Well, that's their prerogative, I guess. But the burden of proof will be on them, of course. They can't expect users to prove a negative. There are simple tells that would reveal a lot of projects. Claude Code's moronic defaults of littering commit messages with both a CC author trailer as well as a session link will reveal some, but those are easy to disable. Then there is stuff like prolific comments, em-dashes in comments, etc.. but none of those are real proof that a project was built with agents.

Either way, I was never interested in codeberg and this just means that I'm less interested.

▲

account42 4 hours ago | parent [-]

There is no burden of proof for them as they have no obligation to provide a service to anyone.

▲

joegibbs 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That legalistic "I can do whatever I want as long as it's not breaking the law" argumnet lasts until the first time they ban wrongfully ban someone for it and get huge negative PR

	▲	jeroenhd 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The support they will receive for banning slop will probably outweigh the negative press for a false positive.

▲

IceDane 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Sure. And I'm sure that their users will take kindly to being banned with prejudice and without recourse. By adopting this policy they are committing to policing it and acting as judges. And at some point someone will be banned that shouldn't have and it will go on social media and so on and so forth.

They'll also have a fun time drawing the line. What if someone uses agents to generate boilerplate like tests? Are a few files out of hundreds enough for a ban? If not, are they going to force users to write the code manually? How are they going to verify that?

It's a big can of worms.