[pretendgeneer]

I think you're misunderstanding "codeberg is political".

Everything is political, FOSS is political, GitHub is also political.

When people say "We're not political", or "That's not political". What they're actually saying is that it's within my own politics.

[tbrownaw]

No, there's a big difference between "net effects are not guaranteed to be perfectly neutral" and "I am going to intentionally put my thumb on the scale".

The position that everything is political so therefore opinions are mandatory intentionally conflates these things.

[Forgeties79]

You’re the one who seems to be conflating things - everything is political =/= opinions are mandatory.

[tbrownaw]

The comment I was replying to said

> When people say "We're not political", or "That's not political". What they're actually saying is that it's within my own politics.

That assertion is incorrect. Said incorrect assertion is derived from the conflation I called out.

[orbital-decay]

Reminder that you're commenting on the decision to make someone's political opinion against crypto mandatory for Codeberg

[Forgeties79]

They’re banning crypto projects. There’s no screening for your opinion on crypto. Let’s not make this into something it isn’t.

[causalmodels]

My issue with this is not that codeberg and its members want to uphold a certain set of political beliefs. Any private organization is free to do that. It's that they haven't defined the rule that's supposed to encode those beliefs.

As written, the rule is a non-exhaustive example of "content that harms codeberg's reputation". Someone asked in the pr whether "cryptocurrency-related" is defined anywhere and it merged without an answer. The responses to wording concerns was essentially they will figure it out later. Moves like this don't fill me with confidence.

[inigyou]

Real-world lines are blurry. If you try to define a bright line, someone finds a loophole. Like the other thread (about codeberg banning vibecoded projects) had arguments about whether a project with 49.999% generated code would count. Which is based on a category error - things just don't work that way.

[iamnothere]

It sounds like Codeberg needs to define both clear guidelines and a systematic process by which potential violations of the policy can be fairly reviewed and/or appealed—table stakes for a system that’s going to be integrated into your project as a hosting provider and community hub.

What you seem to be arguing for is seat-of-the-pants reactive mob governance. Functional communities and societies don’t work that way.

[inigyou]

It sounds like the process is that if your project is obviously spam, they just delete it and ban you, otherwise they reach out to you first.

Such indkvidualized contact is only possible because Codeberg is relatively small, and not a garbage dump for every code file or spam project.

[iamnothere]

Yeah, well we’ll see what the future holds. Based on past experience, without well-defined procedures, I expect activists will eventually seize control of the process and go after devs/projects that they have personal grievances with. I will not use or recommend Codeberg until they put some structure around this.

[inigyou]

Okay? They're not asking you to use or recommend it. In fact they prefer that you don't.

[tkel]

You're still not understanding the point. It's not about an organization being "private" or "public" (what does "private" even mean?). Everything is political. When you try and cleave society into things that are and aren't political, what you are doing is creating a normative set of things that aren't allowed to be challenged, on the basis of your claim that they aren't political, obscuring/obfuscating their actual underlying politics, and everything else is pushed outside of it. It is an attempt to create strict boundaries around the limits of discussion and action, which is itself a political act!

[fluoridation]

>When you try and cleave society into things that are and aren't political, what you are doing is creating a normative set of things that aren't allowed to be challenged, on the basis of your claim that they aren't political

What are you talking about? Whether something is allowed to be challenged has nothing to do with whether it's political. Actually, what even is not allowed to be challenged? I struggle to come up with a single example.

[tkel]

Yes, in communities that try to claim that certain things are "political" and certain things are "not political", "banning cryptocurrency" could be rejected on the basis that it is "political". The point is that saying something like "we don't do politics" is absurd. There is always an underlying politics, even if it has been normalized or obfuscated, repressed or unexamined. Reread my above comment.

[TobTobXX]

No, I think both, political and apolitical decisions can exist.

If you ban a project because its CI pipeline mines crypto and that ia a drain on your server, it is an apolitical argument.

If you ban a project because it drains recources because an AI agent is commutting multiple times a second, that is apolitical.

If you ban a project, because it hosts content that doesn't align with your ideals since it uses cryptocurrencies, that is clearly political.

Sure, there may be a small grey zone. But there are swaths of decicions that are clearly political/apolitical.

[inigyou]

Is the set of acceptable uses for shared infrastructure not a political question? What's different between mining crypto on a free CI server, letting my cows eat all the grass at the park, or dumping industrial waste into the river?

[fluoridation]

You didn't answer my question about what is not allowed to be challenged.

>Yes, in communities that try to claim that certain things are "political" and certain things are "not political", "banning cryptocurrency" could be rejected on the basis that it is "political". The point is that saying something like "we don't do politics" is absurd.

I don't understand what you're saying. You switched tracked halfway through the thought from talking about communities that distinguish between things that are or aren't political to rejection of taking political stances.

What is usually meant by "we don't do politics" is that an institution or organization will avoid picking sides on political issues. This is not merely not absurd, but pretty much necessary for any organization that doesn't have ideological goals and doesn't want to foster internal factions.

Like the sibling comment said, just banning cryptocurrency might be political or it might not, depending on the reason for it. Rejecting reasons such as "crypto bad" is a tenable position if an organization seeks to maintain a neutral stance.

[tkel]

Every organization has ideological goals. That's what I'm getting at. Sometimes they are unable to recognize it because it's been normalized. What you define as "neutral" is not actually neutral. Such statements are themselves attempts at controlling what is normal/acceptable. The terms of acceptable discussion is context-dependent, but trying to set them at "politics" is contradictory, as I've explained.

[altmanaltman]

No I understand that. But the point I am making is saying that is much stronger than saying "our policy says we won't host crypto projects going forward". The latter is fine, any service provider can set terms as they fit within the law. But if you claim you are highly political, you must invite further questions into it.

How does Codeberg handle the diverse mix of politics within it and manage its influences? If we give the organization a character by calling it political, we create an obligation to explain further.

Overall, again I feel this is a self-own to project idealogue this hard since you flavor it in a specific way that is not inclusive.

[overfeed]

> How does Codeberg handle the diverse mix of politics within it and manage its influence

They don't have to.

> Overall, again I feel this is a self-own to project idealogue this hard since you flavor it in a specific way that is not inclusive.

D.E.I. is out right now. Fortunately, Codeberg helpfully funds Forgejo, so all the non-eligible projects can benefit from self-hosting.

[vintermann]

Not every question is political, so it's often fine to say "that's not a political question".

But which questions are apolitical questions, is itself a political question.

[pluralmonad]

This seems like a useless definition of political.

[bigstrat2003]

No dude. Most things are not, in fact, political. When I enjoy a meal, that isn't political. When I hang out with my family and friends, that isn't political. When I sit down to read a nice book with a cup of cocoa, that isn't political.

The notion that "everything is political" is an indicator that someone has an extremely toxic relationship with politics. Basically you're projecting your unhealthy level of political engagement onto everyone else, and insisting that we all have that manner of thinking (but are just denying it to score political points). Well that isn't true, and for your own sake I encourage you to stop that. You'll be much happier when you stop making life about politics.

[andor]

> No dude. Most things are not, in fact, political. When I enjoy a meal, that isn't political. When I hang out with my family and friends, that isn't political. When I sit down to read a nice book with a cup of cocoa, that isn't political.

What do you eat and what do you refuse to eat? Which restaurants would you go to or not? Which companies do you buy from and why/why not?

Who do you meet with and who do you avoid? What do you talk about and which topics do you avoid?

Where is your cocoa grown, which brand do you buy and who ends up making money on your purchase?

[xigoi]

I don’t eat food that I am allergic to or don’t like the taste. What does that have to do with politics?

[andor]

Even if you reduce it to that, you still endorse (or at least accept) the side effects of the production of what you eat.

If you eat meat, you are okay with the effects it has on climate change, and that’s political. If you do the opposite and don’t eat meat, that’s also political.

If you consume food from non-organic agriculture, you are okay with species extinction, especially insects.

If you buy the cheapest foods, you are okay with the working conditions and low pay necessary to reach the price. If you buy a more expensive option, who in the value chain benefits from the increased price and who doesn’t?

Almost everything that you do is political in some way.

[hogwasher]

That's disregarding that the people in power routinely make it as difficult as possible to have a choice. If you buy the cheapest foods, maybe it's because you want to eat and pay rent, and spending any more than that would render you homeless. Becoming homeless will not save the poor in another country, even if your purchases to avoid becoming homeless would have contributed a vanishingly tiny, indirect amount to their plight.

I agree that everything is political, and it's good to make choices as ethically as you can, but sometimes it simply isn't possible to be perfect. You can't even know about all the problems without studying them like a full time job. Ain't got time for that. Gotta eat.

The "agonize over every purchase and vote with your dollar" paradigm gives the most votes to billionaires.

Should people think about ethics when buying stuff: yes.

Does failing to recycle a bottle properly, or buying a cheap chocolate bar that may have involved underpaid or even slave labor somewhere in its supply chain, mean someone is evil? Nope.

I wish people would spend less time agonizing or moralizing over what individuals do (even though an individual is easier to influence quickly) and more time going after the broken systems, stupid laws, and malignant CEOs that actually lie at the root of the problems.

[inigyou]

People in power removing your choices is definitely political.

[surgical_fire]

Oh boy, how wrong you are.

> When I enjoy a meal

What food do you eat, and where do you eat it? How much does it cost? Culturally, where does it come from? Who works the kitchens? Who cleans the place?

> When I hang out with my family and friends, that isn't political.

Where do you hang out? Who else goes there? Who even are your friends?

> When I sit down to read a nice book with a cup of cocoa, that isn't political.

What book are you reading? Does the country you live produce the cocoa you are drinking? Do you know where it comes from?

Everything is political to an extent, even the reason we have this discussion in English when English is not my native language.

I am not saying you have to think about those things all the time; that would be exhausting. But ignoring it and pretend everything is separated into its own nice little happy vacuum is too naive.

[wolvesechoes]

But the moment you step into social realm it becomes political, as Mr. Aristotle said.

[fluoridation]

What do you mean? If I talk to a friend about stargazing that's political? If a group of people meet up to play a game of cards that's political?

[notrealyme123]

So I am very pedantic here, but yes it "can" be seen as political. You made the decision that your free time is more important than working and generating value.

I understand "everything is political" more in a sense that we as a society have the burden to shape our own rules, and saying "I only live in the society, but ignore the burden of making rules" is not really possible. In that case you actively decide to let someone else decide for you.

[fluoridation]

>You made the decision that your free time is more important than working and generating value.

How is that political? It's just a decision based on competing priorities. By this interpretation an animal's decision to either sleep or eat is also political.