Thought it relevant to this community and posted it to have a discussion on this topic. I am not the author of this blog nor do I endorse the authors views.
Before leaving an upvote or a downvote (a function that IMO should be reserved to posts/comments that are offtopic, made in bad faith or low quality), please first read the blog post.
TL;DR: Author of the blog is criticising Codeberg outright banning LLM and crypto projects. Author thinks this approach is not nuanced enough and introduces censorship to the platform. Author therefore decided to selfhost his projects that the author previously had migrated to Codeberg.
A free-to-use platform has the right and freedom to define the criteria for its (continued) use. Underneath it all, someone does work on (and pay for) the infrastructure and maintenance, I don’t see why they suddenly have 0 say in who they work for just because the enrollment is free.
Every free platform does this.
Otherwise, llmberg.org and coinberg.org are still available as I’m writing this.
If you had read the blog post, you would know that the author is criticising the communication and the methods Codeberg took to combat the harms of slopware, not the general structure or the power that Codeberg holds over its platform.
I actually read the article, and the sense of entitlement becomes pretty annoying towards the end. At least the conclusion is correct, I’ll give him that.
But I stand by what I said: Codeberg has every right to kick projects off their platform, and they don’t need to give their users a say in it.
I read the blog post and the author seems weirdly defensive about wanting to be a lone Wolf and disagreeing with the specifics of codeberg’s decisions on what to disallow, more than anything else.