691–700 of 720 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>What if I donated? Then you would have been a supporting member, and had the opportunity to vote on this decision.
What if I was an active member, and voted no?
Even though I do not host on Codeberg, but I do run my own Forgejo, and have no particular interest in Cryptocurrency projects, I consider this a serious red flag as to me it indicates an activist tendency, for lack of a better word, that I do not want from an IT infrastructure provider.
All IT infrastructure providers are activists. The question is what is their politics? Github pushes for centralization, AI slop, and gathering code for the military-industrial complex. Twitter pushes for techno-fascism under our great and only leader Elon Musk. FSF pushes for liberal left-wing copyleft. If you don't see the politics behind economic actors, i would recommend taking a closer look.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well this is a charity providing services for free. If you want to be provided a service for a price, go elsewhere.
That money had to have come from somewhere, whether it was taxpayers or individuals. What if I donated? Is it cool to just roll over and allow political groups to hijack a previously neutral service? Also there are other projects hosted there, and network effects involved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>What if I donated? Then you would have been a supporting member, and had the opportunity to vote on this decision.
What if I was an active member, and voted no?
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…
The problem is they can change their mind at a whim and all of a sudden you are on the other side of what they care about. Not worth the risk, I'd say don't use them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
should be 5xx then
Not in fact. On systems with permissions/privileges, you always return a 404 when a page does exist but the user doesn't have permission. Because sometimes leaking the existence of an item is a problem in itself.
On the security spectrum I'm quite schizoid, but I'd say that's too much security.
Note, curiously enough, the companies I've seen have this level of paranoid defensive security, is Microsoft. Try to send an ICMP ping to servers of different companies, you'll notice that Microsoft servers don't respond to pings. Just thought it's funny that one of the most closed source companies coincides with a source code repo on secops philosophy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Protecting and improving privacy is by definition excellent for humans. GrapheneOS gets many of their donations from Monero [1]. I'm glad you didn't state any personal information. You now can see exactly why Monero is important. Using other online methods of exchanging value would say those things without your permission! [1] monerostats.org
So on one hand you have massive pig butchering operations that use slave labor trafficked across multiple countries to scam people and ruin thousands of lives. And on the other hand you have donations to Graphene that can be done just fine using a credit card (I know, I've been donating to them for years). Thank you for making my point.
They can't be done "just fine" because people are debanked, have sensitive situations which require privacy, or just want privacy because it's a human right which should also apply to payments. You have zero privacy when donating to GrapheneOS. Many third parties know that you do it throughout the financial stack. They include that in their algorithms assessing your risk and which advertising to give to you. It's a violation of your rights.
Here's a comparison showing how Monero and even other crypto is better than traditional fiat payments in many ways.
https://eylenburg.github.io/payments.htm
I absolutely would support adding more privacy to traditional payment methods but banks are not interested in that.
I donate with Monero so the only way someone could know I donated is if I told them. That's how it should be. Privacy by default.
Many people clearly prefer to or can only donate with crypto or GrapheneOS wouldn't get so many donations in it.
They also support privacy preserving payments like Monero and Cash because they understand it's a tool that should not be banned because of a few bad actors using it because it protects the privacy of everyone which is important.
In fact they've said they pay most or all of their developers in crypto at various points.
Glad to see you supporting a project that benefits and endorses Monero so much.
>We accept cryptocurrency donations and currently pay all our developers with it.
https://xcancel.com/GrapheneOS/status/1685926331534528512#m
>One of our full time developers prefers being paid via Monero due to harassment including swatting attacks targeting our developers.
https://xcancel.com/GrapheneOS/status/1805302309284696529#m
>We receive most small cryptocurrency donations via Monero and most large donations via Bitcoin and Ethereum, especially via ETH recently.
https://xcancel.com/GrapheneOS/status/1814703819118227598#m
>Yes, at grapheneos.org/donate#monero and it's one of the 3 cryptocurrencies we use to directly pay our development team rather than having to convert it to something else first.
https://xcancel.com/GrapheneOS/status/1836818751078936885#m
>If you want to donate to GrapheneOS privately, you can use Monero. The weak privacy tools available for Bitcoin aren't comparable to that and have downsides including paying significantly higher fees by largely doing the opposite of consolidation and batching transactions.
https://xcancel.com/GrapheneOS/status/1684897545544241152#m
>We get significant donations via other cryptocurrencies too. We've gotten almost as much via Ethereum as Monero, although it's mostly due to one very large donation and a couple other large ones.
Time to move off of Codeberg. They provide a service, that's it. I don't want drama from my service providers, and censorship incurs drama. I think some censorship is needed (hate speech, CP), but I do not want projects deleted because someone running the service doesn't like how I make them, or what they are for. They have the right to do that, but I also have the right to vote with my feet and go elsewhere, and I'm…
Codeberg seems to disagree about that point.
Well, definitely makes me inclined to never use Codeberg for source hosting if they can just get together and decide to ban an entire category of source repo. It makes Codeberg seem like an unserious project.
Were you paying for the service?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Ok, have you ever been part of a directly democratic organization? Not everyone shows up to every meeting or every vote. An organization I was a part of had quorum at 10%.