>in what cases is this illegal for governments to do?

It's legal certainty principle and equality before the law principle and also prohibition of discrimination principle.

For the law to be lawful (weird, but it's a thing, right) it should satisfy certain criteria. Me, being subject to the law should be able to predict whether my actions are allowed or not when I plan to do or not do them. If I can't predict the outcome of my actions, the law isn't valid. One of the outcomes of it is being able to read the law -- it's published and it's comprehensible, it has advance notice, etc.

If the rule says "don't host LLM generated code", but everybody hosts LLM generated code and then I say mean things about one of the people providing the hosting and suddenly I'm deplatformed for hosting LLM generated code, then I'm not deplatformed for LLM generated code, I'm deplatformed for saying mean things about people with fragile ego. Or being part of a specific group. You are often explicitly prohibited to make certain decisions based on belonging to a certain group (religious, ethnic, sexual, trade union, health, criminal record based), but it could happen that somehow the outcome of the shadow policy correlates with those. Since we don't know the shadow policy and the stated policy doesn't seem to be applied equally, this is not great.

See example about weed in a different comment.

>how is this bad, in Codeberg's case, practically speaking?

They look silly for stating it and not following (loss of credibility), then once they suddenly start following it, there will be different interpretations, including "I'm banned because I'm $protected_thing_that_you_should_not_be_banned_for", which is bad press.

▲

lucideer an hour ago | parent [-]

> suddenly I'm deplatformed for hosting LLM generated code, then I'm not deplatformed for LLM generated code, I'm deplatformed for saying mean things about people with fragile ego

This is ultimately a matter of framing though. You can equally argue that (a) that person shouldn't be deplatformed because others' LLM use is tolerated or (b) all of them should be deplatformed including that person. In the latter case (b) the person who said mean things still experiences the same outcome, but by your logic this is just. Ultimately whether the others get deplatformed doesn't directly affect them, so what's the real difference here?

> > how is this bad

> they look silly

> bad press

This seems highly subjective & ultimately not really bad by any metric that matters.

	▲	Muromec 26 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		>Ultimately whether the others get deplatformed doesn't directly affect them, so what's the real difference here? The difference is -- if I know the effective policy, I can plan better and choose a different platform in advance (if the it's option (b)). >This seems highly subjective & ultimately not really bad by any metric that matters. Subjective opinions matter because people act on them (more) consistently than on objective facts. I would for example act on a subjective opinion that a platform provider is a bunch of racist assholes or affiliated with r-country.
	▲	iamnothere 30 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The difference is that without consistent enforcement, the rule becomes just a fig leaf for arbitrary decisions by the moderation team, who then receives an enormous amount of unintended power. Most reasonable people wouldn’t argue that the moderation team should be allowed to ban anyone that they have a personal disagreement with, for example. Yet here we are. The problem is for the platform as a whole, not the individual who may or may not be punished.