[switzer]

Increasingly people (esp. Millennials) consider ethics and values toward the top when deciding whether to purchase or use a product.

Why wouldn't they get together and shame a company when that company acts against their own moral values? Is the best possible solution to wait until the first Tuesday in November and hope for the best? I am sure many will also vote, call their elected officials, go to a protest. They'll also sign online petitions.

[ianai]

How about funding GitHub so it has the ability to be picky and choosey about its contracts? It’s really easy to voice concern. But github can’t fund itself on concern.

[staticassertion]

Github is owned by Microsoft, and was purchased for ~8 billion dollars.

[ianai]

I would strongly suggest people take their political concerns to the appropriate channels - write your representatives, be active in local town council meetings, stay informed on things that civic duty requires in the US (which is expensive, btw!), and vote. It might seem pointless, but all of those things do actually matter and have measurable impacts. Your representatives do actually listen to you if you vote for or against them - and they’re not gerrymandered into a lifetime appointment or some other political failure.

Drafting an online petition like this is not too far off from storming someone’s place of work and asking them to forego their main means of survival. I understand the outrage over human rights abuses, but this isn’t the forum.

[burkaman]

Are you saying that if you see somebody doing something wrong, asking them to stop is an "inappropriate channel"?

[ianai]

These aren’t the people doing something wrong. GitHub staff are probably treated like second class Microsoft employees all the way up to the top management at github. Any one of them voicing concern or outrage over Microsoft’s or GitHubs customer contract(s) could very well lead to their termination - even at the C-level of github or whatever is the top of their management chain.

[burkaman]

The letter is addressed to GitHub leadership. If Microsoft does not allow them to terminate a contract for widespread ethical and legal violations, they should quit.

The CEO of GitHub is not going to starve if he gets fired.

[013a]

If you see someone doing something which you believe to be wrong, but the law suggests is right, asking them to stop absolutely is an inappropriate channel.

But Companies are not People. So this is a dumb metaphor.

[staticassertion]

Writing your rep is not exclusive from contacting the organization.

Yes it is the forum. No it's absolutely nothing like telling someone to "forego their means of survival".

[ratsmack]

Microsoft purchased Github as a business decision for the purpose of turning a profit, not for the purpose of running a charity for political means.

[staticassertion]

So? My point is that this isn't some scrappy startup that's desperate for funds.

[ng7j5d9]

It would be interesting to see a dollar value next to each signature to indicate how much money GitHub stands to lose if the signatory were to take their business elsewhere.

[toomuchtodo]

To where? GitLab? [1] Microsoft is almost a trillion dollar company, GitLab is valued over a billion dollars, none of those signatories have enough revenue pull to matter.

Vote, protest [2], run for office [2]. No other actions provide for material change.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21274511 (Gitlab: don't discuss politics at work )

[2] https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_pdf_file/kyr_...

[3] https://runforsomething.net/

[iudqnolq]

That was the point of the comment you're responding to, I'm almost certain. They just said the same thing as you with less detail and more sarcasm.

[Eldt]

Considering its size and popularity, why exactly can GitHub not be picky and choosey?

[ng7j5d9]

How would that even work? I imagine GitHub has a pretty typical sales department right now, with salesfolks who try to make deals selling licenses to anyone willing to buy (with perhaps a handful of well-understood exceptions, like no sales to Iran or North Korea).

If they add an ethical vetting layer in there, ok, sure this one is an easy call. But people will continue to complain about other government agencies, foreign and domestic. People will complain about corporations who violate privacy or violate open source licenses or violate web standards. People will complain about non-profits who align with religious or political interests. People will complain about polluters and arms manufacturers or companies with ties to polluters or arms manufacturers.

Next thing you know, GitHub can't sell to the State Department or DOJ or Ford or GM or Maersk or Boeing or Shell or Aramco or Google or Facebook or McKinsey or so many others. And, I dunno, cutting those organizations out might be a great ethical move, but I'm not sure spending significant amounts of time investigating organizations and adjudicating the results and deciding NOT to make sales and dealing with the inevitable lawsuits is going to help GitHub make money.

[NullPrefix]

>but I'm not sure spending significant amounts of time investigating organizations and adjudicating the results and deciding

You don't need to do any of that, just wait and let the angry mob tell you who to not do business with.

[DuskStar]

If I know that the angry mob can cut off my usage of $company at any time, and that I'm in an industry that could plausibly be the target of an angry mob... I'm probably going to avoid using $company in the first place if there are any alternatives.

[NullPrefix]

Is there are reason why an angry mob could be ... angry at some company for ties with you? /s

[switzer]

Your assumption is that they are accepting the ICE contract despite their moral values. Maybe they do not see a conflict.