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.
Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects
411–420 of 720 posts
Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects
#412Earlier 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.
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.
Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects
#413I'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.
Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects
#414I 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 computation…
> Cryptocurrency is bad, but LLMs are fine? No. https://blog.codeberg.org/protecting-our-floss-commons-from-...
That is actually a great blog post! I wholeheartedly agree with the points they are making.
Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects
#415Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have no idea what "slop" is. They don't want to have to define it with any precision. Ironically, these rules will be enforced based on vibes.
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 p…
> 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.
Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects
#416Earlier quoted context omitted.
Err Codeberg bans vibe coded projects (150 points) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49003386
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 s…
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.
Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects
#417I 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 computation…
If you avoid the discussion, you never get anywhere. Kudos to Codeberg for taking position.
Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects
#418Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you know what the politics will be next? They banned vibe coded projects too… goodness knows how they think they can determine / enforce that.
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 he…
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.
Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects
#419Besides 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.
Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects
#420This 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 the…
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?