No. This leads to the commercialization/capitalization of accounts and “karma farming” in general. Increases numbers of bots, decreases content quality. It will become yet another Reddit. If Lemmy implements that I will be out of here.
Hope you devs can see the issues with it @nutomic@lemmy.ml and not become liberals. Stop the gamification!
No. I think people might just not have anything better going on in their lifes, do not know about any other topic, [include external factors], so that is most what they have to talk about. I dislike it as well. If they work for capitalists as most people do, talking about work for socializing with friends is worse yet (alienation and all that). Also, I think it is pitiful when people/workers identify with whatever the capitalist company/organization they work for (capitalist company which explores the workers).
Fixing issues, adding features, hard forking when I disagree on some fundamental aspects including both technical and social/governance, collaboration…
You question should be towards the free software community in general. Specifically to Linux, I like learning from its documentation and development process, compiling custom kernels, looking at the source…
An issue I see is that public instances are not properly announced/listed.
and for sourcehut, i could not find anything.
He generating a job for himself is not what I criticize. I criticize promoting an undemocratic service for something so crucial that needs to be democratic which includes free service by default (otherwise you do not stand a chance against moving people out of GitHub and the like). I would never recommend to people in general a commercial and thus undemocratic service for key development (vcs).
And did it occur to you it is a “one guy” show probably because he wants it that way? That is prone to authoritarianism, and prone that sourcehut maintainer to make it a very profitable business just like GitLab and now Gitea unless founding a proper non-profit organization? A blog post about not being driven by profit is not enough; make it a proper non-profit registered organization.
In any case OP explicitly asked for a free service (which sourcehut in the future won’t be).
https://codeberg.org which is a non-profit organization. It is free of charge, so it is democratic enabling people to use its services. You can even join the foundation https://join.codeberg.org/
- https://upload.disroot.org/r/W2WXuM9u#DulRcwaSUqhfqmAl7Uh6pUHVzKRjxCkfF+aWYcVqqCA=
- https://opencorporates.com/companies/de/F1103R_VR36929
BUT it uses Gitea, which registered two for-profit companies in Hong Kong… Codeberg is soft forking it because the now Gitea shareholders / trademark owners made it clear they want to maximize profits.
- https://gitea-open-letter.coding.social/
- https://gitea-open-letter.coding.social/updates/
- https://codeberg.org/SocialCoding/gitea-open-letter/issues/19
If you care about promoting a democratic platform for everyone, do not use sourcehut. They will charge later on; their current free model enables both gathering users (potential clients) and making you a free tester/qa for them. I believe “financial aid” is undemocratic; free should be default. If anything, it should just require commercial, for-profit entities to pay; because then by default there is no processual need for “financial aid”. We should not trust any for-profit, commercial organization anyway for such important services/platforms (version control system hosting is crucial).
From the beta onwards, unpaid accounts will be limited to read-only access to their own projects. Affected users will be emailed at least 60 days in advance of the transition. Users who host their own instance of Sourcehut, on their own servers, will be unaffected by this. Additionally, financial aid will be provided to those who cannot pay; no one is going to be priced out.
built from traditional distribution packages, but deployed via images.
Hell no. https://nixos.org and https://guix.gnu.org ftw
in the most free license there is (GNU AGPL version 3) as GNU/FSF defines, declining trademark usage is allowed as an additional term; it still is free software.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms:
…
e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some trade names, trademarks, or service marks; or
Indeed, that is what CPC calls historical nihilism. China is doing very well economically, so they are doing something right. Too bad on socio-economic inequality and illegal profits like tax evasion though; they seem to be doing something about it… https://www.msn.com/en-xl/money/other/china-e2-80-99s-xi-jinping-sends-e2-80-98warning-signal-e2-80-99-to-the-wealthy-as-he-opens-new-front-in-e2-80-98common-prosperity-e2-80-99-push/ar-AA139N4Z
Let’s see if it will not make capitalists get very angry.
But why not inform people about US involement then without further censorship? Latin American countries that have gone trough military dictatorships do not censor their crimes including torture and murder, and also publish information on US involvement on it.
So it seems you agree China/CPC censors historical events.
Whatever the company’s nationality, they will just fuck up the environment, local community (illness, children born with defects, …), and their subsistence when governement just lets those industries do whatever they want. Chinese business worldwide are no different than American/western; it is worth noticing that Chinese in some countries owns a great amount of industries, undermining the national businesses. This is just a modern form of colonization.