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

511–520 of 720 posts

Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

#511

Post by KptMarchewa »

bko wrote: post #437
hogwasher wrote: post #422

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.

Yet they bend under fascist requests like current US administration.

Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

#512

Post by cmrdporcupine »

pamcake wrote: post #493
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #81

This 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…

Hey, this one wasnt a fit but i think there are still so many options to consider over doubling down on centralization. Maybe P2P is actually a better fit than federated for git and open source collaboration? nostr, radicle, reticulum? Self-hosting classic forge is great but does require domain name and infra with uptime. These p2p solutions are more like bittorrent where you can clone as long as someone is seeding a…

I dunno, I just felt for the health of the project and getting contributors it made no sense. GH sucks but it comes with social amplifiers that tend to attract people. e.g. I had everthing over at Codeberg for 11 months but rarely had new "followers" over there, but still acquired "stars" on the read-only GH mirror of it.

I was already hosting my own CI, I never used Codeberg's because I was trying to be responsible with their resources because I liked [past tense] them. Getting back on GH actually means I don't have to do that anymore, I will enjoy leaching from Microsoft.

I do have my own self-hosted Gerrit I use for other somewhat more private things. But self-hosting has its own hassles (backups, security, etc).

And in fact one of those other things is in fact my own project to make a "forge" type thing. Vaguely similar to what Dorsey announced the other day (integrated git, chat, code review, code browsing, llm agent interaction, etc into one dynamic r) but I started on it quite some time ago, it's built on my own bespoke runtime, and it's generally more ambitious ... but also I'm not a techbro billionaire so I don't have the resources to finish it right now and I have to work on other projects.

Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

#513

Post by cmrdporcupine »

tomhow wrote: post #358
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #102

[flagged]

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49016139 .

Why? You destroyed the context and made it look like I'm griping about cryptocurrency and not the AI issue.

Just delete the comment if you're going to do that.

Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

#514

Post by joepie91_ »

0x3f wrote: post #432
throwa356262 wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's a bit of an inappropriate comparison though, since restaurants are ubiquitous and reasonable GitHub alternatives are vanishingly rare. People are quite rightly more troubled when providers in a low-cardinality space become unviable.

You can literally take the exact same software that Codeberg uses, Forgejo, and stand up your own alternative with different policies, with the only real cost being operational in nature. It seems less the case that it's a "low-cardinality space", and more that people feel entitled to other people's labour under their own terms.

Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

#515

Post by jimbo_joe »

It's hard to understand decisions like this from an organization offering an alternative to Github since it goes directly against the network effects that they are supposed to be trying to build. I understand the point of banning a project after it comes out that they've commited crimes, but I hardly want the host of my repo to be the authority deciding whether my project is good or bad before the fact.

Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

#516

Post by mapotofu »

tarpitt wrote: post #508
surgical_fire wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Codeberg is based on Berlin, Germany. Germany doesn't have a "Freedom of Speech" first amendment. As far as I know that is endemic to the US. If you dislike their stance you can host your cryptocurrency scam elsewhere, there is no shortage of git hosting services.

I didn't say it violated the first ammendment. I said it violated the principle of free speech. It's the same principle that justifies your ability to post in this discussion here, right now, despite the fact that you don't believe in it yourself. Maybe we should campaign to ban all left-wing aligned projects from all major git hosting services. No big deal right? After all they can just go somewhere else. No, clearl…

Hey. It isn’t the same principle. We have guidelines here, too. For instance: “ Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.” “Avoid generic tangents.” Etc.

Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

#517

Post by joepie91_ »

p-e-w wrote: post #469
inigyou wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe it's agreement of a majority of voters.

So mob rule by whichever busybodies buy into the inner circle, with no fundamental principles whatsoever? Ugh.

Just because the fundamental principles cannot trivially be summarized into a single sentence, doesn't mean they don't exist. It's a member association, and the fundamental principles form organically from its membership. That's... how social groups work.

Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

#518

Post by surgical_fire »

comeonbro wrote: post #43
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.

"the community" being some tiny subset of busybodies out of an OOMs-larger body of users that don't want to be bothered? Real question, I don't know anything about Codeberg or its community.

Yes.

The larger body of users who don't want to be bothered are likely welcome, but there are rules to be followed.

They can go elsewhere you know? I mean, it's not like they are paying for anything.

Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

#519

Post by conartist6 »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #395
Barrin92 wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the same way United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart defined porn in Jacobellis v. Ohio, you know it when you see it

Sloppy and low effort reply. Claude does a better job. I'd paste the output but it's against the rules on HN. You can find it on lobsters though, where I did post the full reply along with the prompt in response to the exact same cop out. To this day , it's still the only coherent definition of "slop" in the entire 300+ comment thread I posted it in. Not bad for a clanker, huh?

Ain't no point being proud of what you didn't do

Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects

#520

Post by FabCH »

selfhoster1312 wrote: post #403
FabCH wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They banned all LLM assisted projects. It’s not a fallacy if it actually happened.

Did you even read the blog post or the ToS changes? You're either misinformed or lying. Banning projects that « mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools » is not the same as banning « all LLM assisted projects ».

Well we don’t know, do we?

Because the ToS helpfully doesn’t explain.

Does LLM autocomplete break the ToS? What about pre-LLM autocomplete? What about code written by LLM but reviewed by humans?

Also, the spirit of the community is clear, given the preamble and the provided moral basis for the decision: they don’t want any LLM usage at all.

Post reply on HN