Hacker News Reader

Comment by whatisweb3 | Hacker News Reader

GitHub has the right to do whatever it wants, and it makes sense they would take this action to avoid getting into legal concerns.

But it is deeply concerning. Whether or not you like crypto, you should not be supporting this if you are a researcher, academic, technologist, cryptographer, or privacy advocate. The code for Tornado Cash is a series of cryptographic and mathematical functions that can be repurposed for a variety of applications unrelated to privatizing user wallets.

Having it open source and accessible is a net benefit for the entire world.

EDIT: A comparison would be that US decides to sanction the open Matrix protocol and any developer that has contributed to it, as it can facilitate end-to-end encrypted terrorist communication.

View on HN

Absolutely. Just because it is legal doesn't mean that it is not absolutely morally deplorable. Which in this case - it obviously is.

It’s morally deplorable to demand office workers risk jail time just because you want a free service.

If you want to run git for free, run it on your own computer.

I am not demanding anything. I am just saying they have clearly done the wrong thing.

There is no moral obligation for someone to provide web services for free for any reason.

There’s definitely no moral obligation for someone to do the same at risk of prison time.

They do have a moral obligation to follow the laws of the country they operate in, though.

```Record or rewind any change to your code to keep you and your team in sync. Host it all for free with unlimited public and private repositories.``` - https://github.com/

Once again, just because they were legally obliged to do it it doesn't mean the action is not immoral. Oh god, will I do it... Okay, I think I must, because my point is not going through I see. Think of Nazi Germany. It was illegal to try to save jews. Was it moral not to do it?

Godwin’s Law strikes again. Free git repository hosting is not comparable to the holocaust.

If you want some quotes from their website, here’s another:

> GitHub has the right to suspend or terminate your access to all or any part of the Website at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice, effective immediately. GitHub reserves the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason at any time.

> This Agreement supersedes any proposal or prior agreement oral or written

> Free git repository hosting is not comparable to the holocaust.

Where did I compare it to the holocaust?! I was trying to pinpoint that your previous statement: "They do have a moral obligation to follow the laws of the country they operate in, though." is clearly invalid.

It is possible to have two competing and contradictory moral obligations, that does not mean that either moral obligation ceases to exist. I think "save lives if possible" out weighs "follow the law", but that doesn't mean that the moral obligation to abide by the law goes away. I do think it is often moral to break the law, but it has to be in service to a greater morality.

Your are equating the morality of opposing the Holocaust with the morality of opposing sanctions in that you assert that they both out weigh the moral obligation to follow the law.

> They do have a moral obligation to follow the laws of the country they operate in, though

Why?

Without diving too deep into political philosophy, government power is derived from the consent of the governed. To respect the law of a willfully elected government is to respect the wishes of the people.

Of course morality is a complicated topic with many factors.

But for Pete’s sake, we’re talking about a free account on a website, not a war crime.

Are you suggesting the right thing would have been to refuse and risk going to jail?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com