And also if AI is so great creating your own community or place to host stuff should be trivial. Zero effort really. So I really see no reason to co-opt existing place. As they are already making money with AI so hosting costs are really nothing either. So there is no excuses not to have their own free community.

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)

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.

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 free to do this, I am free to move my repositories elsewhere and stop donating.

(And I'm nothing near a vibe oder, but the way the terms are now formulated, even doing LLM-assisted programming could be a violation.)

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.

I agree, I went from github to gitlab. I should start looking at codeberg.

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.

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

They're not banning code written and maintained with the use of LLM's. They're banning projects entirely created by LLM's and heavily (or solely) maintained by LLM's.

It's basically not allowing junkfood on their platform. Now that code is easier than ever to barf out, so will the amount of junk.

As for tossing out any and all crypto projects... how is anyone still willing to associate themselves with that pile of garbage?

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.

> Banning LLM or crypto currency related projects is very bad.

No, it's actually very good.

we should also flag any projects to do with the enshittification of the world. Probably banning all JS, node, bun, loaf or any other related projects would be good.

Since we're talking about my opinions here, which should be construed as laws of my hosting platform, i always hated ruby so lets ban ruby.

In fact codeberg shall only accept Perl programs going forward that are written using emacs

You're absolutely right.

There was a quicker tell: opening with "Ah".