal is to prevent crime then going after a currency based on percentage is stupid. Nobody cares about what percent, they care about what's actually happening and that's where the astronomically larger amount of fiat crime matters.
>Moreover, classical fiat makes steps to make crime like ransomware or kidnapping impractical. While crypto fiat works on making them easy
You're right regular transparent crypto is problematic because it makes kidnapping more common. That's why everyone should use privacy coins like Monero because they don't want to go shouting their bank account balance and every purchase they've ever made every time they make a purchase.
We shouldn't spy on everyone to prevent crime, that's like putting everyone in jail and making them prove they are good people to get out or making people accused of committing a crime forced to prove their innocence beyond doubt.
Monero prevents mass surveillance which makes our society more free.
> Nobody cares about what percent, they care about what's actually happening and that's where the astronomically larger amount of fiat crime matters.
I absolutely care. Classical money system has regulations that make crime like ransomware or (physical) kidnapping impractical. Cryptocrap enables them. The entire ransomware field became possible _just_ because of it.
> Monero prevents mass surveillance which makes our society more free.
Hell no. Monero and other cryptocrap so far produced Trump, enabled CSAM, enabled North Korea to bypass sanctions, and so on.
They did not increase freedom for anybody but criminals. Go on, list the positive outcomes enabled by cryptocrap that are at least commensurate with its harm. I'll wait.
If you don't care about privacy, then state your address, bank account balance, phone number, family members, and post photos of the inside of your house. Monero protects some of that information.
It's a human right to choose what information to reveal about yourself.
Crypto is not crap on the whole. Many coins are worthless and scams, but some improves payments and give people more freedom and privacy. Just like everything, understanding crypto requires nuance.
Of course any privacy tool will first be challenged by the bad actors caught using it. That's just the way it goes and is the same with Tor, secure devices like GrapheneOS. But we shouldn't take away peoples rights because of a few bad actors.
There's a vast ecosystem of legal services that accept and use Monero like Mullvad VPN and many listed on donatemonero.org.
Monero prevents ransomware because it prevents others from knowing how much you have. I agree that regular transparent crypto is problematic because of that lack of privacy which enables bad actors like kidnappers or oppressive governments. Monero is an important iteration on transparent crypto. There's a reason one of the "rules" of Monero" is never say how much you have.
I've made 100s of Monero transactions and none of them have been for illicit goods or any crime. They just were for protecting my privacy.
> If you don't care about privacy, then state your address, bank account balance, phone number, family members, and post photos of the inside of your house.
Nope. I'm fine with the protection that the classic legal system provides.
> Monero protects some of that information.
No, it doesn't. I don't use cryptocrap.
> Of course any privacy tool will first be challenged by the bad actors caught using it. That's just the way it goes and is the same with Tor, secure devices like GrapheneOS. But we shouldn't take away peoples rights because of a few bad actors.
The harm done by GrapheneOS and the harm that is being done every day by cryptocrap are nowhere comparable.
> I've made 100s of Monero transactions and none of them have been for illicit goods or any crime. They just were for protecting my privacy.
And by doing 100s of Monero transactions, you made a noticeable contribution to making the world worse. Congrats.
Go on, I'm still waiting for you to list the positive effects of crypto. It's been 12 years since it became mainstream, so positive effects should be visible by now. Has the world become more democratic? More privacy-oriented?
Perhaps smart contracts and unforgeable blockchains made new applications possible, and they became widespread? Like asset tracking or certificates of origin? Maybe NFTs transformed the art?
Protecting and improving privacy is by definition excellent for humans.
GrapheneOS gets many of their donations from Monero [1].
I'm glad you didn't state any personal information. You now can see exactly why Monero is important. Using other online methods of exchanging value would say those things without your permission!
So on one hand you have massive pig butchering operations that use slave labor trafficked across multiple countries to scam people and ruin thousands of lives.
And on the other hand you have donations to Graphene that can be done just fine using a credit card (I know, I've been donating to them for years).
>And on the other hand you have donations to Graphene that can be done just fine using a credit card (I know, I've been donating to them for years).
They can't be done "just fine" because people are debanked, have sensitive situations which require privacy, or just want privacy because it's a human right which should also apply to payments. You have zero privacy when donating to GrapheneOS. Many third parties know that you do it throughout the financial stack. They include that in their algorithms assessing your risk and which advertising to give to you. It's a violation of your rights.
Here's a comparison showing how Monero and even other crypto is better than traditional fiat payments in many ways.
I absolutely would support adding more privacy to traditional payment methods but banks are not interested in that.
I donate with Monero so the only way someone could know I donated is if I told them. That's how it should be. Privacy by default.
Many people clearly prefer to or can only donate with crypto or GrapheneOS wouldn't get so many donations in it.
They also support privacy preserving payments like Monero and Cash because they understand it's a tool that should not be banned because of a few bad actors using it because it protects the privacy of everyone which is important.
In fact they've said they pay most or all of their developers in crypto at various points.
Glad to see you supporting a project that benefits and endorses Monero so much.
>We accept cryptocurrency donations and currently pay all our developers with it.
>Yes, at grapheneos.org/donate#monero and it's one of the 3 cryptocurrencies we use to directly pay our development team rather than having to convert it to something else first.
>If you want to donate to GrapheneOS privately, you can use Monero. The weak privacy tools available for Bitcoin aren't comparable to that and have downsides including paying significantly higher fees by largely doing the opposite of consolidation and batching transactions.
>We get significant donations via other cryptocurrencies too. We've gotten almost as much via Ethereum as Monero, although it's mostly due to one very large donation and a couple other large ones.
Makes me wonder if all non memory safe code will be on the chopping block in the next 5 years. Will they find it morally justifiable to "protect" people from evil unsafe languages?
> what would happen if they were to decide to ban Ruby On Rails projects because of DHH's fascist actions
Wow hold your horses. It's one thing to ban an individual and their projects. It's another thing entirely to ban an entire programming language because of some loose associations.
There's no way this would cross anyone's mind. In particular, the ruby on rails community (or at least some segment of it) is very open, diverse and welcoming.
If an hypothetical swastika-lang came up promoting nazi ideology, banning swastika-lang projects would of course be sensible, but that's not the situation you're mentioning at all.
We've banned this account. Please don't register accounts for the purpose of taunting people and posting ideological rhetoric and flamebait. THe guidelines are clear that this is not what HN is for.
While that's true, it's unrelated to hosting code. A reliable code hosting site should be agnostic to content. Once they start making editorial decisions about what projects to host, why should anyone trust them with their project?
I just fundamentally disagree that hosting sites should be agnostic to content.
Should they host malware? Anything related to CSAM? Clearly it is reasonable for them to exercise some editorial control, and this is not a crazy use of that power.
Yes? Every hosting provider should be considering what they want to host. Of course it's fine for providers to take some sort of speech maximalism stance if they want to, but it is also reasonable not to.
So you think Codeberg should not host projects in the categories I listed?
Or if you think they should, should they also provide guarantees to projects that the rules will not be suddenly changed, disrupting the project and community?
If not, and you’re a developer, why would you want to host there?
Why would P2P/E2EE software be banned? Makes no sense to even compare that to crypto. Its like saying we ban C because the bitcoin is written in it.
> Software that gets used to leak state secrets?
Thats not really a "thing". If someone uploads something of the sorts, it probably going to be taken down. VPNs follow the same rules as P2P/E2EE, and has nothing to do with crypto.
Just look at github, they have taken down multiple repos during the years that are illegal, and/or breaks their TOS.
Chat Control 2.0? Public pressure campaigns against encryption? The mob decides that it’s “fascist” to prevent snooping?
> Thats not really a "thing".
WikiLeaks and SecureDrop would disagree.
> Just look at github, they have taken down multiple repos during the years that are illegal, and/or breaks their TOS.
Yes, and I’m saying that this is a bad thing. Obviously there may be limited means to contest legal actions (outside of decentralization), but GitHub has been iffy regarding ToS applications in the past.
This is just nonsense. You can also then argue we should ban email. I can get an anon throwaway email and send some leaked document that way to, say a reporter.
> Chat Control 2.0
Has nothing to with with cryptography. Banning that would mean we have no ssl, and no online payments / banking.
The only good thing about crypto is we can send money easily to stupid countries without any hassle and crazy forex exchange. Other than that, i don't see any value in crypto.
We can send normal FIAT pretty much anywhere in the world, instantly. There might be some places that are truly out-of-reach, but at the same time, crypto is probably not working there neither as a) there i literally no computers and b) no way to use the crypto. So you end up exchanging crypto for fiat, and pay a high fee in the process.
I hear this over and over. What kind of privacy are we taking about here? You mean X gives Y 100 bucks in cash privacy? Or purchasing a house where there is no paper trail, no knowledge of who is the previous/current owner and no insurance at all kind of privacy?
Would you be happy to send your kids to a school that no one knows whos the owner, who operates it and if there is any kind of hazards and/or insurance/maintenance? Lets not even talk about how and what the teachers get paid, as its all fully private.
It is perfectly fine (and in fact standard) to identify people without any payment processor involved.
Someone arguing for the ability to pay someone without surveillance does not argue for a world where nobody knows each other anymore. That would be awful, of course.
Yes. Monero is the equivalent of spending cash online. Any service that accepts monero still has order numbers to deliver the product. Or requires an address if it must be shipped.
As it stands, AI has already surpassed the energy consumption of all cryptocurrencies including Bitcoin, and is also burning the entire planet [0]. It is only going up due to the data center build out. [1][2]
The cryptocurrency industry already found ways to migrate off of PoW to Proof-of-Stake so there exists an efficient alternative to reduce emissions.
AI still does not and the hard requirement is to build more data centers to keep up with the scale, hence higher token prices, energy prices, electronics and water.
Fantastic! Codeberg just keeps getting better and better, properly moderating a healthy community which does not welcome the technolibertarian dystopia we've all been suffering through for far too many years now.
I'm not surprised many here are upset. Many here don't seem to understand the outrageous harms that a totally out-of-control tech industry has been foisting upon the planet. It's time to take a stand for a better path forward.
actual open source crypto projects are the opposite of a techno dystopia. ethereum wants to build a global root of trust (like iana but decentralized), railgun and monero are doing anonymous payments, and all of them let you avoid taxes. which is good if you live in a country where your taxes go to foreign genocide and the war on drugs.
all the harms come from for-profit companies that use crypto as a cover, like polymarket or stake. the contracts are on chain and might be open licensed but one company controls everything in practice with admin rights. and they make it hard to access directly without going through the proprietary frontend hosted on their servers.
the only ones who would ever want to host their code on codeberg are real community projects, because the corpos are all happy with github.
> Allowing these projects is not a neutral stance; the effects to the environment are severe. The "DarkFi" (seemingly some crypto designed for criminals, citing an FBI director) project for example uses a "PoW blockchain" (per their readme). PoW (Proof-Of-Work) projects waste an astonishing amount of computational energy, with Bitcoin alone using more energy than the entire countries of Argentina or the Netherlands. This energy is almost always from fossil fuels, which directly contributes to greenhouse gas emissions and undermining any global efforts to fight climate change.
> This is not a neutral space, Codeberg is political. If you disagree with someone, be constructive and don't call them merely political and think that's a reason for the discussion to stop.
Cryptocurrency is bad, but LLMs are fine? What next? Maybe you can't store your simulation source there because it is deemed to resource intensive for the expected results? When did source code itself become dangerous?
It looks like we need more alternatives...
[1] https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/issues/2184