Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#1

Post by acmnrs » Thu, Jul 23, 2026, 1:14 AM UTC

Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs
blog.codeberg.org

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#2

Post by jaredcwhite » Thu, Jul 23, 2026, 5:59 AM UTC

Huzzah! This is excellent news. Safe spaces and healthy communities are borne from enforcing strict moderation to keep the bad actors out. This is an important step forward for the platform.

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#3

Post by bcye » Thu, Jul 23, 2026, 7:00 AM UTC

jaredcwhite wrote: post #2

Huzzah! This is excellent news. Safe spaces and healthy communities are borne from enforcing strict moderation to keep the bad actors out. This is an important step forward for the platform.

The article literally says they intend to selectively enforce this rule and not be strict with it?

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#4

Post by TheChaplain » Thu, Jul 23, 2026, 9:10 AM UTC

I don't really see a problem with this decision (or the one regarding crypto), they were voted on by the active members of Codeberg, simply a democratic outcome.

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#5

Post by youre-wrong3 » Thu, Jul 23, 2026, 9:22 AM UTC

TheChaplain wrote: post #4

I don't really see a problem with this decision (or the one regarding crypto), they were voted on by the active members of Codeberg, simply a democratic outcome.

[flagged]

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#6

Post by BrenBarn » Thu, Jul 23, 2026, 9:27 AM UTC

Kudos to them and others who take a principled stance against LLM crapola.

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#7

Post by farfatched » Thu, Jul 23, 2026, 9:27 AM UTC

TheChaplain wrote: post #4

I don't really see a problem with this decision (or the one regarding crypto), they were voted on by the active members of Codeberg, simply a democratic outcome.

+1. Membership is open. The vote was given to members.

This is all reasonable.

I will have to move my projects off Codeberg, but that's okay. We have incompatible views. No grudges.

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#8

Post by superdisk » Thu, Jul 23, 2026, 9:49 AM UTC

[flagged]

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#9

Post by falsemyrmidon » Thu, Jul 23, 2026, 9:51 AM UTC

youre-wrong3 wrote: post #5

TheChaplain wrote: post #4

I don't really see a problem with this decision (or the one regarding crypto), they were voted on by the active members of Codeberg, simply a democratic outcome.

[flagged]

Who do you think should be voting if not their active users?

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#10

Post by SiempreViernes » Thu, Jul 23, 2026, 9:54 AM UTC

youre-wrong3 wrote: post #5

TheChaplain wrote: post #4

I don't really see a problem with this decision (or the one regarding crypto), they were voted on by the active members of Codeberg, simply a democratic outcome.

[flagged]

Not being a US citizen* means I cannot vote in US elections, thus it is a closed door vote by your reckoning and so the US is not democratic. Did I get that right?

*This is shorthand for me not being associated with the US in any way, but you are of course free to reply with all the edge cases that makes the point impossible to state briefly.