> Yes. If IBM built something that helped the government during the Obama administration, would you consider it "political" too?

Helping the government in general != helping one specific government agency with a narrow mission. Maybe you could provide an example of a government program/agency whose mission you consider somehow "opposite" to ICE.

But sure. Helping any entity accomplish a politically controversial activity is a political act.

> IBM was also leaving out politics when they built custom tabulating machines to help Nazi Germany's logistics.

Yes. If IBM built something that helped the government during the Obama administration, would you consider it "political" too?

For my part - yes. I think it's fine for companies to be political. I am totally supportive of this, and I don't think it's possible for a large company to be apolitical in a meaningful sense. (Many of the largest internet companies are founded on the belief that uncensored sharing of information is a good thing, which is definitely a political stance.)

I think we should admit that, and then say, it's okay for GitHub employees to say "My employer's politics don't agree with mine, so I'm not going to work for them anymore," and for GitHub users to say analogous things. My point is that it's deliberately deceptive for GitHub to hide behind the claim of being apolitical.

I don't think it's meant to be deceptive. When companies say they're being apolitical, they don't normally mean they're attempting some careful calibration where nothing they do is relevant to any political cause. They just mean they don't want to participate in political battles.