No, its not ironic. That's exactly the difference between for-profit companies controlled by private interests and non-profit companies influenced by community interests.
Moreover, trying to extrapolate one data point to draw conclusions about the Silicon Valley in its entirety is a really bad argument.
>> "That's exactly the difference between for-profit companies controlled by private interests and non-profit companies influenced by community interests."
It feels like it should be the other way around to me. When something is influenced by community interests and a number of people make noise there should be a public vote or similar to decide on the offenders fate. It should be up to the community as a whole. A for-profit company needs to get rid of someone as toxic as this as there is a possibility it will effect sales. A for-profit company can't wait around to make a decision like that, it needs to be quick.
Moreover, trying to extrapolate one data point to draw conclusions about the Silicon Valley in its entirety is a really bad argument.