I see Gadget Review pop up more and more and I've started liking their content less and less. The editorial guidelines say they use AI right on the page you linked. And if I scroll down and click on a random article , it's AI generated and based on a tweet by CSAM poster Dom Lucre. It's not the first article I've seen that's basically repeating a tweet from some extreme looking Twitter account either.
And Mozilla and Palantir and the Linux Foundation.
This entire letter is rancid. "Governments, invest in us!"
Policymakers have an important opportunity to act. This includes expanding access to compute for startups and researchers, investing in shared training assets (datasets, tools, evaluation frameworks)...
Mandatory "distillation is good when we do it but evil when foreigners do it". Good job Mozilla, my favorite "internet is for everyone" company, sinking into nationalism!
Distillation... reflects a long tradition of learning from, building upon, and improving existing technologies, a tradition that has helped drive innovation since the rise of the open-source software movement. By contrast, unlawful efforts to extract value from closed models raise legitimate concerns .
Full list:
American Innovators Network(AstroTurf front for Andreessen Horowitz)
Ironically, if you visit this site, you'll be hit with a "please disable JavaScript" message at the top. Seems the author understands "their platform, their rules".
They also make some okay points and concessions, before making a terrible suggestion for what Codeberg should do. Apparently they think Codeberg needs to be more soapbox-y, not less.
I think Codeberg made a misstep, but this suggestion is somehow worse.
Jack Dorsey has recently gone full Crypto Bro and this is one of his latest projects. This one is designed to connect people based on their physical location (it's very strange, you can enter groups based on an arbitrary grid that basically overlays a world map) and on its face this seems like a double edged sword at best.
Edit: I see Gadget Review pop up more and more and I've started liking their content less and less. The editorial guidelines say they use AI right on the page you linked. And if I scroll down and click on a random article , it's AI generated and based on a tweet by CSAM poster Dom Lucre. It's not the first article I've seen that's basically repeating a tweet from some extreme looking Twitter account either.
Cryptocurrencies are generally open protocols, usable by anyone. Both the rich and powerful and the poor and powerless.
But its most popular uses are to defraud the poor and to allow the rich to speculate.
I agree with your earlier, more honest comment, that said that cryptocurrency is not inherently bad and Codeberg needs to clarify, but this new claim that it's going after the "unpopular" is plain wrong.
The United States federal government is the largest known state holder of bitcoin in the world, estimated to hold about 328,372 BTC, as of February 2026.
Cryptocurrency has largely been adopted by the rich and powerful to keep speculating while avoiding regulations and taxes. Look no further than how Donald Trump and his family use it to enrich themselves.
Acting as if cryptocurrency is maligned because it's "unpopular" is like acting that Donald Trump is a victim because he's unpopular.
why would you think I know more than what I’m seeing here and in the linked pages
Because 4 minutes earlier, you commented acknowledging their intent was to have a rule against harmful projects, not "unpopular" ones. I just explained this.
That's not correct, and you should know better than to claim this. 4 minutes before making this comment, you acknowledged it was about harmful products, not unpopular ones.
It’s still rather poorly worded, though. The ban is: “Content that harms the reputation of Codeberg, such as cryptocurrency related projects”
And AI is wildly popular. Competitor Microsoft has sunk billions into it.
There are very few (sub-$1500) point-and-shoot digital cameras of decent quality to even compare any more. The ones that are left are targeted at vloggers, and despite how neat phone camera technology is (and it is incredible), it's often astonishing how good a compact camera with a modern sensor and decent zoom has gotten.
It's a shame the market got hollowed out by phones, because over the past few years, phones have just gotten more hallucinatory with their output images in an attempt to "fix" the photos they're talking, and hardware innovation has stalled out. Because of course it has. They don't have the space of a dedicated camera.
IMO it is a disservice to Sony that the author mentions their $1500 camera but not the very similar ZV-1 model that's only $800.
This is major and unfortunate. And worst of all, not their fault, and unlike companies like Apple, I believe them when they say they're nearly to the point where it wouldn't be possible to keep afloat.
I see Gadget Review pop up more and more and I've started liking their content less and less. The editorial guidelines say they use AI right on the page you linked. And if I scroll down and click on a random article , it's AI generated and based on a tweet by CSAM poster Dom Lucre. It's not the first article I've seen that's basically repeating a tweet from some extreme looking Twitter account either.