[hackinthebochs]

While that's true, it's unrelated to hosting code. A reliable code hosting site should be agnostic to content. Once they start making editorial decisions about what projects to host, why should anyone trust them with their project?

[loeg]

I just fundamentally disagree that hosting sites should be agnostic to content.

Should they host malware? Anything related to CSAM? Clearly it is reasonable for them to exercise some editorial control, and this is not a crazy use of that power.

[iamnothere]

What about emulators? E2EE? P2P software? Software that gets used to leak state secrets? VPNs?

Once you open the door, it’s going to be really difficult to resist political pressure in other areas. The mob is easily swayed against new targets.

[loeg]

Yes? Every hosting provider should be considering what they want to host. Of course it's fine for providers to take some sort of speech maximalism stance if they want to, but it is also reasonable not to.

[iamnothere]

So you think Codeberg should not host projects in the categories I listed?

Or if you think they should, should they also provide guarantees to projects that the rules will not be suddenly changed, disrupting the project and community?

If not, and you’re a developer, why would you want to host there?

[loeg]

I think Codeberg should do whatever they want; I'm not involved.

[shikck200]

Why would P2P/E2EE software be banned? Makes no sense to even compare that to crypto. Its like saying we ban C because the bitcoin is written in it.

> Software that gets used to leak state secrets?

Thats not really a "thing". If someone uploads something of the sorts, it probably going to be taken down. VPNs follow the same rules as P2P/E2EE, and has nothing to do with crypto.

Just look at github, they have taken down multiple repos during the years that are illegal, and/or breaks their TOS.

[iamnothere]

> Why would P2P/E2EE software be banned?

Chat Control 2.0? Public pressure campaigns against encryption? The mob decides that it’s “fascist” to prevent snooping?

> Thats not really a "thing".

WikiLeaks and SecureDrop would disagree.

> Just look at github, they have taken down multiple repos during the years that are illegal, and/or breaks their TOS.

Yes, and I’m saying that this is a bad thing. Obviously there may be limited means to contest legal actions (outside of decentralization), but GitHub has been iffy regarding ToS applications in the past.

[shikck200]

> WikiLeaks and SecureDrop would disagree.

This is just nonsense. You can also then argue we should ban email. I can get an anon throwaway email and send some leaked document that way to, say a reporter.

> Chat Control 2.0

Has nothing to with with cryptography. Banning that would mean we have no ssl, and no online payments / banking.