For the curious, the terms are here: https://man.sr.ht/terms.md#permissible-use
And even if you agree with the current set of restrictions, are you sure it will not be further expanded? I am not.
As for banning sex content on a paid service, you'll find it's more common than you think, since payment processors tend to drop customers who permit that sort of thing. Porn-enabled services have chargeback and failed-charge rates orders of magnitude higher than services which forbid them.
There are a ton of reason to fire a client. The two mentioned here are completely uncontroversial from a business standpoint.
For the same reason GitHub does? GitHub's AUP at https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/acceptable-use-polici... says:
"We do not allow content or activity on GitHub that: ... is sexually obscene or relates to sexual exploitation or abuse, including of minors".
Atlassian's AUP at https://www.atlassian.com/legal/acceptable-use-policy says "Inappropriate content" includes "Posting, uploading, sharing, submitting, or otherwise providing content that ... Is deceptive, fraudulent, illegal, obscene, defamatory, libelous, threatening, harmful to minors, pornographic (including child pornography, which we will remove and report to law enforcement, including the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children), indecent, harassing, hateful"?
GitLab's AUP at https://handbook.gitlab.com/handbook/legal/acceptable-use-po... says "unacceptable use of our services [which] applies to all users of all GitLab services including those on the Free, Premium, and Ultimate GitLab tiers" mean "you must not: Create, upload, submit, execute, transmit, or host anything that ... is vulgar, obscene, or pornographic, or gratuitously depicts or glorifies violence."
Now, there are differences between "explicit sexual content", "sexually obscene" and "pornographic", but if you are worried about possible further expansion, you shouldn't use any of these code hosting services.
On an account that you pay _Drew_ for. Do you also complain because someone renting you a garage doesn't want you running a strip club out of there?
However, Sourcehut is actually FOSS software.
IE: if you wanted to run one of their banned things, you could, just on your own hardware.
It's fine, in my opinion, to moderate your services if people have an escape hatch to get out of your service if you require them to move along.
This is a far cry from services such as GitHub, or even Gitlab (with their open core) as transferring to your own system is actually possible, though not without some relative pain.
I don't like crypto projects, so of course I am biased here. But if you like free speech then there's not many options and I think sr.ht is the best one (especially if you plan to self-host).
GitHub is well known to be controlling of speech and even championed some measures that affected the entire industry, and as others have mentioned they have restricted projects on a relatively arbitrary basis. Sometimes even due to geographic region.
I believe generally letting things happen as long as money comes without any regards to values behind the things might have been detrimental.
Also, I always have observed this. This reminds me. Not targeted at gray_-_wolf but a general observation which I just remembered...
There is a trend where people attack small actors/entities for smaller mistakes or opinions. But give free card to big players you cannot touch for atrocious BS. Because they are monopolies or filty rich.
Especially in tech, you don't talk shit about google or ms a lot publicly. Cos that makes you less hirable.
