I anticipate someone making a big deal over nothing (like what triggered the whole code of conduct thing in the first place) will trigger one of the clauses and I or the project may be removed.

I anticipate that my account could be removed because of the actions of another contributor on a project, even if I had no involvement.

And a simply don't like the idea of it. They are selling a product, I want to buy the product, I don't want to be forced into their political philosophy for it.

Doesn't HN also have community guidelines and sometimes bans accounts that violate them? What's the difference?

HN is a forum and doesn't host anything I would care about losing, github is (was) a service I paid for. We discuss some contentious subjects on HN but github will be preventing contributions from people with wrongthink, which I don't care about.

You seem to be making some big assumptions about how these guidelines will be enforced. I got a very different sense from reading them.

I see no evidence they will delete your paid accounts because you think or express ideas that are merely contentious or unpopular.

Because I've seen it used in practice to vilify people with different beliefs, even when those beliefs are irrelevant to the work on the project.

Github and some recent hires they've made have a history of this.

>You seem to be making some big assumptions about how these guidelines will be enforced.

Oh please. We all know what kind of rancid and toxic people are spearheading these kinds of seemingly innocuous initiatives.

>I see no evidence they will delete your paid accounts because you think or express ideas that are merely contentious or unpopular.

Yeah. Because I am going to take the risk and potentially disrupt the workflow of three high-volume OSS projects I maintain. The time I assumed benevolence from Github is long over. Time to move my shit to a reliable service like Gitlab.

First they came for those I deemed offensive, and I did not speak out—

Because I did not deem myself offensive.

Then they came for me—

and there was no one left to speak for me.

You seem to have missed that eli was suggesting that you find Guthub's new policies...offensive.

The whole slicing of society into those deemed "offensive" and "acceptable" is a problem in and of itself. These policies are not a solution to them, it's catering to the problem. Niemoller's poem is an example of a divisive society being its own divide-and-conquer downfall.

Illegal behavior is illegal behavior, and if someone's behavior reaches that level, it should be taken up with the police against the perpetrator.

That seems like a good recipe for big government. If society can't trust that private institutions can avoid undesirable behavior, the only recourse is to make everything offensive illegal.

So, conversely, if we don't want to live in that world, it is appropriate and beneficial for private institutions to have some standards of acceptable behavior beyond mere legality.

"the only recourse is to make everything offensive illegal."

Alternatively, you could recognize that there is no right to not be offended.

There are ~7 billion other people out there, a solid majority of whom likely hold one or more views that you would find offensive (and who find one or more of your views offensive in turn).

I don't have a right to not be offended, but I may have an expectation that my source code platform not subject me to death threats from other users. Very few platforms would allow that.

I feel like this is a bit of a strawman. Github didn't say they would take action against anything that might offend anyone. They were pretty specific: no death threats, impersonating other users, etc.

If you're getting credible death threats, your recourse should be to the police. I'm trying to get my head around the idea that the appropriate entity to handle a death threat should be the hosting platform, and I'm failing.

If your platform connects you to arbitrary users worldwide, why wouldn't you expect to get garbage from any joe blow that happens upon your project and feels like saying something stupid? What are these other platforms outside the "very few" that somehow prevent that?

Besides, the best you can do is take action after the fact, not avoid being subjected to it, unless you cut yourself off or have weird vetting barriers between you and others, instead of an open communication platform.

Sure. I have no right to not be offended, I acknowledge that. I do have freedom of association, though, and I absolutely have the right not to associate with those that offend me, patronize businesses that welcome people who offend me, etc. In turn, people who find my views offensive are, of course, free not to associate with me, not to patronize businesses that welcome me, etc., and I steadfastly support their rights to do so!

Or you (and they) could just suck it up and stop demanding that everyone else behave in the way that you, personally, have decided is the "correct" way. If it doesn't actively "pick your pocket or break your leg", why not let it go?

How do you reconcile that with your upstream comment "If society can't trust that private institutions can avoid undesirable behavior, the only recourse is to make everything offensive illegal"?

That statement seems to imply that there is a mandate for 3rd parties to provide systems free of "undesirable behavior" from particular perspectives. Freedom of association means no, there isn't. Demanding private institutions provide freedom from offensiveness implies a perceived right not to be offended.

> eli was suggesting that you find Guthub's new policies...offensive.

eli's right, somebody should suggest adding "community guidelines" to this "offensive" blacklist and see how they resolve the paradox ;)