zlacker

I don't think OP meant it's lunacy because of any legal obligations private companies have to a federal organization, but rather due to the message it would send to current and future customers.

>>newman+(OP)
I think that message could be extremely productive, if refusing a government contract means not assisting questionable or immoral or even unsupported actions by _any_ agency.

>>newman+(OP)
> the message it would send to current and future customers

What exactly is that message? Maybe:

"If you make your money by separating families, putting kids in cages, and deporting asylum-seekers to places where they're in danger, then we don't want your money."

Do you see anything wrong with that message?

>>zentig+q5
True - I'm not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with it. It will send a good message to some people and a bad one to others.

To other government agencies, they may see github as a liability and end up leaving github altogether - I think that's the 'lunacy' part from a business perspective.

Corporations know there's always a chance that they'll get an internet pitchfork mob going after them for some (justified or unjustified) reason, and the last thing they want is for their cloud providers to pile on and further add to the fire.

>>Christ+Y6
The message I was implying was that github would no longer be seen as a viable option for government agencies.

>>newman+ab
Would that be such a problem? I use GitHub every day, but if they burn a bridge with the federal government it's no skin off my back.

>>moolco+ek
It wouldn't be a problem for me as an individual user either. Whether or not it's a problem for github's long term business model is another question.