Companies do not magically become exempt from needing to behave ethically just because they're participants in the economy. If, for example, some government is

Companies do not magically become exempt from needing to behave ethically just because they're participants in the economy. If, for example, some government is committing human rights violations, companies have an ethical obligation not to enable it, even if the services they offer aren't under specific legal sanctions. This idea of a company just doing business with no social or ethical responsibility to anyone other than stockholders is an ancap fantasy. And Gitlab isn't some unconcerned third party passing judgment on morality for the rest of us. We're not talking about your local Dairy Queen franchise gratuitously taking a position on Brexit for no reason. The only power Gitlab has is to withhold their own service. If you're going to argue that their service is so important for society to function that withholding that service constitutes being an "arbiter of morality for society," to the extent that's even true it only increases their responsibility to make sure its products aren't used for evil. A Dairy Queen franchisee doesn't have much power so they don't have much responsibility, but a Google or an IBM has enormous power to make a difference and therefore they have enormous responsibility. I fundamentally don't agree that corporations should be given carte blanche to use any legal options to maximize profit with no regard to the consequences. The political process and legislation/regulation is probably a better way to address companies behaving unethically, but given that in many cases our political process has failed to put those laws in place we need to hold corporations accountable ourselves.