story
There is a major logical flaw here. When you provide a service without discrimination except so much as required by law, you are in no way connected to the usage of your product. You facilitate the usage as a business - end of story. It's only when you begin to selectively censor or target projects for subjective reasons of your choosing, that you end up tying yourself to the content of consumers. Because of your own actions, you now implicitly advocate or support everything which you don't discriminate against.
Imagine for instance a pizza delivery company started to discriminate against who they delivered to. This would be perfectly legal, so long as the discrimination was not based on the handful of protected classes. And so they generally decided to stop delivering to people they considered subjectively bad. Well now they have a huge problem - because anytime they delivered to somebody, who somebody else though was bad, it'd be an implicit endorsement of them.
This is why entering into the discrimination game to begin with is a fool's errand, even if you think things such as censorship are desirable. Keep in mind we're still in the baby steps of the internet and 'access theory'. For thousands of years we thought it was a good idea for reading and writing to be reserved exclusively for the elite of society - clergy and a handful of aristocracy. YouTube, by contrast, did not even exist a mere 15 years ago. I imagine the future will look back on the times of today with some degree of bemusement. Frankly it's quite hard to not be bemused while living through this mess!
Unlike, say, the phone network, it doesn't actually cost you anything more to throw up a git repository on any number of free-speech-supporting websites, including many that offer substantially the same features as GitHub. You can still reach the same people without dragging your own cable half way across the planet - you just don't get to steal someone else's reputation in order to make it easier to do so.
The other side of things is that many websites actually want (algorithmic) editorial control over what their users wind up seeing because that's more profitable for them, and if they want that, they're definitely in a position where choosing to promote content is a direct reflection on the company even by your standards. GitHub is, as far as I'm aware, not one of these companies though.
- You don't have a god-given right to take advantage of a company's food to make you more healthy[...]
This is basically the argument you're making. I agree with the premise: We don't have a right to take advantage of a company or forcing them to host anything, but we can also evaluate their quality and their level of professionalism, and choose one company or the other based on that. This thread is just pointing out that GitHub is not trustworthy and they lack professionalism when it comes to deciding what can be accepted or not in their platform.
