Major Malta-based analytics company HotJar has banned Donald Trump’s merchandise site from using its services on the grounds that the US President is promoting a “racist and hateful” campaign.

Thousands of websites make use of the service, including the Donald Trump-Mike Pence campaign, as well as the Republican Party, has made use of HotJar in a crucial time ahead of November’s presidential election.

HotJar CEO David Darmanin explained that the decision to remove them was based on Trump’s racist, diversionary and discriminatory tirage as US president.

“We recognise that this decision may bring us some backlash, and it may result in divided reactions among our community—but we’re willing to put ourselves in an uncomfortable position to stand by our values,” Darmanin said.

He argued that Donald Trump’s actions targeted marginalised groups while his political slogans “Make America Great Again” and “Build A Wall” have become synonymous with far-right groups in the U.S.

Darmanin also pledged to donate all revenues earned from the Trump-Pence account, as well as an extra €50,000, to fight racism and injustice.

“We will happily work with anyone who aligns with us against racism and discrimination,” he said, noting HotJar would be open to working with the Republican Party in the future should circumstances change.

“The campaign and the Republican Party today stand behind a candidate who has made statements that promote racism, division, and discrimination.”

“Therefore, we believe that the values displayed by this organization as a customer of Hotjar are clearly not aligned with our values as a company, and in the spirit of living our value of working with respect, we have decided to take action.”

HotJar also updated its ‘Acceptable Use Policy’ that disallows users that directly condone or promote hate as well as sites that support organisations, platform or people that condone such behaviour.

Their original article also included the phrase “call a spade a spade” but removed it after a member of HotJar’s community argued that it had racist connotations.

What do you make of this decision?