Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SourceHut terms of service updates, cryptocurrency projects to be removed

sourcehut.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 279 posts

Re: SourceHut terms of service updates, cryptocurrency projects to be removed

#51

Post by marcinzm »

tifadg1 wrote: post #14
ddevault wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's subjective. For us, it's a question of social impact. Sure, torrenting copyrighted material is illegal, but what's the actual social consequence of it? Little to none. Bittorrent also has a wealth of legitimate use-cases. For cryptocurrency, this is not the case: the social impact is grave, and there are few to no legitimate use-cases for it.

I find it ironic that you're moving from the US to reduce impact of state overreach (compliance), yet want to overimpose on your users.

If you view compliance as overreach then I find it odd you think the EU has less of it. Strong consumer laws such as GRPC are in the EU and not in the US. Even in terms of corporate finance there's a reason everyone like Delaware corporations and it's not due to them wanting more compliance. The US has other things that could be seen as overreach but compliance is usually not one that people think of.

Re: SourceHut terms of service updates, cryptocurrency projects to be removed

#52

Post by ohgodplsno »

cinntaile wrote: post #42

I don't work on cryptocurrency projects but this arbitrary decision doesn't instill confidence in sourcehut. Very little upside, huge potential downside. Strange business decision. Aren't your users there because they prefer "freedom"?

This makes me legitimately willing to move to SourceHut and even pay them for it. Oh no, cryptobros can no longer clone a repo, run sed "s/RenameMeCoin/SuperDuperMassiveReturnsShitCoin/g' and run their scam on SH, what a shame.

Re: SourceHut terms of service updates, cryptocurrency projects to be removed

#53

Post by toastal »

> We will exercise discretion when applying this rule. If you believe that your use-case for cryptocurrency or blockchain is not plagued by these social problems, you may ask for permission to host it on SourceHut, or appeal its removal, by contacting support.

It seems a lot of folks are missing that you can appeal if you can demonstrate your project isn’t (subjective and objectively) causing social problems.

I'm a paying member and a bit on the fence about the call, but I do feel a bit reassured that the topic isn't wholly banned. As the maintainer noted, inaction on topics is also political. Projects have been banned and not banned on other forges too, and I haven't seen them concisely laying out what is and isn’t ban-worthy. For instance: look at what happened with GitHub and the youtube-dl ban when capitalists in the media industry wanted it gone for piracy, but inaction allowing ICE repositories as folk cried out for a ban for being associated with human rights violations.

This doesn't prevent a team from self-hosting SourceHut or another forge either—or sending patches upstream. You can't say that about the most populated forges.

Re: SourceHut terms of service updates, cryptocurrency projects to be removed

#54

Post by trevyn »

ddevault wrote: post #47
cinntaile wrote: post #42

I don't work on cryptocurrency projects but this arbitrary decision doesn't instill confidence in sourcehut. Very little upside, huge potential downside. Strange business decision. Aren't your users there because they prefer "freedom"?

People use SourceHut for a wide variety of reasons. One of them is confidence in our strong moral compass and our willingness to make the right choices even if it could impact our profit, as contrasted with typical VC-funded operations in the market. I've never really heard anyone talk about SourceHut offering particularly more or less "freedom" than anyone else.

A single highly opinionated founder is great until it turns out that your opinions differ even slightly.

I’ve been enjoying Codeberg as a GitHub/GitLab alternative.

Re: SourceHut terms of service updates, cryptocurrency projects to be removed

#57

Post by Hendrikto »

ddevault wrote: post #47
cinntaile wrote: post #42

I don't work on cryptocurrency projects but this arbitrary decision doesn't instill confidence in sourcehut. Very little upside, huge potential downside. Strange business decision. Aren't your users there because they prefer "freedom"?

People use SourceHut for a wide variety of reasons. One of them is confidence in our strong moral compass and our willingness to make the right choices even if it could impact our profit, as contrasted with typical VC-funded operations in the market. I've never really heard anyone talk about SourceHut offering particularly more or less "freedom" than anyone else.

I am a huge fan of your work. Thanks for all you have done.

But you are so opinionated, unrealistic, and unreasonable. Are you seriously suggesting that arbitrary censorship is ”making the right choice“?

You brush aside valid criticism to push your own ideology. A little restraint and pragmatism would go a long way. You are the modern RMS, both in a good and bad way.

Re: SourceHut terms of service updates, cryptocurrency projects to be removed

#59

Post by zeroclip »

Seems like virtue signalling from an over-controlling project maintainer with a grudge against blockchains.

Can you make a coherent case for why a legitimate and licit application of crypto should not be allowed on your source hosting platform?

To give an example of a legitimate and licit application: Endaoment.

Re: SourceHut terms of service updates, cryptocurrency projects to be removed

#60

Post by arghwhat »

exo762 wrote: post #50
timeon wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin with proof of waste is not just about flavour.

And yet Drew hasn't made an exemption for Ethereum, which does not do proof of work.

That a project using proof of work is bad does not meant that a project using proof of stake is good. The ban is cryptocurrencies, and that PoW cooks the planet for no benefit is only one of the listed reasons behind it.
Post reply on HN