A brief comment on Codeberg’s new terms, and why a free-software host deciding which projects are welcome worries me more than the bans themselves.
  • BlameTheAntifa
    51·
    16 hours ago

    Since this article is being cross-posted, I will reiterate my original response.

    The part that bothers me isn’t the specific ban on LLM projects, or the specific ban on cryptocurrency projects. It’s that a hub built around “free software” is now telling its users which kinds of software are deemed good and which are not, and that is closer to censorship than it might seem.

    What a stupid, ignorant, harmful take. I shouldn’t need to explain how or why theft, plagiarism, poor code quality, or uncountable other factors contribute to a broadly objective standard of “good” and “not good.” In fact, it is more “acceptable” versus “dangerous.”

    The false equivalence here is intolerable.

    • ScoffingLizard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      2·
      9 hours ago

      If they don’t like it and they pay for it, then they should be able to say that it’s not allowed. If you don’t like it, then why not host your project on a VPS and pay yourself?

      People are pissed about AI. Until we have laws that actually protect people other than billionaires, people are going to be more and more disgusted. That tech is probably about to cause deadly depression.

    • eldebryn
      2·
      9 hours ago

      Totally agree, even if I think for blockchain (maybe not crypto) they should be more flexible.

      Limits need to exist for a healthy level of freedom. Fascists are not allowed to run for Parliament and racists are not allowed to promote their ideas because it’s undemocratic hate speech.

      Similarly a platform ought to establish content limits to allow enough space to other participants.