GitHub's effective monopoly is the core problem, not its moderation policy. Getting banned from GitGud.io, an open-access GitLab instance won't meaningfully aff

GitHub's effective monopoly is the core problem, not its moderation policy. Getting banned from GitGud.io, an open-access GitLab instance won't meaningfully affect a person's ability to work in software development, but a ban from GitHub significantly limits one's options. The same goes for centralized social media. Moderation on Twitter and Youtube has been politically important recently not because there aren't other options for microblogging or video hosting with adequate functionality, but because they have the vast majority of the audience for that kind of content. I'm hoping people are starting to realize these monopolies are harmful and moving to more diversified options. > why is it their place to moderate things from a social perspective? The purpose of moderation is to prevent people from abandoning the platform because it's full of behavior or content they deem unacceptable. Most services don't want to take positions on social issues, but if discussions in open source projects on GitHub are full of slurs, threats, suggestions that people should kill themselves, and the like, people will stop using it.