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. Once a platform writes into its terms that an entire category “harms its reputation” and can be removed on that basis, the deciding factor stops being whether the code is legal, or functional, or useful, and becomes whether it aligns with a position the platform has taken. […] Every platform I can think of that took this approach became divisive the moment it started enforcing an ideology on its users, whatever that ideology happened to be, and however justified it looked at the time.

As acknowledged, Codeberg already doesn’t allow non-free software on it, that is itself pushing an ideology on its users. Extending this stance to other forms of software isn’t the big deal the author is making it out to be, software being free doesn’t absolve it of other moral implications.

We now even have people like Linus Torvalds making the fairly reasonable argument that an LLM is just a tool, and “clearly a useful one”

Appeal to authority. See this response.

How the hell do you make a living off interactive LLM slop (but with a school girl veneer!) and not know about Microsoft’s Tay? This was what was always going to happen.