The part that bothers me isn’t the specific ban on LLM projects, or the specific ban on cryptocurrency projects. It’s that a hub built around “free software” is now telling its users which kinds of software are deemed good and which are not, and that is closer to censorship than it might seem.
What a stupid, ignorant, harmful take. I shouldn’t need to explain how or why theft, plagiarism, poor code quality, or uncountable other factors contribute to a broadly objective standard of “good” and “not good.” In fact, it is more “acceptable” versus “dangerous.”
Okay, I hear that you think you shouldn’t have to explain. But you do have to explain. And you also have to justify using what to me without that justification sounds like abusive language aimed at a present member, intended to browbeat someone merely for having a different opinion.
Since this article is being cross-posted, I will reiterate my original response.
What a stupid, ignorant, harmful take. I shouldn’t need to explain how or why theft, plagiarism, poor code quality, or uncountable other factors contribute to a broadly objective standard of “good” and “not good.” In fact, it is more “acceptable” versus “dangerous.”
The false equivalence here is intolerable.
Okay, I hear that you think you shouldn’t have to explain. But you do have to explain. And you also have to justify using what to me without that justification sounds like abusive language aimed at a present member, intended to browbeat someone merely for having a different opinion.
If it’s legitimate code, do you think its topic alone is enough reason to refuse hosting it? What if the topic is one you agree with?