Software is just ones and zeroes. The only thing it's "meant" to do is execute on a computer. If you mean "collaborative open source software projects", the id

Software is just ones and zeroes. The only thing it's "meant" to do is execute on a computer. If you mean "collaborative open source software projects", the idea of "meritocracy" is an explicitly political idea; it's not innate. Open Source is also an explicitly political idea. Competing political ideas in software development include 'not invented here syndrome' which is based on the tribal affiliation of the contributor. If I don't share the political principles of open source (e.g. copying closed code in contravention of the license), I'm going to have a hard time contributing to an open source project. If I don't share the political ideas of a commercial closed-source project (e.g. copying open code in contravention of the license) then I'm going to have a hard time contributing to a closed commercial project. And I wasn't making an assertion about using libraries published by the Daily Mail so much as posing a question. I can't fully quantify the effect of any action I make, everything is interrelated. I'm perfectly happy to admit that it was a matter of personal pride that I didn't want to be associated with the Daily Mail in any way because I don't like what they stand for. Identity politics. I'm only human. I wouldn't (I hope) force anyone else not to use the Daily Mail library. And I wouldn't try to force someone out of a software project because they had different politics. Maybe that broadens out to the original topic: the reason some people don't seem to like CoCs (and I'm undecided) is because they can be used to enforce tribalism. We've seen examples of people being attacked in software projects because they have contrary political views to some other people. One of the arguments here seems to be whether or not that is driven by tribal instinct, and whether CoCs provide a vector for that.