The real question is whether corporations behave like "someone", like a natural (biological, real flesh-and-blood) person.
Whereas there is a need for legal corporate personhood (so they can enter contracts, be sued and sue others, etc), the extent to which a corporation has a "personality" is very much debatable— sign contracts, sure; but fund political candidates? Have a political opinion even? That's crossing a big phat red line most countries have outlawed (with good reason)— only citizens in their own name (that of a natural person) may participate in the civic life, whether board member/CEO or the lowest paid employee: same rights and duties, in a truly democratic political theory.
Factually, when psychologists attempt to describe the behavior of corporations, they are faced with "sociopathy"— but let's not pretend it's a trait, because it results more likely from the absence of consistency between people, departments, historical periods... it's not and cannot be as stable in space and time as a real natural person.
Corporations are neither good nor bad "people", they are simply not "people", but a different category of objects. We could also demonstrate conversely that natural persons and households belong to very broken categories of businesses... because they're not businesses!
So when we anthropomorphize corporations and businesses like they're people... we really create meaning out of thin air that never was there. If it's a one-man show, sure, obviously. Above that begins a very slippery slope that leads to super PACs and other churches like Evil MS versus Heavenly Apple and what-have-you.
Whatever greatness or horrors we observe from corporations should be attributed directly to the natural people who make those decisions— it's not Boeing that's bad, it's whoever's in charge and whoever condoned it. People. Boeing is just a 6-letter words, you can't put "Boeing" in jail, nor make it "Sir" by a Queen...
So I'd rather praise Nat himself than "GitHub" here, and I'd rather judge him and Satya Nadella in name than "GitHub" or "Microsoft"; recognizing that he (they) can't possibly be alone in this so the praise extends to all employees who strive to make great on a vision... and also the blame lies with them, when they're being disingenuous. People, real people, with real names and a past and loved ones and maybe kids and political opinions. Not an abstract 6-letter name who's already changed in the timeframe I wrote this post, as two new people got hired and another one left.
Indeed, a corporation is a permanent ship of Theseus: who's left, at Microsoft, from the 1990s? How much power do they command? Here is the real link between that era and now, behaviorally. The name matters little, people manning Microsoft 40 years from now will all be new people. Transmission of culture is limited between kids and parents, and even more so between one's predecessor and one's successor at a job.
Microsoft has changed, as a group of people, because well... most of these people have left and new ones came in.
Sorry for a long piece; but this truth needs saying, especially in these times if we are to reform our societies to better solve the pursue of a "greater, common good". Mistakes were made (in the legal structure of things), ethical compasses need realignment (let's just admit people from the past couple centuries couldn't get everything right nor possibly predict our present, and let's just move on with our times, our challenges, shall we?)
I'm very interested to hear what Hackers have to say about this, although I suspect it's become a fairly non-controversial, almost benign realization nowadays (used to be ridiculous, then dangerous thinking, now it seems obvious retrospectively like any real paradigm shift).