From the article:

"The gall to publicly declare that Black Lives Matter as part of the release, while privately continuing to collaborate with the companies that provide the software that spies and suppresses those same lives and activists, is an unacceptable hypocrisy that undermines the actual work of members in the organisation to provide a space for those people."

This reminds me of a debate that was going on in the late 1940s and early 1950s in the Soviet Union about the class character of language. Replace "class" with "race/gender/sexual orientation/etc", and "language" with "programming language" to get how it applies to the debate here:

"The first mistake is that they confuse language with superstructure. They think that since the superstructure has a class character, language too must be a class language, and not a language common to the whole people. But I have already said that language and superstructure are two different concepts, and that a Marxist must not confuse them.

The second mistake of these comrades is that they conceive the opposition of interests of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, the fierce class struggle between them, as meaning the disintegration of society, as a break of all ties between the hostile classes. They believe that, since society has disintegrated and there is no longer a single society, but only classes, a single language of society, a national language, is unnecessary. If society has disintegrated and there is no longer a language common to the whole people, a national language, what remains? There remain classes and 'class languages.' Naturally, every 'class language' will have its 'class' grammar -- a 'proletarian' grammar or a 'bourgeois' grammar. True, such grammars do not exist anywhere. But that does not worry these comrades: they believe that such grammars will appear in due course.

At one time there were 'Marxists' in our country who asserted that the railways left to us after the October Revolution were bourgeois railways, that it would be unseemly for us Marxists to use them, that they should be torn up and new, 'proletarian' railways built. For this they were nicknamed 'troglodytes'.

It goes without saying that such a primitive-anarchist view of society, of classes, of language has nothing in common with Marxism. But it undoubtedly exists and continues to prevail in the minds of certain of our muddled comrades"

- J.V Stalin "Marxism and the Problem of Linguistics" (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1950...)

The reason Stalin himself had to jump into the debate was because technological progress was starting to be hampered by the hyperpoliticization of everything in society including language and technology. After the purges, everyone became overly fanatical in their desire to identify "class enemies" in all fields. Beria had a lot of problems on the nuclear bomb project because of this hyperpoliticization. Stalin saw this was hurting technological development so he had to jump into the debate and tell everyone explicitly to stop politicizing technology.

Thus, even if you are as far left politically as anyone could possibly be, even Stalin would tell you that you are making an error in politicizing technology.