That’s not correct, and you should know better than to claim this. 4 minutes before making this comment, you acknowledged it was about harmful products, not unpopular ones.
It’s still rather poorly worded, though. The ban is: “Content that harms the reputation of Codeberg, such as cryptocurrency related projects”
And AI is wildly popular. Competitor Microsoft has sunk billions into it.
AI is wildly unpopular among certain circles (Fediverse being one and I suspect there’s a considerable amount of overlap between the types of people on Codeberg and Lemmy).
That’s not correct, and you should know better than to claim this.
This is my first exposure to Codeberg’s terms of service, why would you think I know more than what I’m seeing here and in the linked pages? I haven’t used them before (and almost certainly won’t now).
The text you quoted from my earlier comment has nothing to do with any of this, either. I’m not sure why you think it means anything in this context.
AI is wildly popular.
Wow. I’d ask whether you’ve ever been in any threads on this community about LLMs, but of course I’ve come to recognize your particular username fairly well at this point.
why would you think I know more than what I’m seeing here and in the linked pages
Because 4 minutes earlier, you commented acknowledging their intent was to have a rule against harmful projects, not “unpopular” ones. I just explained this.
You pruned off the last part of the sentence in what you quoted: “which makes it seem like cryptocurrency is inherently scammy.” Adds a bit of important context.
The interpretation that cryptocurrency projects are “harmful” is based on a popular position that misunderstands the nature of cryptocurrency and its full range of uses.
Your obsession with stalking me keeps leading you to pouncing on comments with an “aha! Got him!” That leads you to misinterpret them in the worst possible light. Which is quite ironic given the situation this thread is actually about.
Cryptocurrency has largely been adopted by the rich and powerful to keep speculating while avoiding regulations and taxes. Look no further than how Donald Trump and his family use it to enrich themselves.
Acting as if cryptocurrency is maligned because it’s “unpopular” is like acting that Donald Trump is a victim because he’s unpopular.
Cryptocurrencies are generally open protocols, usable by anyone. Both the rich and powerful and the poor and powerless. Much like open source in general. I’m sure Donald Trump and family make use of other open source projects in their various endeavours, should those be banned too?
Cryptocurrencies are generally open protocols, usable by anyone. Both the rich and powerful and the poor and powerless.
But its most popular uses are to defraud the poor and to allow the rich to speculate.
I agree with your earlier, more honest comment, that said that cryptocurrency is not inherently bad and Codeberg needs to clarify, but this new claim that it’s going after the “unpopular” is plain wrong.
Already banned
Sounds like they’re willing to ban anything “unpopular.” Not a good sign for serious development.
That’s not correct, and you should know better than to claim this. 4 minutes before making this comment, you acknowledged it was about harmful products, not unpopular ones.
And AI is wildly popular. Competitor Microsoft has sunk billions into it.
AI is wildly unpopular among certain circles (Fediverse being one and I suspect there’s a considerable amount of overlap between the types of people on Codeberg and Lemmy).
It’s popular as far as billionaires and corporations like Microsoft and Facebook are concerned, which was my point.
Pretty sure they’re not users of Codeberg, and likely weren’t the ones who voted for this TOS change.
Well, maybe Microsoft did, given it makes Github look more appealing by comparison.
Ah yes, Microsoft, the company people love because of their AI pushing
This is my first exposure to Codeberg’s terms of service, why would you think I know more than what I’m seeing here and in the linked pages? I haven’t used them before (and almost certainly won’t now).
The text you quoted from my earlier comment has nothing to do with any of this, either. I’m not sure why you think it means anything in this context.
Wow. I’d ask whether you’ve ever been in any threads on this community about LLMs, but of course I’ve come to recognize your particular username fairly well at this point.
Because 4 minutes earlier, you commented acknowledging their intent was to have a rule against harmful projects, not “unpopular” ones. I just explained this.
You pruned off the last part of the sentence in what you quoted: “which makes it seem like cryptocurrency is inherently scammy.” Adds a bit of important context.
The interpretation that cryptocurrency projects are “harmful” is based on a popular position that misunderstands the nature of cryptocurrency and its full range of uses.
Your obsession with stalking me keeps leading you to pouncing on comments with an “aha! Got him!” That leads you to misinterpret them in the worst possible light. Which is quite ironic given the situation this thread is actually about.
Cryptocurrency has largely been adopted by the rich and powerful to keep speculating while avoiding regulations and taxes. Look no further than how Donald Trump and his family use it to enrich themselves.
Acting as if cryptocurrency is maligned because it’s “unpopular” is like acting that Donald Trump is a victim because he’s unpopular.
And these “rich and powerful” are using Codeberg projects for that? Not, say, LGBTQ+ people living in sanctioned countries who use cryptocurrency to buy HRT?
Cryptocurrencies are generally open protocols, usable by anyone. Both the rich and powerful and the poor and powerless. Much like open source in general. I’m sure Donald Trump and family make use of other open source projects in their various endeavours, should those be banned too?
But its most popular uses are to defraud the poor and to allow the rich to speculate.
I agree with your earlier, more honest comment, that said that cryptocurrency is not inherently bad and Codeberg needs to clarify, but this new claim that it’s going after the “unpopular” is plain wrong.