Platforms which consider themselves moral stewards tend to keep making moral decisions, and it's almost inevitable that they'll eventually make one that you heavily disagree with.

There are two problems with that:

• Moral decision doesn't have to be inaccessible or exclusive in other ways
• Unfortunately so called "moral" decisions are often just political and not based on real science or solid proofs.

First is simple: resources are limited and for developers of Forgejo it could not only be out of scope, but even out of their awareness.
Example of the second option is LLM usage rules some project introduce. There are a lot of controversy in this matter and despite some people claiming that it's "rather obvious that %insert_their_opinion_here%", every argument they'll give you (if they bother to) most likely will have opposing arguments. And they won't be interested in a productive discussion. They'll most likely just want to shove the thing they don't like under the rug and feel good about it.

And if this thread would be a bit more popular, I'd be ready to bet on "there's no moral AI usage" comment appearing under my comment which would've been a good proof of what I'm talking about.

P.S. A better example of trying to think about the issue is SFC recommendations:
sfconservancy.org/llm-gen-ai/l…
Although I think that they leaned a bit more into the "anti-AI" movement, they shown consideration for both sides and tried to achieve something productive and inclusive. This deserves respect.

@menelion @pvagner