this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2026
457 points (98.3% liked)
Technology
87417 readers
3868 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
A repo host that can remove your repo at any moment because someone can accuse your code of being “vibe coded” is not a repo host I’d trust. It shouldn’t matter how good, bad, or A.I. written your code is. It’s a hosting platform.
The main argument is due to copyright issues of LLM generated code. Github will happily remove repos which violated copyright laws or IP laws. It makes sense that Codeberg doesn’t want to host code which may be violating copyright law.
Then why not say it's not allowed to upload code you don't have copyright to? This would make sense, nobody would question it and it would generally also cover AI-generated code.
Mentioning vibe coding just upgraded it into a social and moral topic, while the sole fact that AI generated code is no issue at all, just that there is not a general concensus in the world who holds the copyright to that code.
It's kinda like blanked banning cooking, because you can't cook without a knife, and knife can be used as a weapon.
It's more like banning cooking anything with mushrooms in it, because we haven't sorted out which mushrooms are poisonous or not. You could make it more accurate by instead banning cooking with anything poisonous, but of course then lots of people will keep cooking with their mushrooms, naively thinking they are not poisonous and therefore allowed.
It's just a different analogy but the point is the same, why not ban poisonous ingredients? It implies poisonous mushrooms also, but doesn't criminalize cooking.
The point is that cooking was never criminalised in my analogy, only cooking with mushrooms. I also already wrote why that might be preferable to making the ban on poisonous ingredients