it isn’t false as Codeberg doesn’t give it’s users voting powers

ok, in the narrow literal sense of "users can't automatically vote just by signing up" that is true. but it's misleading by omitting the important fact that any user can participate in governance if they desire to do so (which is very different from saying "users have NO way to weigh in").

How would a user supposed to have known to register as an active member to vote on a topic impacting them that wasn’t covered by the TOS beforehand?

if sb is interested in taking part on smth, it's fair to expect them to look up how to do that. that's not true only of codeberg, but co-ops, nonprofits, associations, ur local gov and the laws they're passing...

plus, the author is an OSS contributor, critical of corporate ownership. they explored github alternatives with that in mind, AND decided on codeberg. it'd make even more sense that they would look up how governance works, since that was part of why they left github. that is not to say "the author should've known better", but it makes it less of a "how would a user supposed to have known..." kind of case here.

and, finally, even if you're not interested, codeberg encourages participation right through its landing page, for whoever wants to read, above the fold and in 18px font. can't say they're not trying at all lol

Can you really confidently claim that everything was communicated perfectly regarding this ban?

no communication is perfect, and the author's feedback on the transparency of the ToS change continues to be valid, even despite all points above. just there was no need to escalate constructive feedback and personal lack of awareness into unfair and biased criticism of the entire platform - bit of an attitude there, i get people saying 'just leave'.