(I don't mean to rehash the previously linked discussion) > Shut I man's mouth, and they'll only try harder to speak. Ignore them and they'll have to focus on

(I don't mean to rehash the previously linked discussion) > Shut I man's mouth, and they'll only try harder to speak. Ignore them and they'll have to focus on why people aren't paying attention. This article is titled "trolls" but is about gender-based harassment. If what you said was true, why did they need to hire an outside firm to deal with it? I much prefer a hands-off approach, but the tech community hasn't had the best record of self-policing and being inclusive. And proactive methods, like ones mentioned in the article, have proven to address these issues. (admittedly, I think P.C. has gone a bit far at time and alienated and stifled the community) GitHub is a private company. If "free-market dynamics" tries to turn GitHub into a political discussion platform, that might not be the kind of service GitHub wants to provide. I think it's also fair for you to criticize that you feel this is overreaching since you're a participant in their community. Even if market dynamics shoo bad apples away you still have a dead repo with unwelcoming content hosted indefinitely. Every repo on GitHub is associated with their brand. Creating a repo is easy, naming things is hard, and individuals often create things with blasphemous or offensive names just for fun. While I don't want to be stifling, I have seen people talk about concern for new or interesting tools having blasphemous names that would cause trouble if they tried to use at their company. Personally, I don't care, but I'm glad they care about how they're perceived and don't want to see poor or negligent stewardship (like happened to sourceforge and google code).