Those are 2 different things. Political appointees (not the same as politicians) might be in charge of deciding whether to bring antitrust lawsuits, but politicians do not, and in any case these things are mostly worked on by career civil servants.
They didn't delete his repos. He's just been shadowbanned, and is now running the Kafkaesque gauntlet of trying to figure out why he's been banned and then getting reinstated (maybe).
I mean if the end result is that no one can access the repos how is that not basically deleting them? Are we just arguing semantics because the end result is the same?
The difference is that deleting them would mean that they're gone forever, and if he didn't have backups he's screwed. Shadowbanned means that he can still access his code and move it elsewhere even if he doesn't have backups. It also means that if he gets the shadow ban reversed, the code will once again be available. If it were deleted, that would not be possible.
> The user in question can't actually access his profile or his repos. He's not shadbowbanned, he is actually banned.
"When I log into my account, it's all there, the code, the issues, everything (read: shadowbanned) so once this is resolved it should be seamless for you."
"It’s important to note I didn’t lose access to my account, all the repositories are there, issues, pull requests, stars but I’m effectively shadow banned, I’m the only one who can see it."
Hopefully they reverse it, but definitely a sad to see the "open source community" website go this path.
reply