Close, but not quite. They are political questions. And crucially, political questions to which we already know the answer in the current sociopolitical environment: it displaces workers, because the balance of power is very heavily tilted towards the wealthy.

This is precisely why people oppose AI.

Codeberg is run by people. People who can make contextual judgments. They're even pretty explicit about it in their blogpost; that it's not going to be a search-and-destroy process, and that they're generally communicative.

In that situation, anyone who is complaining that the rules are "too vague" is probably just trying to figure out exactly how close they can get to violating the rules without getting kicked, and that's precisely the kind of people who would not be welcome on a community service like Codeberg. If you actually follow the spirit and intention of the rule, it would never even get to a point of ambiguity.

Could this be the one exceptional case where people agree with the direction of policymaking? Sure. Is that likely? No, not really.

And yet they are not. So what does that tell you?

Like spam, this kind of mass-scraping only works because the cost of sending/requesting is virtually zero. Any cost is going to be a massive increase compared to 'virtually zero', at the kind of scale they operate at, even if it would be small to a normal user.

Yes, it is.

> and way bigger problem then some AI companies that ignore robot.txt.

No, it absolutely is not. I think you underestimate just how hard these AI companies hammer services - it is bringing down systems that have weathered significant past traffic spikes with no issues, and the traffic volumes are at the level where literally any other kind of company would've been banned by their upstream for "carrying out DDoS attacks" months ago.

This doesn't really make any sense. Most people are not "large Git hosters" (and so for them there is no functional difference between "outsourcing Git hosting" and "outsourcing to a Grace hoster that is outsourcing file handling", and even for those who are large Git hosters, they're still going to need a team of sysadm- sorry, "cloud experts" to manage the AWS/Azure/whatever infrastructure.

What actual material benefit is being provided here? It seems to me like it just trades "administrating a standard hosting environment" in for "administrating a vendor-locked hosting environment".

You're not going to understand complex governance issues and their history from a read of a single article or letter. Consequently, you probably should refrain from drawing conclusions that way.

(Signed, someone who absolutely does not want military contractors in their community, but feels that a license is the wrong place to enforce that.)