[archerx]

Thanks for the clarification. I’m not a crypto dev or into crypto much but I’m not into the idea of banning people for “wrong code”, “wrong speak” or idealogical reasons so I’ll be sure to stay away from sourceHut, Ddevault and codeberg.

Good luck to you none the less.

[huggingmouth]

I share your concerns and principled stance. These ideological driven policies are akin to polices encouraging bookburnings in my eyes. Futile polices that do nothing but hurt those who perpetuate it and engage in it.

[orwin]

I don't know, i have a friend who went to the UK in 2015 to work on ready-made dropshipping website that they sold to influencers, and latter on the business shifted to ready-made shitcoins they sold to influencers, with "additionnal code" sold separately (throttle selling, and bypassing the throttle for example). I think the main solidity code was hosted on sourceforge, and this made me kind of boycott the website (i mean, i don't use it much anyway). I understand they need to make money, but hosting tools designed to create scams is a bit too much. I think they sold (or disbanded) the company last year, so i'm not sure if the product is still hosted there.

I guess that if you don't want to pay a moderation team who can read code, banning solidity code and crypto-related project is good enough.

I only wrote this as a counterpoint. i understand your stance, you don't want private company to support censorship. I don't really want that either, but i also don't want private companies to allow scam to be run on their plateforms, and to me, protecting less informed citizens is more important that protecting an ideological concept. It's a trade off for me, and i understand people who don't weigh things the same way.