Post #4067902

well this is certainly a take https://xn--gckvb8fzb.com/i-regret-migrating-to-codeberg/ I generally like this person's writing even when I disagree with them, and we clearly have different values regarding LLMs and cryptocurrency, but this feels like someone getting defensive for being called out rather than a reasonable argument against Codeberg's decision to kinda-sorta ban slop and shitcoins. I'm also generally unimpressed by arguments that "freedom" implies "a lack of rules or restrictions." This is the same argument used by companies like Substack to justify platforming literal Nazis. (Despite those companies having other rules and restrictions for their users; somehow the line always ends just before "risk the ire of right-wing dipshits who hate women and trans people and people of color.") I like platforms like Codeberg and Sourcehut because they have values that A) I happen to share, B) are clearly communicated, and C) are used to inform restrictions that are expected to be enforced. (I put "I happen to share" at the start to acknowledge that, no, I wouldn't "like" a git forge that excludes projects with contributions from trans people even if that value or restriction was clearly communicated.) This is a general observation that I'm posting about because of the linked post; I'm not saying the person who wrote the linked post is the same as Substack or that the post advocates for not having rules about slop. It's more nuanced than that. But I think it's past time to acknowledge that "absolute freedom good any restriction bad" is a false binary and people and organizations are allowed to value other things.