Why even post that comment? What could you possibly mean?
That sentence is halfway down the page.
> What could you possibly mean?
That they are annoyed by the implication that a company's contracts with a governmental agency should have any bearing on whether one should consider using their product, I would have thought.
Annoying virtue signalling. Its as pleasant as someone running around your town scraming "LOOK AT ME IM STANDING FOR THE MORAL THINGS".
So should morals never enter any argument at all? I don't even agree with their stance on this particular topic, but this dismissive complaining about "virtue signalling" is considerably more egregious than listing reasons you don't like GitHub, which happens to include a moral argument.
Does not using Github change anything about ICE or the contract? Pretty sure not. So what does proclaiming it even do? Its nothing but self-service. Plus its red vs blue US politics, which is also not very pleasant to know about.
Like I mentioned, I don't agree with their position so I'm not going to defend it. I am only defending that it's a legitimate argument to make and that it can't just be dismissed as "annoying virtue signalling" and "screaming". You can do this with almost any argument if you try hard enough.
Should we vote with our wallets or shouldn't we? I'm confused.
Who is virtue signaling? The article or the flagged comment above?
That part of the article, not you.
Tu quoque.
Was i shoving it into everyones face unwarranted or was i answering remram's question?
Which is always a funny criticism of Github because I'd wager the people who are against ICE want the immigration system to be faster and more streamlined. I'm guessing custom software is a big part of managing encounters, asylum claims, court appearances, and of course deportations. Removing tools from that Agency would make that system worse, and therefore slower for the people the complainants seem to support (immigrants).