@verius This is why most TOS have those blanket "we can do whatever for any reason" backup clauses, but really, it sets a bad precedent.

And I don't say that because of the ad thing.  I don't care about that actually, insofar as them hosting it.  I'd avoid a project that had such ads as a personal choice, but I don't care if Github does or does not host projects with ads as a policy point.  It's a side issue at best to me.

The bad precedent here is in the method they went about this, in my opinion.  There was no real communication to the project owners.  They weren't given a chance to take corrective action prior to the takedown.  They were immediately taken down and the project owners had to find out on their own.  That's just a bad way of doing things in general.  There are cases where it would be justified (clear and present legal problems that a project presents to GitHub for instance), but that wasn't it.  It shows how little care is given to such matters.