| ▲ | jjmarr 2 hours ago |
| In the prior words[1] of Gusted, one of the board members that announced the ban: > This is not a neutral space, Codeberg is political. If you disagree with someone, be constructive and don't call them merely political and think that's a reason for the discussion to stop. [1] https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/issues/2184#issuecom... |
|
| ▲ | zarzavat an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| Pretending to run an inclusive git hosting service for FOSS and then attacking your own users because their code is the wrong type of algorithm isn't politics, it's just being an asshole. |
| |
| ▲ | tbrownaw 42 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > Pretending Are they though? I see "We are more than just Git hosting: Our community is ..." right in the highlight box on their landing page. | |
| ▲ | ShinyLeftPad 17 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Run your own Codeberg instance with blackjack and hookers, it's open source. | |
| ▲ | fzeroracer an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Their own users voted for this. | |
| ▲ | birksherty an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Nope. It's not "attacking own user base". These comments are ridiculous now. It's safeguarding a open project by removing scammers and abusers that exploit it. Scammer should host their own or use github. | | |
| ▲ | zarzavat 43 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Banning projects that haven't done anything wrong except implement algorithms that the Karen committee disagrees with is clearly an attack. If they want to ban scammers then why don't they just ban scammers instead of a blanket policy that bans legitimate projects as well? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | p-e-w 42 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] |
| So what is Codeberg’s political stance? From which ideology does it follow that crypto projects are bad, but VPN projects are not, for example? |
