8 ms·

Firefox is not really a good company anymore, they care more about politics than doing something awesome. Cf. the firing of their CEO.

jshevek 10y ago
Anyone who is unhappy with that decision might consider using Eich's browser, Brave. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser) https://brave.com/ https://brave.com/
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Etzos 10y ago
Two relatively minor nit picks about what you've said: 1. The company is Mozilla, not Firefox 2. They did not fire Eich, he stepped down amid the controversy and left to avoid any more conflict Now, while I can understand not being happy that they (Mozilla) did not step out in defense of their choice of Eich, I think it's a tad duplicitous to say they fired him.
byuu 10y ago
He was not fired. Straight from Mozilla themselves: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignation/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignat... "On April 3, 2014 Brendan Eich voluntarily stepped down as CEO of Mozilla." He could have stayed if he wanted to. Yes, it would have hurt their brand if he did, and yes it should have. Because yes, I and many others care very much if the CEO of a product donates to strip a minority of equal rights. Thanks to people like Eich, for seven years me and my husband had to lie and check "single" on all of our federal and state forms. For seven years we had to worry about being denied hospital visitation should one of us fall ill. We had to worry about how we'd handle inheritance should one of us pass. And on and on. So yes, everyone is entitled to their own voice. Eich had a right to make that donation. And other people had a right to protest and boycott over it. Mozilla did not cave to the protests, so there was no free speech violation here.
- ptomato 10y ago
  95% probability that was "voluntarily step down or we'll fire you."
  - byuu 10y ago
    Then you're basically saying that the entire board and Eich himself are liars. And I don't believe that's a fair thing to say with zero evidence to the contrary. Eich was a person that could have made the entire situation disappear in an instant by making a (completely meaningless given their history) matching donation to the HRC, and issuing a short post apologizing for his actions. Sure, many would see right through such a transparent act; but it would completely deflate the opposition in an instant -- guaranteed. He didn't do so. To this day, he's still completely unapologetic for his actions. As much as I dislike the man, the one thing I cannot fault him for is that he is a man of integrity. I don't see him lying and pretending he voluntarily resigned.
    - ptomato 10y ago
      > Then you're basically saying that the entire board and Eich himself are liars. I see that the board claim he was not asked by the board to resign. You can differentiate I guess between "You see which way the wind is blowing, better do what needs to be done" and "Resign or we'll fire you" but that's really a distinction without a difference and would seamlessly segue into the other state, I expect. > but it would completely deflate the opposition in an instant Can you cite an instance of apologizing quelling an outrage mob?
      - byuu 10y ago
        > I see that the board claim he was not asked by the board to resign. Well, you're free to your own opinions (and conspiracies), but not to your own facts. Preface your statements with, "I believe he was secretly (fired)", and that's fair enough. But us arguing about it without any evidence is basically Russell's Teapot. > Can you cite an instance of apologizing quelling an outrage mob? It would have certainly worked here. From when I was born until 2015, we went from 15% approval to 55% approval for marriage equality. We had several prominent republicans, and even a democratic president change their public views to support marriage equality. Eich had a good 6+ years since his donation, so it wasn't like his mind couldn't have changed during that time. I don't recall anyone on our side ever denouncing someone who announced they 'evolved' on this topic. So yes, I'm extremely confident most people would have put this issue to rest. However, again, a man of principle shouldn't lie. That covers both lying about a change of heart, as well as lying about resigning instead of having been fired.
sctb 10y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12577985 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12577985 and marked it off-topic.

jshevek 10y ago

Anyone who is unhappy with that decision might consider using Eich's browser, Brave. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser) https://brave.com/ https://brave.com/

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Etzos 10y ago

Two relatively minor nit picks about what you've said: 1. The company is Mozilla, not Firefox 2. They did not fire Eich, he stepped down amid the controversy and left to avoid any more conflict Now, while I can understand not being happy that they (Mozilla) did not step out in defense of their choice of Eich, I think it's a tad duplicitous to say they fired him.

byuu 10y ago

He was not fired. Straight from Mozilla themselves: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignation/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignat... "On April 3, 2014 Brendan Eich voluntarily stepped down as CEO of Mozilla." He could have stayed if he wanted to. Yes, it would have hurt their brand if he did, and yes it should have. Because yes, I and many others care very much if the CEO of a product donates to strip a minority of equal rights. Thanks to people like Eich, for seven years me and my husband had to lie and check "single" on all of our federal and state forms. For seven years we had to worry about being denied hospital visitation should one of us fall ill. We had to worry about how we'd handle inheritance should one of us pass. And on and on. So yes, everyone is entitled to their own voice. Eich had a right to make that donation. And other people had a right to protest and boycott over it. Mozilla did not cave to the protests, so there was no free speech violation here.

ptomato 10y ago
95% probability that was "voluntarily step down or we'll fire you."
- byuu 10y ago
  Then you're basically saying that the entire board and Eich himself are liars. And I don't believe that's a fair thing to say with zero evidence to the contrary. Eich was a person that could have made the entire situation disappear in an instant by making a (completely meaningless given their history) matching donation to the HRC, and issuing a short post apologizing for his actions. Sure, many would see right through such a transparent act; but it would completely deflate the opposition in an instant -- guaranteed. He didn't do so. To this day, he's still completely unapologetic for his actions. As much as I dislike the man, the one thing I cannot fault him for is that he is a man of integrity. I don't see him lying and pretending he voluntarily resigned.
  - ptomato 10y ago
    > Then you're basically saying that the entire board and Eich himself are liars. I see that the board claim he was not asked by the board to resign. You can differentiate I guess between "You see which way the wind is blowing, better do what needs to be done" and "Resign or we'll fire you" but that's really a distinction without a difference and would seamlessly segue into the other state, I expect. > but it would completely deflate the opposition in an instant Can you cite an instance of apologizing quelling an outrage mob?
    - byuu 10y ago
      > I see that the board claim he was not asked by the board to resign. Well, you're free to your own opinions (and conspiracies), but not to your own facts. Preface your statements with, "I believe he was secretly (fired)", and that's fair enough. But us arguing about it without any evidence is basically Russell's Teapot. > Can you cite an instance of apologizing quelling an outrage mob? It would have certainly worked here. From when I was born until 2015, we went from 15% approval to 55% approval for marriage equality. We had several prominent republicans, and even a democratic president change their public views to support marriage equality. Eich had a good 6+ years since his donation, so it wasn't like his mind couldn't have changed during that time. I don't recall anyone on our side ever denouncing someone who announced they 'evolved' on this topic. So yes, I'm extremely confident most people would have put this issue to rest. However, again, a man of principle shouldn't lie. That covers both lying about a change of heart, as well as lying about resigning instead of having been fired.

sctb 10y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12577985 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12577985 and marked it off-topic.