- I don't think you want to store your source code in a place where they ban projects based on politics [1]:
> Allowing these projects is not a neutral stance; the effects to the environment are severe. The "DarkFi" (seemingly some crypto designed for criminals, citing an FBI director) project for example uses a "PoW blockchain" (per their readme). PoW (Proof-Of-Work) projects waste an astonishing amount of computational energy, with Bitcoin alone using more energy than the entire countries of Argentina or the Netherlands. This energy is almost always from fossil fuels, which directly contributes to greenhouse gas emissions and undermining any global efforts to fight climate change.
> 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.
Cryptocurrency is bad, but LLMs are fine? What next? Maybe you can't store your simulation source there because it is deemed to resource intensive for the expected results? When did source code itself become dangerous?
It looks like we need more alternatives...
[1] https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/issues/2184
by FireInsight
3 subcomments
- If this, or the vibe-coding ban upsets you, you're not the target demographic of Codeberg. It's not a big tent project looking to host all the code in the word, like Github is. It's for principled, quality, open source, community-first software. Look at the explore page to see what that means: https://codeberg.org/explore/repos?q=&only_show_relevant=tru...
The entire point of Forgejo, the git forge that Codeberg runs on as well, is that you can run your own very easily. I've stopped having private repos on Github completely in favor of my own Forgejo instance, and it's way smoother and nicer. Codeberg was never meant for private repos, but if I get around to starting a new floss project that I want to put out there, Codeberg would be a great option!
And sure, right now there is no cross-forge collaboration, so you need to have multiple accounts. But forge federation is planned, eventually you should be able to contribute to your friend's project from your instance. If you don't wanna wait, go look at https://tangled.org/ or something.
- They are not the first code hosting service to do so. sourcehut banned cryptocurrency in 2022:
https://sourcehut.org/blog/2022-10-31-tos-update-cryptocurre...
https://man.sr.ht/terms.md#permissible-use
Mostly positive HN discussion when this happened: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33403780
by danpalmer
11 subcomments
- Why? Banning abuse is fine, and disliking Cryptocurrency projects at a moral level is fine, but running a coffee hosting service and putting your moral judgements on projects like this just seems childish and unserious.
I'm also apparently banned from reading the article, despite having no previous usage of Codeberg or any history with the project, so I can't even see their reasoning.
by fishgoesblub
8 subcomments
- Let this be a reminder to never trust any service be it one ran by a billion dollar company, to one ran by volunteers. You will be eventually screwed over. Make backup plans, and self-host whatever you can so nothing can be taken from you. For Git forges, I personally recommend Gitea[1], or Forgejo[2] (a Gitea fork by Codeberg)
[1]: https://about.gitea.com/
[2]: https://forgejo.org/
- As with the AI ban this was a community decision done by a majority vote. It seems that most people commenting or writing articles in the last few days don't have a Codeberg account or never visit the forum.
- I don't like crypto but this is poor reasoning, hastily implemented, and given very little time for discussion. There does not seem to be any concrete plan for notifying impacted projects or giving them a roadmap to migrate.
This is unprofessional and severely harms their credibility. It's not what was done but how they did it, and I don't doubt that subsequent policy changes can and will be implemented in the same manner unless it's addressed.
- 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...
by Communitivity
1 subcomments
- Time to move off of Codeberg. They provide a service, that's it. I don't want drama from my service providers, and censorship incurs drama. I think some censorship is needed (hate speech, CP), but I do not want projects deleted because someone running the service doesn't like how I make them, or what they are for. They have the right to do that, but I also have the right to vote with my feet and go elsewhere, and I'm doing that. LLMs assisting coding has it's place, crypto has its place, both have been overhyped and so we're now getting a rubberband effect as people express hatred of these things based on the hype - not on their legitimate purposes.
- Codeberg is not a public dumping ground. It is a service offered by a non-profit with specific goals and missions.
- I'm not personally a fan of this move or the vibe coding rule. That being said, I genuinely wonder how many people complaining about the rule are personally affected. Seems weird to me to complain about a service setting its own rules when you don't engage with it or contribute to it.
- Prohibiting fraud or infrastructure abuse is one thing, but declaring entire categories of lawful software harmful to Codeberg’s reputation is another. They've ironically tanked Codeberg's reputation far more from these policy changes than any projects in that category could have possibly. After these changes, it is difficult for any business, or any project seeking stable infrastructure, to trust that its codebase won’t become unacceptable after the next member vote.
by skippyfish
0 subcomment
- If you work for a tech company, I can practically guarantee that it bans a lot of lawful behaviors on its platforms. Paypal bans or restricts online dating, cigarettes, and firearm accessories. Youtube demonetizes swearing. Facebook prohibits the sale of bodily fluids (I don't want to know what triggered that policy) and "used cosmetics".
If you're not interested in stuff like that when your company is doing it, but are up in arms about some other platform deciding that they don't like crypto, I think you should look in the mirror. Their reasoning is probably the same: they don't like it and don't want to put up with the task of sensibly policing the category.
by minimaxir
1 subcomments
- Relatedly, Codeberg has also banned vibe-coded projects.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49003386
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49003465
by JuniperMesos
3 subcomments
- The fact that Codeberg has the power to do this is a good reason not to host your code on Codeberg. The fact that they have ideological commitments that make them think banning cryptocurrency projects is a good idea is a separate good reason not to host your code on Codeberg.
Fortunately Codeberg is a relatively small player and Git forge hosting is fairly competitive and among the easiest types of online service to self-host, so the effect of this on most Git-forge-users is pretty minimal.
- Well, definitely makes me inclined to never use Codeberg for source hosting if they can just get together and decide to ban an entire category of source repo.
It makes Codeberg seem like an unserious project.
by lifthrasiir
1 subcomments
- This follows what SourceHut did in 2022 [1], but I think SourceHut did much better job to announce that (as of this writing).
[1] https://sourcehut.org/blog/2022-10-31-tos-update-cryptocurre...
- Codeberg's paying members can off course vote on policies of their own non-profit. More power to them. You have the freedom to not use their service. There are ample alternatives.
by nasretdinov
0 subcomment
- I think the real issue is that lots of people somehow got convinced that Codeberg is a somehow better version of GitHub that won't ever be susceptible to the same issues GitHub had, which is mainly too much centralisation and all the risks associated with it.
Codeberg and others setting their own rules (especially if it's done via a community vote and not a decision by some random exec who's just heard a buzzword and now forces everyone to immediately adopt it) is actually a desirable outcome -- given that Forgejo or any other GitLab is open source, so you can (and somebody probably will) create more "hubs". This avoids lock-in by a single "hub" and hopefully will lead to more standartisation and cooperation instead of what we have now with a single largest hub like GitHub.
by kamikazechaser
1 subcomments
- I was one of the commenters that was staunchly against this proposal on the original issue that was brought up 3 years ago. Imo their entire argument has always been straw man. Anyone who has spent enough time around the core Codeberg community knows how ideologically motivated their decisions are regardless of what they put out in their PR statements.
This incident coupled with the Forgejo one (In which they twisted the whole story and made Gitea look like the biggest villain in FOSS when in fact they orchestrated the whole drama by submitting a controversial PR that many people don't know about) made me quit and keep away from their hosting.
- Wow. I have never worked on any cryptocurrency projects and never intend to, but I will certainly be staying very far away from Codeberg because of this.
There are some levels of censorship that make sense for a code forge - “you can’t do crimes on our servers”, “you can’t host malware on our servers”, etc. But inflicting a subjective moral judgement on an entire category of software sends the message that this isn’t a safe place to host any of your repositories. If the moral landscape shifts in the future, how can you be sure your project won’t be next on the chopping block?
What a terrible precedent to set.
by matheusmoreira
1 subcomments
- Welp. Looks like I'm never going back there.
by aliasxneo
1 subcomments
- https://blog.codeberg.org/we-stay-strong-against-hate-and-ha...
It's not like they've been hiding their activism.
- It's hard to understand decisions like this from an organization offering an alternative to Github since it goes directly against the network effects that they are supposed to be trying to build. I understand the point of banning a project after it comes out that they've commited crimes, but I hardly want the host of my repo to be the authority deciding whether my project is good or bad before the fact.
- Crypto enables resistance to tyrannies in many parts of the world. It also provides a means of survival for oppressed groups.
by vlugorilla
1 subcomments
- That's it. I'm leaving Codeberg. Feels like if European Union was turned into a code forge.
- I see this as a higher evolution of simpler community tech projects, which are incapable of tackling or comprehending these things as a group. And so simpler projects will often neglect or reject taking them up altogether, using various restricting justifications. But the truth is this is a step for the community towards actually thinking about how you exist in the world that you live in and having a say in it. Congratulations.
by PeterStuer
1 subcomments
- Even though I do not host on Codeberg, but I do run my own Forgejo, and have no particular interest in Cryptocurrency projects, I consider this a serious red flag as to me it indicates an activist tendency, for lack of a better word, that I do not want from an IT infrastructure provider.
by conartist6
1 subcomments
- I'm... unsure how to feel. On one hand I have the utmost sympathy for the idea of pushing people away from disposable software and towards collaboration. On the other hand this will definitely devolve into name calling and vigilantism. On the third hand, Github is already drowning in slop. It takes up huuuuge amounts of resources and delivers a tiiiiny amount of value to the platform per line of slop code
by adithyassekhar
0 subcomment
- Every open source project ends up politically opinionated because the people behind it is married to the idea of that project than what it delivers.
Commercial ones only care about what the project brings in, often money, but that often comes because of whatever value it provides the customer.
by innocent_name
0 subcomment
- Social signaling, surprise surprise!
by RamblingCTO
1 subcomments
- While codeberg can do as they please, I'm worried about the walled gardens we're creating all over the place. Be it non-exclusive open source projects (hi gitea) because it's a meeting point for a subset of extremist politics or services like this (not even talking about x, fediverse, etc. etc.). The open and free web seems dead, it's fragmented into oblivion. I always valued the weird and random exchange of ideas that challenge my own worldviews.
- > The text is now as-is because it was send out for votes. Small clarifications can be made afterwards by Presidium or Board.
Wording from a Big Politics. Is there a Codeberg Parlament? Just curious.
by poisonborz
0 subcomment
- Besides support, the only correct feeling about this "well that sucks, I'll selfhost or open my own source sharing service with different guidelines". I wouldn't have backed this decision - but lots of smaller communities hosting services, backed by different tech, making steering decisions is the right way for the open internet.
by ninjahawk1
0 subcomment
- This is a battle that likely shouldn’t be handled as a war on crypto, simply change the wording of your TOS. Absolutely nuclear.
by reassess_blind
1 subcomments
- I bet Microsoft loves that these GitHub competitors shoot themselves in the foot so often.
- I believe that they (like every other non-governmental service) have the privilege to ban everything and everyone from their service for literally any reason they choose.
But this (and especially the AI ban) is a big red flag and I'm steering clear from Codeberg.
- This is a slippery slope, and I will stay away from Codeberg, because who knows what they'll ban next.
- I support this change in theory but for me personally, this is not a rule I Am going to follow.
- I'm not sure how this interacts with open source principles. I think they are free to do whatever they want with their own website and indeed with open source tooling, but as a host for open source it could conceivably conflict with those principles.
A much debated aspect of open source is that it may be used for any purpose. The JSON licence sparked much of this debate.
More recently there has been suggestions for an ethical source movement, which advocate that source may only be used for ethical uses. I presume they must mean Good old christian, pro family, anti-terrorism, traditional values etc. the usual ten commandments stuff. Or perhaps they had something else in mind, it's unclear, but what ever it is that's the stuff that's allowed and the other stuff isn't.
- I guess I kind of agree with this, but Monero-related stuff is the exception for me.
- This is incredible, really. A code hosting service started as a safe haven from US political tantrums now itself became even more political.
- My code repository should host my code, not go on dubious moral crusades. Glad I stayed on Github.
Their ban on nebulously defined vibecoded projects is even more ridiculous.
by VortexLain
0 subcomment
- If Codeberg becomes a place where you cannot just host any of your projects without caring about its politics like you can host on GitHub, GitHub monopoly will continue. This is very unfortunate, and despite I prefer Forgejo web UI to GitHub's web UI, I'll have to stay off codeberg out of concerns they'll wipe my repos in case, for example, they decide any LLM-assisted code is suddenly disallowed on the platform.
- I'm probably repeating what others had said but might as well join in on the very classic hnews saga of talking about a conversational topic in super autistic detail lol.
On the one hand its there site so they can do what they want and tbh its pretty easy to self host your own git server nowdays (which i do) however the issue i do have with this and really its a wider issue i have with the industry as whole:
I feel like we focus way to much ideology's and moral grandstanding which we then insert that into tech projects so seeing stuff like this makes we want to avoid using this site with a 10 foot pole. Can we just focus on tech not some moral grandstanding about politics, crypto blah blah but i guess thats too hard of a thing to ask or something
- I get "Access denied" when trying to access. Can anyone archive?
Edit: https://web.archive.org/web/20260723015826/https://codeberg....
Unrelatedly, I can recommend Radicle, which hosts a growing network of crypto projects. https://radicle.dev/
- Seems fine to me. It’s just a Bluesky version of GitHub. That was always going to do various odd bans.
- This is crazy. 1. Humans are turning energy in code too. 2. Business cannot afford "ultra-high-end-code" or dont want to. LLM's are the escape hatch for developers in those areas to increase throughput and quality (writing tests). Everything before llm's were already a burning piece of sh*t and now we actually can do smth about it.
by wewewedxfgdf
1 subcomments
- Vision of the future for this platform, because all overreach makes companies more hungry for more overreach.
- Yeah, I'm not interested in a service that makes their product decisions based on the political hot button issue of the day. Was it only yesterday when they decided to ban "vibecoded" projects? Nobody in comments had a clear idea on what exactly the definition of "vibecoded" is, so half of the discussion was just confusion.
Now it's this.
I want my code hosting to host my code and only consider removing something when there's a legal demand from authorities.
Otherwise you can't be sure that the code you host peacefully today won't fall out of political activists favor tomorrow and be deleted forcing you to scramble figuring out where to move to. Fuck this.
by sandebert
1 subcomments
- I wonder if we will see a fork of Forgejo and Codeberg (the latter is based on the former) that will allow for this and AI contributions. I would be interested in trying it out.
by biznickman
1 subcomments
- I didn't know of codeberg before and this is likely the last time I'll see it.
This seems more like a marketing stunt than anything else. They previously "banned vibecoded projects".
by mostlyRice
0 subcomment
- Seems like it's not for me, gotta move elsewhere.
- Ok codeberg, I see you. Time to make an account there.
- Didn't they do this a while ago already?
- Codeberg being transparent about having a political bent - which all projects do even if they claim not to - is fine. Wonderful even.
But I think they got this particular political decision wrong, both ethically and factually. Looking at what seems to have passed for "deliberation", it's hard not to walk away with a very poor impression of codeberg (or at least, their process for deciding on such bans).
The crux of the argument appears to have been that blockchains are environmentally destructive - obviously a critique aimed at Proof-of-Work blockchains. Then, many commenters pointed out that the environmental argument doesn't apply to proof-of-stake projects in the same way.
The responses then become just inane and immature. For example, "The dominant cryptocurrency is still Bitcoin and they have no plans to move to Proof-of-stake." - I can't fathom how this statement has any bearing on the impact of other proof-of-stake projects using codeberg as their VCS host.
Through these issue threads leading up to the vote, the arguments in favor of continuing to host blockchain projects are far more reasonable and sober and better informed than the detractors.
If anything, this discussion seems to reinforce the (and my) view that, on long time scales, blockchains are likely to be an elegant solution to humanity's problems of economic inequality and inefficiency.
by letmevoteplease
0 subcomment
- Looks like another project that's gonna purity spiral into People's Front of Judea vs. the Judean People's Front weirdos sniping at each other.
- Bitcoin lets me send my friend abroad money with minimal BS, I quite like it (other services like Wise take more commissions and have more delays), but also realize there's a lot of scam prjoects etc. out there.
Then again, Codeberg as a project can do whatever they want. I'm just happy that anyone can host Gitea, Gogs, GitBucket or GitLab or whatever they wnat. For my personal stuff Gitea works really nice with Woodpecker CI.
I'm sure many other hosted platforms don't have such stringent rules, though.
by bringfiregames
0 subcomment
- The Onion needs to parody these recent decisions "Codeberg bans any code base hosted on Codeberg for violating ToS" lol
- This is an interesting development. I think for the forseeable future, more and more people (who run and/or own products or platforms like Codeberg) will continue to be more selective on what they accept on their platforms.
The software we write has been increasingly shown that they are not some unassailable paragon of neutrality and mere harmless artifacts. These things are written by people with intent. Naturally the other set of people who run these platforms would have objections on hosting them.
"Invevitability" gets thrown around these days. I guess this is the other kind of inevitability that comes from the environment we've created.
by Panzerschrek
0 subcomment
- It's a good decision to ban cryptocurrency projects. Such a project may be mostly fine, but considering overall cryptocurrency shady reputation it's better to keep it away.
The same is for LLM-slop projects. They have little to no value for the society and may be dangerous.
by fzeroracer
0 subcomment
- Seems fine to me. It was decided by a community vote; it's their site and their rules. The people complaining about those damn ideologicsts or whatever seem to be missing the point in that they are equally as ideological just in a different direction.
We're just returning back to the foundations of the internet where people setup their own community area and tell you what they will and will not tolerate.
- That’s why you don’t trust anything EU made.
You think US is in culture war. But it’s not even comparable .
You have all spectrum in fight : ultra right , ultra left, ultra green , traitors to China , to Russia : Orban , Fico. Some of them just corrupted to worst African dictators level : kidnap bank people with money in the middle of the road .
On top of that their politics is multi layered . People with similar goals fight each other on EU / local level etc .
You project can always appear on the crossroad of such fight or they simply kidnap you and take you money
by protocolture
0 subcomment
- Probably would have been better to do this before the moral outrage had moved on to AI. Now it just seems pointless.
- People always say they hate centralized markets, but whenever a market starts regulating to create its own distinct character, they push back.
Honestly, I think this measure actually gives Codeberg a competitive edge in terms of code quality.
I think we're now seeing a pattern where, under a 'free' large market, regulations are being used to create unique market identities. That's my take—it depends on what you regulate, which determines the market's character.
Personally, I've noticed that when Codeberg announced regulations around AI code, most of the comments cheered. But when the same people talk about cryptocurrency regulations, they get angry. It seems like people just want to regulate what they don't like, not what they do.
I won't use Codeberg myself, but I think this policy is reasonable. I've decided that what you regulate defines your market's identity.
by ChrisArchitect
0 subcomment
- Related:
Codeberg bans vibe coded projects
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49003386
- Who?
> “ Codeberg is a non-profit, community-led effort that provides Git hosting and other services for free and open source projects.”
Github still works, and the crypto ecosystem also has arweave and many others for static assets
- Not just cryptocurrency projects, cryptocurrency related projects. But hey, it's their space.
by newsomix9xl
0 subcomment
- Codeberg is a fork of gitea iirc. All the crypto Bros are free to fork and finance a crypto friendly codeberg.
Cryptoberg or whatever.
- Can we also ban Java projects? Don't really like that language.
by add-sub-mul-div
2 subcomments
- It's a shame that such a film of commercial and criminal slime surrounds big new technologies like crypto/AI that could otherwise be used for net good. But this is where we're at.
- Oh well, that is disappointing. I was enjoying it for my own side projects. I wonder what's next on their list...
by sirnicolaz
0 subcomment
- Lol, since when Crypto == PoW. Ignorants
- Now ban AI
by globular-toast
2 subcomments
- Bitcoin was supposed to give us a way to have digital cash without bankers controlling the system for their benefit. How did we fuck this up so badly?
- If you are going to ban all cryptocurrency projects, you might as well ban all AI slop projects at this point.
- It seems like the “Your organization needs to pass my personal moral purity test before I accept free hosting from it” posters aren’t really grasping how that is the opposite of a threat
It is like “I’m not taking anything from that food bank since they clarified that they won’t be accepting or doling out rat meat” like ok buddy, you do you
by Malcomwillis21
0 subcomment
- [dead]
by cmrdporcupine
2 subcomments
- This is far less controversial than their anti-AI stance which passed today.
I have zero sympathies around crypto projects, generally. "Blockchain" feels to me like a venus fly trap that swallows distributed systems engineers and turns them into pseudo-libertarian apologists for money-laundering.
But I pulled my project off Codeberg today because of the anti-AI positioning. Not so much because of any specifics in their very vague wording, which they've left completely open to subjective interpretation. But because of the crazy toxic discourse on Mastodon and other places around it. People making analogies between people's LLM use and non-consensual sex, and accusing people seeking clarity on what "mostly AI" means of being like "creepy guys" etc. Just beyond the bounds of reasonable discourse and also being offensively trivializing of actual rape culture concerns without even realizing it.
I really thought I liked the codeberg community when I joined it. I'm a copyleft guy. My project is AGPL. I've been tilted pretty far over to the left my whole adult life. I liked not being on American infrastructure. It turns out I don't like these people though. Bye. I'd rather wade in slop than sanctimonious moralism.
- [dead]
- [dead]
by andrewflnr
0 subcomment
- I allowed myself to believe that the public conversation had moved past the "free speech means that no one is allowed to control what others post on platforms they run". The obvious cases of it routinely get replies with the obvious counterarguments, so I thought maybe everyone had gotten the idea. Apparently not.
You can disagree with the decision here. That's a reasonable debate. Pretending it's about "pluralism" or "tyranny" is pathetic.
Think about it for half a second: do you think every platform that accepts user content is required to accept all not-explicitly-illegal content? No? Then the only question is where to set the line. Codeberg is making their own choices. If you don't like those choices, I don't even have to tell you to start your own platform, because there's already tons of competition.
by nixosbestos
0 subcomment
- [flagged]
- [flagged]
by cmrdporcupine
3 subcomments
- [flagged]
- [flagged]
by badatnames
1 subcomments
- [flagged]
- [flagged]
by OuterVale
3 subcomments
- [flagged]
- [flagged]
- Codeberg can ban whatever they want on their platform. The thing is nobody cares about codeberg, and this is probably just a publicity stunt.
by wolvesechoes
0 subcomment
- Good, based. We need some pesticide.
by jaredcwhite
1 subcomments
- Fantastic! Codeberg just keeps getting better and better, properly moderating a healthy community which does not welcome the technolibertarian dystopia we've all been suffering through for far too many years now.
I'm not surprised many here are upset. Many here don't seem to understand the outrageous harms that a totally out-of-control tech industry has been foisting upon the planet. It's time to take a stand for a better path forward.
by shikck200
3 subcomments
- This is a good thing. Crypto is 95% scams, and the remaining 5% just WAY too risky for the normal-joe. Overall, crypto (bitcoin specially) is just a useless energy consuming nightmare.
by intunderflow
1 subcomments
- I've just got back from my day, and I see the Codeberg PR has been stormed by new accounts.
Please dont. I posted this here to spark a discussion on HN, not as a license to raid Codeberg. They're at liberty to set their own policies in the same way I'm at liberty to not use their services.
If you want to discuss this and you're not already an account holder at Codeberg, the comments section is right here.
Hacker News