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

71–80 of 279 posts

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

#71

Post by matthewmacleod »

Hendrikto wrote: post #57
ddevault wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Opinionated, but objectively not unrealistic, unreasonable or arbitrary.

There has been a clear statement made about the reasons for these actions and they are obviously realistic, reasonable and specific. You just don’t agree with them.

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

#72

Post by ddevault »

Hendrikto wrote: post #57
ddevault wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I understand your frustration, but this is not arbitrary: we've outlined a specific niche and clearly stated our reasons for banning it, and set aside a means for projects to appeal.

I am an opinionated person, and perhaps you find some of my opinions unrealistic or unreasonable. However, SourceHut is handled separately from my personal opinions and governed by clear and well-defined values which are much narrower than my personal beliefs.

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

#73

Post by vladharbuz »

There are people here who seem to take the view that businesses hosting the content of others ought to absolutely protect their "freedom of speech", no matter the content. I disagree. Some things are harmful to the lives of those around us, and just as the private individual can cast a social/cultural vote against this harmful thing by refusing to engage with it and support it, a business can cast a vote in the same way against the thing its maintainers see as harmful. Inaction is also political, and I think acting according to your values is better than pretending to be a bystander.

Put yourself in the maintainers' shoes — would you be happy to idly stand by when you know your service is being used to actively harm others' lives? [^1] Perhaps you would, and if so, I would be interested in hearing your view.

Let's also not forget that, even if you disagree with sr.ht's stance, you can still freely benefit from the thousands of hours of work put into SourceHut by self-hosting it for whatever project you want. Therefore, I think the maintainers' work should be applauded regardless of your take on this post.

[^1]: This is, of course, assuming the view that cryptocurrency nearly universally causes societal harm; some people may disagree with this, but this is a separate question.

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

#74

Post by _aavaa_ »

Herbstluft wrote: post #20
_aavaa_ wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems conspicuous of valve given tf2 hats and cs:go skins.

My comment is undoubtedly an oversimplification, there are tons of things to criticize Valve for. Microtransactions are a plague unleashed by them, for one. I was mostly trying to keep the comparison limited to the topic of cryptocurrencies, and the behavioural patterns observed in tech companies when it comes to them.

My point was that it’s easy for them to ban cryptocurrencies and NFTs while saying that it’s for the good of the users, while they themselves keep supporting almost identical things on their platform. They only difference being that Valve gets a cut of the non-NFT transactions

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

#76

Post by tossl568 »

zeroclip wrote: post #55
colesantiago wrote: post #37

This is very welcomed, cryptocurrencies have been always a net negative on the environment, society and for everyone. Thank you Drew.

How is proof of stake a net negative on the environment?

Proof of stake is a perpetual motion machine.

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

#77

Post by _wolfie_ »

Hm, I do not see any definition of "blockchain technologies" in the new ToS. Will that be added? My understanding of "blockchain" is that for example git could be described as a application of blockchain technology.

First question: Will there be further clarification regarding what is the precise definition?

Second question: If there will be some HW accelerator thingie or something for blockchain technologies or cryptocurrency, and the driver for that gets merged into upstream linux kernel, will that make linux kernel un-hostable on sourcehut? If not, why not?

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

#78

Post by tossl568 »

arghwhat wrote: post #60
exo762 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Proof of work isn't "cooking the planet". Get a grip. And Bitcoin is a fantastic benefit for humanity resulting from proof of work.

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

#79

Post by openfuture »

ddevault wrote: post #67
openfuture wrote: post #62

Am I affected? sr.ht/~ilmu/tala.saman ... I would appreciate knowing so I have time to move and since you (drew) are in this thread this is the expedient way to find out...

I'm not sure what this project is for, but on the face of it it does not seem to be a problem. If it develops further and starts to run afoul of these rules, we can discuss it further and if necessary work together to ensure a smooth transition to another hosting provider. If you'd like to clarify more about this specific project, feel free to email me (sir@cmpwn.com) (or just elaborate here on HN).

It is meant to solve the class of problems (in the computer science sense) that is cryptocurrency. This is because I want a name system where the definitions are given meaning relative to our economic system but where the economics within the network should converge on better incentives (which is why the approach should encompass the space of solutions; so we can find the points in that space which have good tradeoffs w.r.t. reality, our current central currency model systematically produces pollution and the motivation of datalisp is to eventually replace that system with a provably better one).

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

#80

Post by Hendrikto »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #71
Hendrikto wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Opinionated, but objectively not unrealistic, unreasonable or arbitrary. There has been a clear statement made about the reasons for these actions and they are obviously realistic, reasonable and specific. You just don’t agree with them.

I am not only talking about this incident, but in general. There are many other examples, including Drew insulting people for having valid reasons not to use Wayland yet. Stuff like that.
Post reply on HN