Another theory: https://lobste.rs/s/omq8rt/vibecoding_gets_emacs_patch_rejec... (posted very much not because of the chatbot psychosis aspect, which doesn't seem relevant in this case, more the part about possible minor personality changes from long-term communing with LLMs)

Starting your comment by saying "in good faith" doesn't make it in good faith.

Making straw-men is not honest debate.

And what you're not mentioning here is that there are people who actually felt they had their own corner of the Internet, didn't/don't consider themselves "AI people", just happened to use a tool, and now retroactively having a judgement applied to them.

That's fine if you think it's okay to do that. I think you're being dishonest in your framing of the discussion though, by creating a "two sides" scenario to justify in-group / out-group behaviours.

For seconds, this proves that Codeberg may in the future ban any project. The platform is, flat out, without a doubt, not reliable long term, and I reckon about anyone should be pretty upset at that.

Third, this reeks of children playing politics. If you are going to put measures as strong as these on the table, you better have very defined lines on which to act upon, and you better have a good rationale for them. This doesn't seem to be the case in one account or the other, which paints the administration as not only incompetent, but delusional on their competency. This may not warrant anger, but it sure does warrant frustration and disappointment.

It is perfectly fine to take politics seriously. I reckon more people should do it. There is a huge problem though in which people mix that up with taking political action, without actually putting the work on what to do, why, how and what are the consequences. That is the actually hard part, and this looks more like "we are anti-bad stuff" than that.

The signal is now that Codeberg is an activist platform. That is fine, but that makes it unfit for many projects that want a largely neutral hoster.

Just as they are free to do this, I am free to move my repositories elsewhere and stop donating.

(And I'm nothing near a vibe oder, but the way the terms are now formulated, even doing LLM-assisted programming could be a violation.)

It's basically not allowing junkfood on their platform. Now that code is easier than ever to barf out, so will the amount of junk.

As for tossing out any and all crypto projects... how anyone still associating themselves with that pile of garbage?

No, it's actually very good.

Since we're talking about my opinions here, which should be construed as laws of my hosting platform, i always hated ruby so lets ban ruby.

In fact codeberg shall only accept Perl programs going forward that are written using emacs

I agree with you, and everyone I know and work with is in this category. Not just because of preferences but just because of necessity or pragmatics.

And then there is a community that either see the output of the tooling as a) complete garbage "slop" of low quality and this is, at this point just a false assessment completely at this point or b) immoral and on this point there is room for legitimate debate.

One problem is the way the discussion around this codeberg stuff seems to conflate A) and B).

Another problem seems to be is that some people who believe B, and believe it with all their hearts, can't even have a reasonable conversation with LLM tool users because if someone admits to using the tool, they now have a categorical judgement-lever and there's no middle ground. You used the tool, you're on the wrong side, get off my island. That's what I've seen in multiple comments yesterday and today about this topic.