Can Gitlab be an alternative?
Ah, the Codeberg Drama
31–40 of 65 posts
Re: Ah, the Codeberg Drama
#32Unironic use of "web3": article ignored
There was a quicker tell: opening with "Ah".
Re: Ah, the Codeberg Drama
#33I want to ask this in good faith Why do the very vocal "AI people" online have this thing where they are simultaneously: - proclaiming their thing to be inevitable and massive and a bulldozer of productivity; - responding to any negative reaction like they are almost like a persecuted group It seems paradoxical to me. If your LLM-written project is so amazing, who cares about the critics? Let them have their corner o…
It's definitely a theme, but some people are just like that (as has always been the case), and maybe they're the ones most inclined to comment on this matter.
Another theory: https://lobste.rs/s/omq8rt/vibecoding_gets_emacs_patch_rejec... (posted very much not because of the chatbot psychosis aspect, which doesn't seem relevant in this case, more the part about possible minor personality changes from long-term communing with LLMs)
Re: Ah, the Codeberg Drama
#34Related:
Codeberg bans vibe coded projects
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49003386
Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49015588
Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49015635
I regret migrating to Codeberg
Re: Ah, the Codeberg Drama
#35So who are you actually angry at? There was a vote, by people, in a democratic process, and Codeberg are adhering to it. Why is it Codeberg's problem that they don't defy the will of their members? Are you angry at them because the members put a motion against your particular special interests? If so, go make a new motion to reinstate them.
It is of course in the right of voting members to do this. However, it undermines Codeberg as a stable repo hosting platform. If you are hosting a repo there for an open source project, it may suddenly be in violation after a whim of the voting members. The signal is now that Codeberg is an activist platform. That is fine, but that makes it unfit for many projects that want a largely neutral hoster. Just as they are…
> Just as they are free to do this, I am free to move
It doesn't seem like you're amicably moving your projects away. It seems like you're going around tech forums arguing with the democratic decision and fear-mongering about how legitimate projects will be removed next.
Re: Ah, the Codeberg Drama
#36I don't want to host my code on a platform that has activist goals beyond open source advocacy, but I'm glad it exists because it's a useful filter, like the X/Bluesky divide.
I really don't think you want to make an example of the "free speech app" that militantly censors pro-Palestine accounts while allowing AI-generated CSAM
Re: Ah, the Codeberg Drama
#37I want to ask this in good faith Why do the very vocal "AI people" online have this thing where they are simultaneously: - proclaiming their thing to be inevitable and massive and a bulldozer of productivity; - responding to any negative reaction like they are almost like a persecuted group It seems paradoxical to me. If your LLM-written project is so amazing, who cares about the critics? Let them have their corner o…
It's not good faith if you start right away by defining a group of people called "AI people" and then putting words in their mouths.
Starting your comment by saying "in good faith" doesn't make it in good faith.
Making straw-men is not honest debate.
And what you're not mentioning here is that there are people who actually felt they had their own corner of the Internet, didn't/don't consider themselves "AI people", just happened to use a tool, and now retroactively having a judgement applied to them.
That's fine if you think it's okay to do that. I think you're being dishonest in your framing of the discussion though, by creating a "two sides" scenario to justify in-group / out-group behaviours.
Re: Ah, the Codeberg Drama
#38I don't want to host my code on a platform that has activist goals beyond open source advocacy, but I'm glad it exists because it's a useful filter, like the X/Bluesky divide.
I agree, and I’m hopeful that the people who leave will consider truly decentralized alternatives like Radicle. Especially for projects that might be more vulnerable/at risk to the whims of gatekeepers.
Re: Ah, the Codeberg Drama
#39So who are you actually angry at? There was a vote, by people, in a democratic process, and Codeberg are adhering to it. Why is it Codeberg's problem that they don't defy the will of their members? Are you angry at them because the members put a motion against your particular special interests? If so, go make a new motion to reinstate them.
Well, for starters, banning content that is already present on the platform is a very aggressive measure. You are, in practice, kicking people out, and it's perfectly reasonable for those people to be upset at either Codeberg or its community.
For seconds, this proves that Codeberg may in the future ban any project. The platform is, flat out, without a doubt, not reliable long term, and I reckon about anyone should be pretty upset at that.
Third, this reeks of children playing politics. If you are going to put measures as strong as these on the table, you better have very defined lines on which to act upon, and you better have a good rationale for them. This doesn't seem to be the case in one account or the other, which paints the administration as not only incompetent, but delusional on their competency. This may not warrant anger, but it sure does warrant frustration and disappointment.
It is perfectly fine to take politics seriously. I reckon more people should do it. There is a huge problem though in which people mix that up with taking political action, without actually putting the work on what to do, why, how and what are the consequences. That is the actually hard part, and this looks more like "we are anti-bad stuff" than that.
Re: Ah, the Codeberg Drama
#40Banning LLM or crypto currency related projects is very bad. I think it's better to flag them or mark them, but let them be.
I tend to agree but you can't deny that the widespread use of LLMs means that codeberg will expend more resources overall for projects taking advantage of them. And its members have spoken. We might disagree about the conclusion they came to and even how they went about it but their stance is clear now so we might as well just move on.
Yeah but if it's about the hardware resources, why not just establish an option to ban projects that use them unreasonably for their projects relevance? In their explanation they say each project will be evaluated individually and the whatever-AI-allegations are not the primary reason to eventually ban.
They could have established a direct way to protect hardware resource with an option to ban users that cause unreasonable load. Maybe not great but understandable considering they are an e.V.