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.

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.

  • aura@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    12·
    6 days ago

    This is false, […]

    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:

    The decisions did go through Codeberg’s own Assembly 2026, which is more process than most platforms bother with, and yet as an ordinary user I found out about it the way probably most people else did, through a dark blue banner at the top of the site on the day it was already settled. While I appreciate the info about the ToS change, I wish I’d gotten a banner back when the platform was still deciding whether to go down this road, and I wish it had linked to a discussion thread, or at the very least a poll, so that I could have voiced the concern I have, which is about the freedom of the platform as a whole, rather than about any single category that ended up banned.

    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.