[p-e-w]

> Should hackernews also mention that allowed content is dependent on its moderators with vaguely defined ideologies?

Absolutely. And it would be even better if the moderators each wrote a short summary that’s an honest attempt to describe what their individual ideologies are.

I respect institutions that clearly state their biases much more than those that pretend they have none.

[kurante]

Fair enough! But surely you would allow them to update their summary on what their ideologies are, right? People change, after all. And people should know when those ideologies change too.

We should also make sure people read all the blurbs before they join a website. Maybe we should call it the Terms of Service? ;)

Despite most websites having nothing but legalese in there, Codeberg's is pretty short and human readable by comparison. I know most people have been desensitized to it, but I haven't heard of any better way of coveying them at an institutional level.

[p-e-w]

The problem isn’t about ToS or other kinds of rules, it’s about what drives them.

When I join a community, I would like to be able to predict whether tomorrow, they might ban Chinese projects, or projects written in Lisp, or projects that only run on Windows.

This doesn’t follow from the ToS, it follows from what the platform’s values are. Codeberg does publicly state its claimed values, but they don’t imply these new bans.

[inigyou]

There was a vote at the annual general meeting where all members could attend and vote.