This looks like a terrible but honest mistake. The repo is already back, after something like an hour and a half. The . io website is not back yet, but I suspect that takes a moment to get back running.
It doesn’t matter if it’s an honest mistake, this sort of action alongside the canned HR response is completely unacceptable. Honest mistakes don’t exempt your actions from being disgusting.
An action that is an honest mistake isn't disgusting; it is simply a mistake. We all make mistakes. Anyone who makes no mistakes is not doing anything useful.
What matters is doing the right thing after the mistake is discovered. I agree that the canned HR response wasn't acceptable, but that is not all that happened. GitHub quickly restored the project - and that was the most important issue. In addition, GitHub has now posted an apology, and has also said that they will try to figure out how to prevent its recurrence in the future.
THAT is exactly the right way to handle a mistake: fix the problem, say sorry, and try to prevent its recurrence. Good show. I am actually impressed with GitHub's response to this!!
I get the impression that part of your complaint is that "flagging" itself is disgusting. If that's the case, your ire is completely misdirected. This is required by US law for anyone doing business in the US. If you don't like it, that's fine; complain to the US Congress, who create the US laws. GitHub is simply doing what it must do. In the US, and in most of the western world, the rule of law is still a thing (and a good thing it is!). Please point your disagreement at those who are responsible for it.
> What matters is doing the right thing after the mistake is discovered.
They didn't. They only did "the right thing" after it went viral on HN.
They did the same thing a few days ago to another developer, and only after it went viral on HN did they do the right thing. They were very aware that a) their flagging process is broken and b) their support process is non-existant unless you make your complaint go viral. The canned response is part of their strategy to filter out everyone that isn't large enough and they'll just ignore those complaints.
> This is required by US law for anyone doing business in the US.
It's required to do it automatically and wrong? I have some serious doubts.
