[concerndc1tizen]

> the absolutely horrendous behaviour

They've ignored their application. That hardly qualifies as "horrendous".

Don't you believe in freedom?

It's fair to criticize them for monopolistic practices and creating a closed ecosystem. But if you want social goods (enforced through social norms), then the company should be publicly owned, not private.

[skywhopper]

Dude, your posts are filled with wild non-sequiturs. “Don’t you believe in freedom?” What?

[concerndc1tizen]

Dude,

I'd argue that the people in these comments are suffering from cognitive dissonance.

I see people presenting two beliefs:

1) enterprises should be free to offer the services they want, to who they want

2) consumers have the right to bully enterprises that don't offer what they want

And that's fine. People can have different politics.

But IIUC, these two beliefs are mutually exclusive.

Dictionary for the illiterate:

- Bully: when you use peer pressure, through public exposure, to induce negative consequences, as a political strategy, for furthering an agenda, and getting the victim to align with your interests.

[PapaPalpatine]

Nah, you’ve got a bad take. I don’t know why but you strike me as very anti-consumer.

Maybe horrendous is the wrong word, but having a corporation like Docker accepting applications for an open-source program, and then ghosting those applicants, isn’t acceptable or professional.