7 ms·

I don't really see a problem with this decision (or the one regarding crypto), they were voted on by the active members of Codeberg, simply a democratic outcome

I don't really see a problem with this decision (or the one regarding crypto), they were voted on by the active members of Codeberg, simply a democratic outcome.

youre-wrong3 2mo ago
[flagged]
- falsemyrmidon 2mo ago
  Who do you think should be voting if not their active users?
  - jraph 2mo ago
    Active members* ("mere" users can't vote). But yeah, if you care about the project and want to participate in it (including having a say), you can become an active member. https://join.codeberg.org/ https://join.codeberg.org/
- SiempreViernes 2mo ago
  Not being a US citizen* means I cannot vote in US elections, thus it is a closed door vote by your reckoning and so the US is not democratic. Did I get that right? *This is shorthand for me not being associated with the US in any way, but you are of course free to reply with all the edge cases that makes the point impossible to state briefly.
  - flir 2mo ago
    [flagged]
    - stuartjohnson12 2mo ago
      He did attack the argument - he argued reductio ad absurdum that classifying "democratic" as "open to everyone" wouldn't be a sensible definition, because the argument would set such a high bar for democracy that no state is democratic. The irony of this comment is that leaning back and snarkily accusing someone of "playing internet" is precisely the kind of disengagement you're complaining about.
      - flir 2mo ago
        [flagged]
        stuartjohnson12 2mo ago
        you did screw up the words i regret to inform you
  - graemep 2mo ago
    It does become a problem when the US claims global jurisdiction for its laws or tries to impose laws on other people.
- dijksterhuis 2mo ago
  “closed door” is a bit disingenuous considering any private individual codeberg user can apply to become an active voting member https://join.codeberg.org/ https://join.codeberg.org/
- not-kinsale-joe 2mo ago
  It is still democratic, what would be you preferred way to do it?
- youre-wrong3 2mo ago
  [dead]
farfatched 2mo ago
+1. Membership is open. The vote was given to members. This is all reasonable. I will have to move my projects off Codeberg, but that's okay. We have incompatible views. No grudges.
zajio1am 2mo ago
[flagged]
- omnimus 2mo ago
  It's safe to say it's reasonable to majority of codeberg members. It doesn't really matter if it seems unreasonable from the outside.
  - inemesitaffia 2mo ago
    You wouldn't say that about the above example. Especially given several Global South countries see it as an example of foreign interference.
    - rnewme 2mo ago
      Strawman argument.
      - inemesitaffia 1mo ago
        Well grounded argument
    - wongarsu 2mo ago
      The important difference is that leaving Codeberg forever is much easier and lower impact than leaving your country forever Switching costs are a core part why certain governance methods work on the internet but not in real life. Similar reason to why dictatorships work well for companies and open source projects, but not governments
  - zajio1am 2mo ago
    I agree that they are fully within their rights to decide how they want to run services they provide. However, i do not think it shields such decisions from public criticism. If they were some random corporation making business decision, everybody would have an opinion about it and express it, not just say 'it is reasonable according to majority of board/shareholders and that is only thing that matter.'
abc123abc123 2mo ago
Ridiculous. Any liability is solved through the terms and conditions, where the uploader is held responsible. The uploader solves this, by holding the AI company responsible. I couldn't care less about if AI was used to develop software, if it does what it is supposed to do, and if it is secure. Bad software can be produced with or without AI, so ultimately it is up to _you_ to vet the software you use if you don't pay anything for it.
cmrdporcupine 2mo ago
I had a somewhat active GPL/copylefted project on there for 11 months, but I didn't even see a point in signing up as "community member" to become a part of the registered voting community in order to vote ... because from reading the threads around this it was already an indiscriminate pile-on of moralism and judgement and it was clear where things were going to go from day one. Any voices that said anything on the PR or on threads about it on Mastodon even ask for clarifications on where the limits etc were intended to be were immediately attacked and shut down in a black and white way... It was very clear where it was going to go and there was zero nuance to the discussion. The "community" shouted out anybody who would have voted against this. I got ready to pull my project the moment I saw all that going down, and just waited to pull the trigger til the day it passed. It's their right to narrow their definition of community on this basis. I also think the way they did it is crude, lacks nuance, and was executed poorly. I'm sure my project probably would not have fallen afoul of their judgements. I hosted my own CI in part because I didn't want to suck up their resources. I was by no means producing "slop" -- I'm a software engineer with a 30 year career and capable of engineering judgement. I'm also long time open source user and contributor, an advocate of copyleft licensing, have my own critical opinions about aspects of LLM usage, and wanted off GH because I saw a lot of ... evil.. there and wanted to not be reliant on American infrastructure among other things. But... I like probably the majority of authors of large packages these days, use AI tooling as do my contributors. And parts of my project have hooks to use open weight models, and provide MCP etc. hooks, and so on. Having seen the type of discussion both on the PR and on Mastodon, I felt no desire to have these particular people holding open judgement over me and my project. [Aside: I'm fairly certain someone has gone through the PR that proposed the ban and removed egregious comments ... there are some comments missing that were formerly there, wish I had archived them] Take the comments on this Mastodon thread: https://wandering.shop/@silvermoon82/116964029691087138 https://wandering.shop/@silvermoon82/116964029691087138 "I'm sorry you caught abuse off the slop fondlers. Consent and boundary issues are inbuilt in their community." Or here, when someone tried to ask for similar clarification: https://tldr.nettime.org/@tante/116880003584050912 https://tldr.nettime.org/@tante/116880003584050912 "You're coming off similar to someone trying to probe the limits of consent instead of trying to honor the request in good faith. It's a bad look." "Opening your conversation with a group by saying "well I'll get to violate your group's values a _little_, right?" does not project the mentality of someone who wants to collaborate in good faith." Comparing AI usage or questions about it to rape culture or violating consent is absolutely repulsive and trivializes the latter and exaggerates the former. Or making analogies to Claude Code users being NAZIs? "@piggo @tante I see such a rule as being similar to the "no Nazis" rule. It works by Nazi sympathizers self-identifying by arguing about the rule." Pre-defining an in-group or out-group based on how contaminated they are by the tools they use... I'm sorry, it's ridiculous. And not in the slightest "democratic" even if it holds a formal vote. It's possible that nuance would prevail when the people sitting in judgement over things happened to look at my project. The actual public blog post seems going out of its way to provide a bit of "don't worry" ... but none of that was provided before. And I felt no need to be under that microscope. ... and so then the flood of "good riddance, so glad we got rid of people like you" comments... and people ritually going through my other comments to downvote me, blah blah. It's all the hallmarks of an angry echo chamber. I posted this elsewhere about the kind of un-dialectical purity-of-essence thinking I saw on display: [I fear] Blunt purity tests administered by people with reductionist and categorical thinking. The reality is that even tools produced by concentrated capital and mass appropriation can also increase the productive capacity of a small free-software project whose code remains available under copyleft. They're not "infected" and contagious. They're tools. They can deskill and dispossess workers; they can extend what a particular worker is able to make. Which tendency dominates, under what conditions, and to whose benefit are material questions. "AI bad" is not an answer to them, any more than tech-bro "innovation good" is.

I don't really see a problem with this decision (or the one regarding crypto), they were voted on by the active members of Codeberg, simply a democratic outcome.

youre-wrong3 2mo ago

[flagged]

falsemyrmidon 2mo ago
Who do you think should be voting if not their active users?
- jraph 2mo ago
  Active members* ("mere" users can't vote). But yeah, if you care about the project and want to participate in it (including having a say), you can become an active member. https://join.codeberg.org/ https://join.codeberg.org/
SiempreViernes 2mo ago
Not being a US citizen* means I cannot vote in US elections, thus it is a closed door vote by your reckoning and so the US is not democratic. Did I get that right? *This is shorthand for me not being associated with the US in any way, but you are of course free to reply with all the edge cases that makes the point impossible to state briefly.
- flir 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - stuartjohnson12 2mo ago
    He did attack the argument - he argued reductio ad absurdum that classifying "democratic" as "open to everyone" wouldn't be a sensible definition, because the argument would set such a high bar for democracy that no state is democratic. The irony of this comment is that leaning back and snarkily accusing someone of "playing internet" is precisely the kind of disengagement you're complaining about.
    - flir 2mo ago
      [flagged]
      - stuartjohnson12 2mo ago
        you did screw up the words i regret to inform you
- graemep 2mo ago
  It does become a problem when the US claims global jurisdiction for its laws or tries to impose laws on other people.
dijksterhuis 2mo ago
“closed door” is a bit disingenuous considering any private individual codeberg user can apply to become an active voting member https://join.codeberg.org/ https://join.codeberg.org/
not-kinsale-joe 2mo ago
It is still democratic, what would be you preferred way to do it?
youre-wrong3 2mo ago
[dead]

farfatched 2mo ago

+1. Membership is open. The vote was given to members. This is all reasonable. I will have to move my projects off Codeberg, but that's okay. We have incompatible views. No grudges.

zajio1am 2mo ago

[flagged]

omnimus 2mo ago
It's safe to say it's reasonable to majority of codeberg members. It doesn't really matter if it seems unreasonable from the outside.
- inemesitaffia 2mo ago
  You wouldn't say that about the above example. Especially given several Global South countries see it as an example of foreign interference.
  - rnewme 2mo ago
    Strawman argument.
    - inemesitaffia 1mo ago
      Well grounded argument
  - wongarsu 2mo ago
    The important difference is that leaving Codeberg forever is much easier and lower impact than leaving your country forever Switching costs are a core part why certain governance methods work on the internet but not in real life. Similar reason to why dictatorships work well for companies and open source projects, but not governments
- zajio1am 2mo ago
  I agree that they are fully within their rights to decide how they want to run services they provide. However, i do not think it shields such decisions from public criticism. If they were some random corporation making business decision, everybody would have an opinion about it and express it, not just say 'it is reasonable according to majority of board/shareholders and that is only thing that matter.'

abc123abc123 2mo ago

Ridiculous. Any liability is solved through the terms and conditions, where the uploader is held responsible. The uploader solves this, by holding the AI company responsible. I couldn't care less about if AI was used to develop software, if it does what it is supposed to do, and if it is secure. Bad software can be produced with or without AI, so ultimately it is up to _you_ to vet the software you use if you don't pay anything for it.

cmrdporcupine 2mo ago

I had a somewhat active GPL/copylefted project on there for 11 months, but I didn't even see a point in signing up as "community member" to become a part of the registered voting community in order to vote ... because from reading the threads around this it was already an indiscriminate pile-on of moralism and judgement and it was clear where things were going to go from day one. Any voices that said anything on the PR or on threads about it on Mastodon even ask for clarifications on where the limits etc were intended to be were immediately attacked and shut down in a black and white way... It was very clear where it was going to go and there was zero nuance to the discussion. The "community" shouted out anybody who would have voted against this. I got ready to pull my project the moment I saw all that going down, and just waited to pull the trigger til the day it passed. It's their right to narrow their definition of community on this basis. I also think the way they did it is crude, lacks nuance, and was executed poorly. I'm sure my project probably would not have fallen afoul of their judgements. I hosted my own CI in part because I didn't want to suck up their resources. I was by no means producing "slop" -- I'm a software engineer with a 30 year career and capable of engineering judgement. I'm also long time open source user and contributor, an advocate of copyleft licensing, have my own critical opinions about aspects of LLM usage, and wanted off GH because I saw a lot of ... evil.. there and wanted to not be reliant on American infrastructure among other things. But... I like probably the majority of authors of large packages these days, use AI tooling as do my contributors. And parts of my project have hooks to use open weight models, and provide MCP etc. hooks, and so on. Having seen the type of discussion both on the PR and on Mastodon, I felt no desire to have these particular people holding open judgement over me and my project. [Aside: I'm fairly certain someone has gone through the PR that proposed the ban and removed egregious comments ... there are some comments missing that were formerly there, wish I had archived them] Take the comments on this Mastodon thread: https://wandering.shop/@silvermoon82/116964029691087138 https://wandering.shop/@silvermoon82/116964029691087138 "I'm sorry you caught abuse off the slop fondlers. Consent and boundary issues are inbuilt in their community." Or here, when someone tried to ask for similar clarification: https://tldr.nettime.org/@tante/116880003584050912 https://tldr.nettime.org/@tante/116880003584050912 "You're coming off similar to someone trying to probe the limits of consent instead of trying to honor the request in good faith. It's a bad look." "Opening your conversation with a group by saying "well I'll get to violate your group's values a _little_, right?" does not project the mentality of someone who wants to collaborate in good faith." Comparing AI usage or questions about it to rape culture or violating consent is absolutely repulsive and trivializes the latter and exaggerates the former. Or making analogies to Claude Code users being NAZIs? "@piggo @tante I see such a rule as being similar to the "no Nazis" rule. It works by Nazi sympathizers self-identifying by arguing about the rule." Pre-defining an in-group or out-group based on how contaminated they are by the tools they use... I'm sorry, it's ridiculous. And not in the slightest "democratic" even if it holds a formal vote. It's possible that nuance would prevail when the people sitting in judgement over things happened to look at my project. The actual public blog post seems going out of its way to provide a bit of "don't worry" ... but none of that was provided before. And I felt no need to be under that microscope. ... and so then the flood of "good riddance, so glad we got rid of people like you" comments... and people ritually going through my other comments to downvote me, blah blah. It's all the hallmarks of an angry echo chamber. I posted this elsewhere about the kind of un-dialectical purity-of-essence thinking I saw on display: [I fear] Blunt purity tests administered by people with reductionist and categorical thinking. The reality is that even tools produced by concentrated capital and mass appropriation can also increase the productive capacity of a small free-software project whose code remains available under copyleft. They're not "infected" and contagious. They're tools. They can deskill and dispossess workers; they can extend what a particular worker is able to make. Which tendency dominates, under what conditions, and to whose benefit are material questions. "AI bad" is not an answer to them, any more than tech-bro "innovation good" is.