There is a qualitative difference between your examples and “blacklist”. Dark mode is about color. The color black is a color. Light mode is a color’s brightness. A widely used white background is a color. I don’t think any reasonable person objects to using terms about color to refer to colors. Black objects are black, red objects are red, etc.

But “blacklist” is entirely different. “Blacklist” uses a color term to describe the acceptability of something. It relates a value judgment to a color. I don’t know the history of the term, but I can easily see how it could be at least somewhat offensive.

None of this is to say that the term “blacklist” is problematic or should be discouraged, but your argument about it doesn’t hold water.

But it wouldn't ever cross my mind that black list is in any way related to people with dark skin color.

I don't know how others feel about it, for me connecting blacklist to those is quite racist.

What would you say about Black Friday?

Or white Christmas?

Black is also not a color, but the light not being reflected or emitted or let through. Hence the blacklist, it doesn't need to have judgement or historically loaded meaning.

I don’t see your point. Blue is not a color. It’s just a failure of red or green light to be let through.

I think there is an insidiousness to our language that can help to stabilise social discrimination, and most of us (white/black, male/female) are unaware of it.

Dark mode doesn't have negative connotations. A 'blacklist' is negative selection, as opposed to a 'whitelist' which is positive selection. I didn't even realise this until I came across, and, on reflection, I agree that this is a simple change in the right direction.

> Why would anyone be offended by blacklist?

Because of its etymology and history [1] for starters:

    n.

    also black-list, black list, “list of persons who have incurred suspicion,” 1610s, from black (adj.), here indicative of disgrace, censure, punishment (attested from 1590s, in black book) + list (n.). Specifically of employers’ list of workers considered troublesome (usually for union activity) is from 1888. As a verb, from 1718. Related: Blacklisted; blacklisting. [32]

"It is notable that the first recorded use of the term occurs at the time of mass enslavement and forced deportation of Africans to work in European-held colonies in the Americas."

> Or maybe dark mode

Dark mode is not used in a negative way like "blacklist" or "blackballed". And it accurately describes exactly what happens. Unlike "blacklist" which is an inaccurate idiom that relies on "black" being used to mean "bad". So no, I doubt "dark mode" would offend anyone.

> Why would anyone be offended

You could start by learning about microagressions [2]. This one covers "blacklist" specifically. And was presented by a black man if that helps you with credibility.

> This is getting ridiculous

I agree that systemic racism has gone on for far too long. Even conservative four star US generals are starting to say we need big changes in society.

> What is even more funny is the fact that those changes are proposed by white guys without any complains from the black folks.

You are wrong. Just as one small counter-example the presentation I already cited that discusses "blacklist" was made by a black man. Anecdotal, but my black friends have sent me many resources recently about how to become a better anti-racist. Our diversity initiative at my current client is being lead by a black employee. This is coming from oppressed black people who have been very visibly protesting injustice for over two weeks now for the most recent injustice. And for decades actually for anyone who has been listening.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6148600/

[2] https://www.appic.org/Portals/0/2018%20Conference/APPIC%2020...