People definitely choose which projects to use / buy depending on political leanings or affiliations by the creators / companies behind it, because a “political leaning” is nothing more than a stance on politics, just as there is a stance on FOSS, AI, Conduct, Project direction, yadda yadda.

See Ukraine flags or calls for Palestine support, as an example of recent-ish political stances in software.

It’s just that those stances always work both ways. You will have people choosing omarchy, because “finally an OS without the woke agenda!!!”, you will have people not touching it because fuck nazis, and in IT there’s always the third group of “I don’t know or care who the author is or what he does, the project is good, so I’m using it.”

Am I correct in understand your central question is “what’s the practical impact”?

If so then I think it’s a good theme for conversation. I’ve seen suggestions that “death of the artist” applies here. I’ve also seen “software is apolitical” and similar. While these are valid discussions in their own right: they miss the point.

Using anything created by people whose public speech is actively and consistently attempting to rhetorically enhance their political views implies acceptance or endorsement of those views. It’s a kind of identity politics not dissimilar in concept from brand identity.

What is and is not culturally acceptable is (in part) determined by norms established via association with such identities and the credibility-enhancing displays affirming those associations.

Using Omarchy suggests DHH’s political views are acceptable. It doesn’t matter how much creedance one gives this idea or how much impact it may have. The “Nazi dinner party” principal applies regardless.

I just don’t want to have anything to do with something made by someone who would kill me given the opportunity.