> If Github kicks me off and I can migrate easily to GitLab, have I been "deplatformed?"
Most definitely you have. Especially if the reason and process used by GH is likely to also be in use at GL.
> Is it morally correct to tie Github's hands from locking someone's account if they're using their git repo to host CP?
The relevant question is: is it constitutional. In the U.S. I believe the answer would be a solid "yes" as to a Federal statute that adds due process protections for this, no different than with the many many Federal and State laws and regulations that have created civil justice recourse for specific kinds of torts.
Morality is a different issue, and it's much too easy to flip your question on its head: is it moral to deplatform people if doing so damages their ability to earn a living?
Indeed, there's no need to frame this as a moral question, and it's arguably foolish to do so. It is and should be only a question of policy, politics, and constitutional law.
Regarding politics, mine is a political argument.
Regarding policy, I think it's a good idea to give "little people" some minimal protections from "big people". This is quite standard around the world. There are going to be policy details to debate, but writ large, this is a no-brainer.
I already address the very likely U.S. consitutionality of such a policy.
> We're getting there, but pulling it off is going to require a level of international cooperation that is rarely seen (and tends to give a few key players a lot of power; if we do this, I hope everyone's excited to be living under the US's notion of what morality looks like. Or Europe's. or China's).
No. This can be done in each country w/o internaltional cooperation. Granted, GH might pull out of France, say, if they don't like French laws, and so on. But U.S. business will not leave the U.S. over this.
> Indeed, there's no need to frame this as a moral question, and it's arguably foolish to do so. It is and should be only a question of policy, politics, and constitutional law.
Morality drives the shaping of all three of those things, so framing it as a question of morality is unavoidable if one wants to do something other than the status quo (which is "A private service provider may choose to do business with or refrain from doing business with anyone for any reason that hasn't already been carved out by previous civil rights legislation"). I believe you immediately demonstrated this fact by stating as "policy" something that is a moral stance ("little people" deserve some minimal protections from "big people"). And we may do well to remember that the KKK is also "little people", as are neo-Nazis (and society has a vested interest in keeping both groups "little people").
All people should be treated equally as people in the eyes of the law, i.e. with empathy for their humanity. But when you divide groups into "little" and "big" by political belief, sometimes you do, in fact, find situations where the majority should suppress the minority (because the minority's belief is anti-human, and political beliefs are malleable).
Which is going to need to be acceptable, because the alternative is much worse. The backstop is to keep checks on those who hold power.
And if no such checks can be kept, then whether we consider deplatforming acceptable is irrelevant, because the powerful will do whatever they want regardless.
Most definitely you have. Especially if the reason and process used by GH is likely to also be in use at GL.
> Is it morally correct to tie Github's hands from locking someone's account if they're using their git repo to host CP?
The relevant question is: is it constitutional. In the U.S. I believe the answer would be a solid "yes" as to a Federal statute that adds due process protections for this, no different than with the many many Federal and State laws and regulations that have created civil justice recourse for specific kinds of torts.
Morality is a different issue, and it's much too easy to flip your question on its head: is it moral to deplatform people if doing so damages their ability to earn a living?
Indeed, there's no need to frame this as a moral question, and it's arguably foolish to do so. It is and should be only a question of policy, politics, and constitutional law.
Regarding politics, mine is a political argument.
Regarding policy, I think it's a good idea to give "little people" some minimal protections from "big people". This is quite standard around the world. There are going to be policy details to debate, but writ large, this is a no-brainer.
I already address the very likely U.S. consitutionality of such a policy.
> We're getting there, but pulling it off is going to require a level of international cooperation that is rarely seen (and tends to give a few key players a lot of power; if we do this, I hope everyone's excited to be living under the US's notion of what morality looks like. Or Europe's. or China's).
No. This can be done in each country w/o internaltional cooperation. Granted, GH might pull out of France, say, if they don't like French laws, and so on. But U.S. business will not leave the U.S. over this.