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

Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

codeberg.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 720 posts

Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

#201

Post by conartist6 »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #192
conartist6 wrote: post #168

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

> On the other hand this will definitely devolve into name calling and vigilantism. No doubt. Just look at Lobsters. A quality filter would have been more effective.

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.

Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

#202

Post by zarzavat »

birksherty wrote: post #153
zarzavat wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Banning projects that haven't done anything wrong except implement algorithms that the Karen committee disagrees with is clearly an attack.

If they want to ban scammers then why don't they just ban scammers instead of a blanket policy that bans legitimate projects as well?

Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

#203

Post by tbrownaw »

zarzavat wrote: post #147
jjmarr wrote: post #75

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. [1] https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/issues/2184#issuecom...

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.

> Pretending

Are they though? I see "We are more than just Git hosting: Our community is ..." right in the highlight box on their landing page.

Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

#204

Post by p-e-w »

jjmarr wrote: post #75

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. [1] https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/issues/2184#issuecom...

So what is Codeberg’s political stance? From which ideology does it follow that crypto projects are bad, but VPN projects are not, for example?

Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

#205

Post by iamnothere »

conartist6 wrote: post #195
matheusmoreira wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you define "slop" ?

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.

Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

#206

Post by teravor »

trentor wrote: post #26

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.

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.

Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

#207

Post by altmanaltman »

jjmarr wrote: post #185
altmanaltman wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It's the politics of the paid membership of the Codeberg non-profit that funds the whole operation. They vote in yearly meetings.

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.

Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

#208

Post by Forgeties79 »

tbrownaw wrote: post #198
pretendgeneer wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're misunderstanding "codeberg is political". Everything is political, FOSS is political, GitHub is also political. When people say "We're not political", or "That's not political". What they're actually saying is that it's within my own politics.

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.

You’re the one who seems to be conflating things - everything is political =/= opinions are mandatory.

Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

#209

Post by causalmodels »

pretendgeneer wrote: post #160
altmanaltman wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I think you're misunderstanding "codeberg is political". Everything is political, FOSS is political, GitHub is also political. When people say "We're not political", or "That's not political". What they're actually saying is that it's within my own politics.

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.

Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

#210

Post by [deleted] »

masafej536 wrote: post #191
alloyed wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

this is a failure mode of consumer co-op that never occured to me. I thought the idea was bullet proof.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN