[Nextgrid]

When a company provides a service I expect them to continue doing so unless there's a case of "force majeure".

By all means support whatever causes you believe in, write a blog post, donate to the cause and (most importantly - which is what a lot of companies conveniently omit in the case of BLM) fix your own internal issues related to that cause.

But if you're going to degrade the service you promised to provide as some sort of "support" it is just bullshit virtue-signaling and it is actively hurting people including those that are part of the cause you're supporting.

This is an open-source project so there's no liability or warranty attached to it and we have no right to expect anything, but nevertheless I will definitely keep this in mind next time I have to pick a technology or library and will make sure to evaluate them not only on their technical merits but also on their propensity to such bullshit.

[0xy]

Exactly, they have no obligation to keep the docs and website accessible but are they really winning people over or bringing more awareness to this issue by preventing you from working?

It's obvious even they know their actions can't stand up to basic scrutiny, hence the immediate locking of the threads and even suspension of someone for daring to have the opinion that they shouldn't be doing it.

A dismissable banner for the cause that doesn't screw your users? Far less objectionable. It's baffling they went down that route, and it's emblematic of ideology clouding judgement.

[gremlinsinc]

Isn't webpack open source? I mean seriously, most devs I know aren't paying them a dime to use it...so stop complaining.

Use something else if you don't like it. Why does it matter how many people use webpack if their just an open source library providing a service to all devs for free?

[Nextgrid]

Webpack's website and marketing clearly tries to get us to use it, so although it's open source, the author (and contributors) from the project have an interest in people using their software.

In this case, they kind of pulled a bait and switch. They encouraged everyone to use it and then are letting them down by preventing them from using it efficiently on the basis of their own political beliefs.

It wouldn't be a problem if the project was advertised at the start as one person's work that comes with no guarantee of maintenance, support and if the guy suddenly goes crazy (whether because of political beliefs or otherwise) he might take down the project.

This one on the other hand looks serious, has good marketing, corporate sponsors, etc so while you can't ask for more, you at least kind of expect a serious project relied upon by thousands to not degrade existing stuff on the basis of political beliefs.

It's fine if you want to decide how your project is used (even for political reasons) but the proper way to do so is via the license so potential users know what they're in for before they start using the library and will (usually) refrain from using the library if the license does not allow them. This on the other hand is just a bait and switch and has tons of collateral damage to parties unrelated to, or even part of the BLM movement.

[0xy]

Why does free and open source status exempt someone from criticism? They have the right to take actions to interfere with people's work for political reasons and I have the right to criticise those decisions.

If "free" was an excuse out of poor behavior then surely Google and Facebook are exempt from criticism about data collection practices because they provide free services.