That’s why I like posts like this from GitLab. They are clear what their priorities are so you can choose what to build with your hands.

Lots of people don’t care or don’t have time to evaluate the thousands or millions of customers using software. The evaluation never ends so even if you shut off the really bad one, there will be another.

Picking a legal limit let’s me focus on other things.

Isn’t that why whores are awesome? Who is going to frequent whores who won’t do stuff?

Also, what’s so bad about common whores? Whores are people too, I try not to judge people based on their chosen profession.

nobody is forcing you to do anything - You're free to find a new job at any time, unless you're indentured and you didn't tell anyone.

If you want to decide what to build go into business for yourself. If you're working for someone else you have the choice to either work for them and do what they want or quit.

A job is negotiated. You don't just accept or quit, you have a thousand different ways to come to a compromise with your employer about all sorts of things. It's baffling that so many people insist that the only feedback you can give your employer is quitting on the spot.

If you have an ethical or Maral issue with your work chances are you're doing the wrong work. You can of course try other Ave us but why do you think the business should compromise with a replaceable employee about his personal ethics?

That's not the way this works. He's free to find work that agrees with him or make his own work. But this "I want to work for you and decide what I work on" is a non starter for most people

Do you say the same things to a union when they try to address things? "No, you shouldn't have any say over the wages, or the firing policy, or whether we supply dictators"? Because unions negotiate on major issues with companies all the time.

If you think unions shouldn't negotiate, you're awful.

If you're okay with unions doing negotiation, why shouldn't a lone employee be able to negotiate a little bit? Why is a group of employees protesting not treated like an impromptu union?

"You're small compared to the company, so you should have exactly zero influence, instead of influence proportional to your contributions" is something a petty tyrant says.

unions are about working conditions, not deciding what you get to work on. You're under the direction of your employer and their organizational structure.

Unions have exactly zero with choosing to do the work you want to do while getting paid for someone else.

What jobs a company takes are part of working conditions. It's a valid thing to unions, or others, to negotiate over.

It's also pretty silly to say "Well if companies A, B, and C are hiring individually, the workers can all choose to work for A and B but not C. But if they all contract out to company X, then company X workers need to shut up and either work for all three or none. They can't even ask for things to change, they can only quit."

>What jobs a company takes are part of working conditions.

Again, you want to pick your own job, work for yourself or find the right employer.

Picking what you work on is not a reasonable expectation of any employee.

If nobody is doing C, start your own firm and get rich doing something no one is doing. Or perhaps you'll find out why no one is doing C. But forcing your employer to make bad business decisions under the guise of "working conditions" is a bridge too far.

The employer is never forced to make bad business decisions. They get to decide what is better for the company: taking that contract, or having all the protesting employees continue to work for them.

Doing it your way can actually cause much worse business decisions. If employees don't give any verbal feedback, only quitting, then the employer might take a hot-button contract and suddenly have multiple important workers quit all at once, losing far more money to replace them than the contract was worth.