so while it might represent some trend, it is also worthwhile to possibly consider editorial/selection bias as a factor for promoting the claim that this is significantly prohibitive
What choice would all the scientists have in that case? They can't just say: "I'm leaving physics until someone else builds another LHC".
Until we have a better, more superior, free, open-source, public service that can do things better than GitHub, I'm afraid we'd have to play along.
But the point is not about GitHub vs. something else. It is about that Pull-Requests are preferred over mailing lists for open-source projects.
But you forget about Catholic Church dedication to Overall Truth that cannot contradict reality. Or you do not belive in it. I do. So, probably no point in discussing this, right ? ;)
In contrast to corporations dedication to them selves... Which just only on surface looks like cysnism on our part, sadly.
So, obviously MS takover over Github will end as soon as it will be convenient for MS.
But realy we have bigger problem on our hands: common ppl greed or just reluctance to pay (quite not much) for hosting of their own projects. Or paying anything for their privacy. This also is why FB already replaced home pages. And Discord (almoust overnight) TS.
We realy need to ad private git repos and own vpn's. For agents raiding servers locations should be enough.