431–440 of 720 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Well, if you're not part of the community, what do you care? One benefits from the availability of alternatives and a healthy market regardless.
When I go to a vegetarian restaurant I don't demand they serve me a juicy meat burger. We have different places with different philosophies. It is okay to be different, otherwise everything would look boringly identical. Sincerely, A meat lover and a codeberg fan.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t eat food that I am allergic to or don’t like the taste. What does that have to do with politics?
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…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 al…
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.
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.
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 computation…
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 ev…
Not just cryptocurrency projects, cryptocurrency related projects. But hey, it's their space.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ev…
I'd rather companies just provide me a service at a reasonable price. I don't need a corporation imposing it's ethics on me.
Not just cryptocurrency projects, cryptocurrency related projects. But hey, it's their space.