> If Github kicks me off and I can migrate easily to GitLab, have I been "deplatformed?"
Most definitely you have. Especially if the reason and process used by GH is likely to also be in use at GL.
> Is it morally correct to tie Github's hands from locking someone's account if they're using their git repo to host CP?
The relevant question is: is it constitutional. In the U.S. I believe the answer would be a solid "yes" as to a Federal statute that adds due process protections for this, no different than with the many many Federal and State laws and regulations that have created civil justice recourse for specific kinds of torts.
Morality is a different issue, and it's much too easy to flip your question on its head: is it moral to deplatform people if doing so damages their ability to earn a living?
Indeed, there's no need to frame this as a moral question, and it's arguably foolish to do so. It is and should be only a question of policy, politics, and constitutional law.
Regarding politics, mine is a political argument.
Regarding policy, I think it's a good idea to give "little people" some minimal protections from "big people". This is quite standard around the world. There are going to be policy details to debate, but writ large, this is a no-brainer.
I already address the very likely U.S. consitutionality of such a policy.
> We're getting there, but pulling it off is going to require a level of international cooperation that is rarely seen (and tends to give a few key players a lot of power; if we do this, I hope everyone's excited to be living under the US's notion of what morality looks like. Or Europe's. or China's).
No. This can be done in each country w/o internaltional cooperation. Granted, GH might pull out of France, say, if they don't like French laws, and so on. But U.S. business will not leave the U.S. over this.