Yes! Also, I think that if you see 'master' for a git branch as a problem, there is something seriously wrong with you.
I’ve seen many Microsoft employees internally comment on how they don’t like the term “master branch”. I believe Microsoft’s renaming (this is my personal belief) was somewhat influenced by that internal push.
It may not mean much to you, but if it made some people feel more comfortable it’s a good change and has very few downsides.
I’ve spoken to multiple black Americans internally about this and they strongly associate “master” with slavery since members of their families where literally owned by people and had to call those people “master”.
Maybe it would matter to them less if the US had abolished slavery and made people of all color equal, but since we instead created racist policies that historically put non-whites at a disadvantage, I can see how they have a strong dislike for that word.
As a result, the entire world is changing to suit the desires of software engineers. (such as throwing massive sums of money at them)
So if your contributions are significant enough, your entire world will change to suit your preferences, whether the people in your world want to or not.
Attacks on "main" as being ineffectual or indications that "the real problem to solve is this over here so don't do this" doesn't diminish the value of iterative changes.
SCRUM focuses on learning by doing, and we may look back on main vs master as an experiment that had no effect. Or we may look back on branches with a master branch and feel differently about them. It is far too early to tell.