Post #3547957
2026-07-03 00:19 UTC
@pojntfx@mastodon.social If the human gate is the issue it should say that.
Just blanket banning will cause people to either bail (most will), or lie to pass a review, like the guy on r/gnome being told to just lie and remove all the AI attribution, which probably feedback loops onto reviewers even worse.
I don't see why any of this stuff should be policy at all. If an app does what it's supposed to do and has the proper license then it shouldn't matter.
Almost every IDE is _broken_ on flathub and apparently impossible to remove, but an AI app to fix something users want is a bridge too far?
Replies (1)
-
@pojntfx@mastodon.social 2026-07-03 00:33
@jorge@hachyderm.io I agree with you, I'm not a fan of the current policy, and I made my thoughts pretty clear on that in the past too. In practice it's a slop gate, even if the text goes way further than that. From my understanding, this is really a function of people burning out during the review process, so we should probably try and fix that. Until that happens I don't see it changing. Snap will face the same issue eventually, as will anyone republishing software (Flathub is just the first stop for that)