But why? Despite it's dubious origins, Github remains an excellent / superior product. One may not agree with the way they do things (and even that seems to be some, not everyone in the organization), but is that really a reason to stop using the product?
Well that doesn't make sense. Unless he's randomly voting without consideration, then of course he evaluated the various options and "judged" them. That's rather the point of voting, isn't it?
I mean, if you accept that the article is true, the company described is horribly dysfunctional, and will likely have difficulty going forward as it grows. You could call it an early warning (assuming you accept the truth of the allegations).
As usual, the people pushing logical fallacies are the ones making the most of it. You do not want to reward people of the origin product because they are mis-behaving, so you are hoping to create negative incentives/tradeoffs for such behavior.
In the cited example on that website, it says
Accused on the 6 o'clock news of corruption and taking bribes, the senator said that we should all be very wary of the things we hear in the media, because we all know how very unreliable the media can be." Except in this one it goes, 6oclockCorp->generality of media. In this one, it is Github->Github, especially cause 'founder' is here.
That said I think leaving github is a pretty dumb idea considering that comparatively they are the good kids overall.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic