To be honest I'm finding the endless repetition of this debate with different actors tiresome. But if you go and read the updated Gitlab document, it's easy to

To be honest I'm finding the endless repetition of this debate with different actors tiresome. But if you go and read the updated Gitlab document, it's easy to imagine how it would apply. > We firmly adhere to laws including trade compliance laws in countries where we do business, and welcome everyone abiding by those legal restrictions to be customers of GitLab. In some circumstances, we may opt to not work with particular organizations, on a case-by-case basis. Some reasons we may choose not to work with certain entities include, but are not limited to: > Engaging in illegal, unlawful behavior. > Making derogatory statements or threats toward our community. > Encouraging violence or discrimination against legally protected groups. So yes, I read that the Ugandan in your example advocating state murder of sexual minorities (what the current bill is) would be kicked off of Gitlab. I imagine they would have to be prominent enough to attract attention for their views or explicitly using Gitlab to advance that goal. I'm not sure why you expect people to be tolerant of that. Tolerance and a diversity of opinion is one thing, but I think you'd find many reasonable people would not extend that to cover violence, physical oppression, including the murder and elimination of classes of people, especially when the other side is just asking to exist. Same goes for the debate about hosting white supremacist, anti-semetic etc style content.