[JuniperMesos]

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.

[elictronic]

Banning cryptocurrency scams seems like a pretty good reason to use codeberg.

[aliasxneo]

Sounds like a good idea. Too bad that's not what went into the ToS.

[MallocVoidstar]

> The fact that Codeberg has the power to do this is a good reason not to host your code on Codeberg.

Everything other than full self-hosting has this exact power

[JuniperMesos]

Yes, and people should think about this much more than they do, when it comes to more popular services that also make ideological decisions about what user content to disallow.

[inigyou]

Full self-hosting without Tor has it too, as your ISP can ban you, as Kiwifarms found out.

(KF got banned from Cloudflare, then had a lot of trouble finding an ISP, eventually made their own, and then had trouble finding upstreams. You might wonder what they did that was so bad but not illegal - that's a long story.)

[delfinom]

Yes, BUT there's a difference between holding the power and actually using it to enforce ideological positions.

[unethical_ban]

and there's a difference between a monopolized market player doing it and a hole-in-the-wall free host.

[iamnothere]

Exactly, I will no longer be recommending Codeberg moving forward for the same reason I don’t recommend GitHub. Political risk is a real concern for the projects I most care about.