Selfhosted

While I fully agree and support Codeberg stance on vibecoded projects I'm not sure I follow their reasoning here. For instance they complain about webcrawlers scraping their site to train their LLM models but I don't see why getting rid of the vibecoded repositories wouldn't make them more palatable for scrapers. A site full of human made code is infinitely more useful to those companies than a slop infested honeypot.

I think the "regret" post misses an entire point, that Codeberg doesn't want to be the place where AI stuff is hosted. Maybe it wasn't clear in their communications but it always seemed to me the copyright and resource stuff was more of a justification of something they wanted to do anyways.

Also everyone suggesting AI should just be treated as a tool comfortably ignores the externalized costs. Maybe there's some "yeah it sucks but we can't to anything and it so we just use it" and that's it. I'm so tired of lengthy AI-is-just-a-tool justifications that are omitting the central point.

The article seems correct with the "Codeberg's reputation" clause though. That one smells bad, not sure why they felt the need to add it.

Lots of people who have never used Codeberg and don't understand the difference between Codeberg and Forgejo are very angry about this.

if you don’t self host it, the cloud is just someone else computer

I pretty much said this in the other thread. Unless you own the platform, or a significant investor in said platform, you are subject to the whims of the platform, good, bad, or indifferent. Some don't like that I guess because they feel like they supported the platform, may have contributed to the platform, but at the end of the day, the platform dictates law for the platform.

Kind of like lemmy.selfhosted. There are rules. If you don't bother yourself with reading the rules before posting, you get what you get.

I don’t want to depend on a platform that rewrites its terms of service on a whim, without properly announcing that the change was even under consideration, and without giving its users a way to weigh in.

[...]

I wish it had linked to a discussion thread, or at the very least a poll, so that I could have voiced the concern I have

Then you should've joined Codeberg e.V. which gives you access to both a forum and a voting platform.

I still don't see the problem with Codeberg's decision. Of course they will kick projects that they don't want, just like github will kick projects they don't want. The issue isn't what is and isn't allowed, it's who allows it, as it always has been.

Of course selfhosting is one way to control it, but in Codeberg there is a process to be part of that governance, which the author didn't partake in. At which point there is nothing more to discuss, get in the governance first and then you can write a blog post about how the governance is bad, isn't aligned with you or whatever.

It's 2026. Who still expects things to be perfect with a third-party without participating ? Be part of the governance, selfhosted or not, always

OOTL Wasn't there something about forgejos capabilities to federate? I had the impression, that it would go the fediverse route with many interacting instances. Then everyone can make their own rules. There are many reason to moderate repos. So why is this such a big thing (if forgejo federates as I remembered from the back of my head)?

That I regret link isn't working for me.

The decisions did go through Codeberg’s own Assembly 2026, which is more process than most platforms bother with, and yet as an ordinary user I found out about it the way probably most people else did, through a dark blue banner at the top of the site on the day it was already settled.

I did not even get to know about this that way. Only now, a month later from some backyard forum.

This is such a pointless discussion. If you want to use AI a lot, just go to GitHub. If you don't, go to Codeberg. What's the problem?