zlacker

>>Xordev+(OP)
What a bummer that workers are publicly demanding this, and (presumably) seeking press attention on it.

I'm no fan of ICE – a very large percentage of my friends in the US are immigrants, and I generally want my country to be a welcoming one. ICE has certainly committed unethical and probably illegal acts (probably true of most federal agencies).

But to expect that a _federal agency_ will be denied service from a private entity, especially for essentially political reasons, is lunacy. It'd attract extreme negative attention from the rest of the government, and great fear from all paying customers that an internet mob could separate them from their code at any time.

We should absolutely be lobbying hard for changes to immigration law, the restrictions placed on ICE, and justice for their wrongdoings.

But I can't see how this helps improve immigration, and it certainly seems likely to cause a lot of negative consequences for GitHub. The employees are putting their employer in a "damned if they do, damned if they don't" situation.

EDIT: Just to clarify, I love the vision of a world where executives don't take actions their workers will protest. I think that in order to get there, the protests need to be reasonable, and I think this one isn't.

EDIT DISCLAIMER: I own a small amount of MSFT stock, which was not on my mind as I wrote this. I use GitHub's free service and have no other relationship I can think of with MSFT or GitHub.

>>rattra+Rh
> But to expect that a _federal agency_ will be denied service from a private entity, especially for essentially political reasons, is lunacy.

Um, think you've got this backwards. Private entities shouldn't have to take on anyone they don't want as customers (for whatever reason - do you have to justify who you do or don't want in your livingroom?), but publicly-funded institutions shouldn't be able to deny service on political grounds.

>>jobeir+Wj
GP didn't say they should be required to work with certain entities, only that it could jeopardize their stance with other, less controversial, entities.

>>marpst+Yk
> could jeopardize their stance with other, less controversial, entities

That would, of course, be a terrible and illegal abuse of power and essentially be the government policing political speech by private individuals. What an indictment of our government (and I don't mean a single person, but of the system itself) that this seems to be an uncontroversial statement. Because I agree, it's true, and it's the mark of terrible corruption.

>>elicas+Tm
Why would that be an abuse of power? The company has demonstrated that they are an unreliable government partner.

It's wholly different to not accept a contract in the first place, but to unilaterally end it for any reason, political or otherwise, is grounds to consider that service provider unreliable.

>>maland+lp
The contract was brought to an end - but did the company prove they were an unreliable partner or did the government? These calls to end government association aren't coming from no where - these government acts don't have majority support and it's gotten to the point where individuals are feeling the need to take on personal risk to ensure that the government is actually aligned with the citizenry.

>>munk-a+fs
> but did the company prove they were an unreliable partner or did the government?

The company.

You can support the employees without needing to twist reality. There is no question that ending service on non service related grounds makes a company unpredictability unreliable.