It doesn't feel like there was enough criticism against GitHub for their decision to ban the developer of faker/colors. This was his own corner of the internet for him to publish his own personal projects.
I understand the decision for npm to take ownership of his packages, because npm is a community package repository owned by, and for, the community. All community package repositories have some sort of policy for package takeovers.
But GitHub claims to be your home for public hosting of your own personal code. What GitHub policy did he violate? The really outrageous thing is that the developer going "rogue" was actually him expressing his freedom of speech, again on his own personal GitHub account, in his own personal (not organization) repositories. He spoke about his thoughts about open source, businesses, and economics. Defending this type of political speech is especially important and GitHub banning his account and censoring this type of speech(whether you agree with it or not) is especially shameful.
I understand the decision for npm to take ownership of his packages, because npm is a community package repository owned by, and for, the community. All community package repositories have some sort of policy for package takeovers.
But GitHub claims to be your home for public hosting of your own personal code. What GitHub policy did he violate? The really outrageous thing is that the developer going "rogue" was actually him expressing his freedom of speech, again on his own personal GitHub account, in his own personal (not organization) repositories. He spoke about his thoughts about open source, businesses, and economics. Defending this type of political speech is especially important and GitHub banning his account and censoring this type of speech(whether you agree with it or not) is especially shameful.