zlacker

You touch on an interesting point on the continuing amassing of power around corporations. ICE was created by people who were voted on by the populace. A corporation refusing to work with a legal entity really shows just how much power corporations now have.

Github refuses to work with ICE today and hypothetically tomorrow will only host code for Democrats? I'm certainly no fan of ICE, but I'm also not sure I like ceding even more control to corporations. Perhaps I'm naive in thinking we can still fix the US through voting.

>>matwoo+(OP)
>Github refuses to work with ICE today and hypothetically tomorrow will only host code for Democrats?

I don't believe that political organisations are considered a protected class so yes, GitHub could decide to only host code for Democrats.

Your point seems to be "This is a slippery slope. Where do we draw the line?"

I think it is entirely reasonable that there _should_ be a line.

To take your example to the disturbing extreme, consider this: "Github refuses to work with ICE today and hypothetically tomorrow will refuse to build crematoria in extermination camps?"

There must be a line _somewhere_. Finding the best place to draw that line is a major challenge that requires significant and likely fraught discussion but it is something that must be done.

>>matwoo+(OP)
> hypothetically tomorrow will only host code for Democrats

I can imagine a more disturbing (possible) hypothetical: the activists are successful, and Github terminates it's ICE contract. Nobody else will host their code. ICE still has source code that needs to be hosted, so they hire more developers to maintain their own internal source-code repository. Those developers are subsequently blackballed from future employment opportunities due to their past association with ICE.

>>comman+Dv
That sounds perfectly reasonable. The goal of hampering ICE is achieved, and collateral damage while inevitable is minimal.

>>matwoo+(OP)
> ICE was created by people who were voted on by the populace.

This is a highly debatable opinion.

> A corporation refusing to work with a legal entity really shows just how much power corporations now have.

Not really, everyone has always had a choice. It's just sometimes a choice that they cannot refuse. And, as far as choosing to only host "democrat" code, where would we like that line? At Chinese code? How about NK? What about environmental activists that US oil interests don't like? The scope of this argument is larger and pertains to how we would like to structure our means of production and about what actors we care to dis-incentivize and why. Since ICE systematically abuses its power over vulnerable people, I'd say "stop it by any means necessary, save further harm." If the corporation is a spear, then throw it; if the law is a sword, swing it. If people are being egregiously harmed in it, it is the duty of the people to end it.