Thought it relevant to this community and posted it to have a discussion on this topic. I am not the author of this blog nor do I endorse the authors views.
Before leaving an upvote or a downvote (a function that IMO should be reserved to posts/comments that are offtopic, made in bad faith or low quality), please first read the blog post.
TL;DR: Author of the blog is criticising Codeberg outright banning LLM and crypto projects. Author thinks this approach is not nuanced enough and introduces censorship to the platform. Author therefore decided to selfhost his projects that the author previously had migrated to Codeberg.
Good.
Bye!
This is false, codeberg is a German non profit association that you can just join and then participate in that community and be part of the decision making process. YOU(/The author) didn’t do that.
https://join.codeberg.org/
apart from the subjective ‘properly announcing’, it is indeed false and here’s evidence:
by the end of the post, it’s clear the author already knows that though:
but still does not take back the false statements, just proceeds to share feedback to codeberg, in their private blog, on what ‘properly announcing’ would have looked like to them specifically.
honestly, some decisions just suck, miscommunication is frustrating - i don’t mind reading that, the internet can be a place for emotions too. but if one wants to channel those solely into platform criticism, then stick to some basic facts at least. to read “rewrites its terms of service on a whim” is absurd when there was literally a 14d open discussion and poll happening in a channel predefined and communicated by the platform.
Firstly, why the hostility? Neither myself nor the author of the blog are advocating pro-slop positions.
Secondly, it isn’t false as Codeberg doesn’t give it’s users voting powers. It gives voting powers to active members. How would a user supposed to have known to register as an active member to vote on a topic impacting them that wasn’t covered by the TOS beforehand? If you follow the tech news on the fediverse then sure. But that isn’t a necessary requirement to host a Codeberg repo. Can you really confidently claim that everything was communicated perfectly regarding this ban?
I have no way of knowing that you are not the author, if you feel addressed and unfairly attacked, I apologize.
Because it’s an extremely ignorant position. Literally. When you visit their website the information that it is an association and a community is BLASTED into your face.
https://codeberg.org/
If a user moves away from MSFT/github because they don’t like them, I would very much expect that new user to do the bare minimum of investigating who this new thing is they trust with their code. And an association has official membership and of course those members get to vote on such things. That’s how any club works. If the music club in school does a performance, the club decides what they’re going to play, not the audience.
This is not a “I have a contract with this corporate entity and I am entitled to service, communication or compensation” situation.
This is a “I have half heartedly joined a club, didn’t care for the club activities or opinions of the community and I am acting surprised and pissed that the club is doing club things.” situation. Which is ridiculous and deserves ridicule and hostility.
But also, if this is a thing they have a problem with, self hosting is the perfect solution for the author.
Yeah, I feel sometimes people should at least make some effort to add context to the dumped links… Though… In practice, 99% of stuff on Lemmy is re-posts. Chance an OP posted their own blog post are slim to none. Happens, though.
After reading other comments I see now how the author’s stance was ignorant. But what context should I have added? That I am not the author?
Although I’m not really new to Lemmy in general, making posts is a new one for me but I am willing to learn how to make better posts.
Hmmh. Yeah, I’m writing this from the perspective of someone who likes to talk in the comments. So I generally appreciate to know whether OP wants to discuss a topic, inform people, post the news or whatever. That changes how I react to a post.
Also appreciate some lead text in the body, so I don’t need to click on 200 links a day to find out what’s behind the url or (clickbaity) title…
But that’s usually not how it’s done here. A lot of people just post the link and that’s it. I guess in your instance it would have been helpful to disclose whether that’s your perspective on things… Or whether you want to draw attention to someone’s ignorant opinion… I suppose most of the downvotes are because people are confused (as always) and it’s a mixture of just reading the title and disliking the content… Though… Similar posts about: OpenAI has this and that weird stance usually get upvotes here. So I suppose if you want to draw attention to someone having weird opinions, you should be getting upvotes as well?! I just think if it’s backwards like this (the article fits fuck_ai because they’re wrong), you might want to add a few words to make it clear people aren’t supposed to sympathize with the text.
Thanks for the constructive feedback! I’ll add the context ASAP.
But I don’t want to tell people how to think. IMO people should form their own (educated) opinions. I know this community has a heavy bias and I respect that, but can’t I just post new opinions so we can have a discussion around that (and maybe even change our opinions based on the outcome of the discussion)?
In my experience not everyone is knowledgeable about everything and an open and respectful (as opposed to hostile) discussion is the way to inform new opinions. Am mistaken in thinking my approach should be tolerated in this community?
Awesome, thanks!
Considering “[…] thinking my approach should be tolerated […]”: I’m pretty sure this (AI) is one of the polarizing topics here. Most people will come with pre-formed opinions, and/or they’re quite trigger-happy with the up- and downvote buttons. Informing new opinions is rarely what happens with polarizing topics on the internet 😆.
It’s appreciated by some users, though!
ok, in the narrow literal sense of “users can’t automatically vote just by signing up” that is true. but it’s misleading by omitting the important fact that any user can participate in governance if they desire to do so (which is very different from saying “users have NO way to weigh in”).
if sb is interested in taking part on smth, it’s fair to expect them to look up how to do that. that’s not true only of codeberg, but co-ops, nonprofits, associations, ur local gov and the laws they’re passing…
plus, the author is an OSS contributor, critical of corporate ownership. they explored github alternatives with that in mind, AND decided on codeberg. it’d make even more sense that they would look up how governance works, since that was part of why they left github. that is not to say “the author should’ve known better”, but it makes it less of a “how would a user supposed to have known…” kind of case here.
and, finally, even if you’re not interested, codeberg encourages participation right through its landing page, for whoever wants to read, above the fold and in 18px font. can’t say they’re not trying at all lol
no communication is perfect, and the author’s feedback on the transparency of the ToS change continues to be valid, even despite all points above. just there was no need to escalate constructive feedback and personal lack of awareness into unfair and biased criticism of the entire platform - bit of an attitude there, i get people saying ‘just leave’.