6 ms·

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/f

by 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.
      - ptomato 10y ago
        > It would have certainly worked here So no, you can't cite an example? > "I believe he was secretly (fired)" I see no reason to believe that what both the board and Eich are claiming is technically false. If you define "fired" to include "you know where this is going, get out now and save some face by resigning" then yes, sure, I believe he was secretly fired.
        byuu 10y ago
lohankin 10y ago
Consider hypothetical situation: suddenly "Brave" browser (referred to below) becomes popular. Will you renew your personal vendetta against Brendan Eich? Because the reasons you cited still apply.
- byuu 10y ago
  I will never use Brave, no matter how popular it becomes. But yes, I have considered the opposite situation. And indeed, it's happened. It has only been 2-3 years since a majority of Americans have supported gay rights. It used to be that people would boycott over anything remotely supporting them. Most sponsors pulled out after Ellen Degeneres announced she was gay. The thing with free speech is that it always works both ways. If you truly care about it, you always have to defend those that are indefensible. Yet in this case, supporters of Eich seem to think what he said was okay, but what his protestors said was not. The people who protested had every bit as much of a right to their speech as Eich did to his. I believe Proposition 8 was a failure of government: that the rights of the minority should never be subjected to popular vote (tyranny of the majority.) But Eich was perfectly within his right to spend his money to say something truly abhorrent. And since freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences, so too did the people using Mozilla have a right to voice their displeasure.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
smsm42 10y ago
> "On April 3, 2014 Brendan Eich voluntarily stepped down as CEO of Mozilla." Yeah as voluntarily as those politicians resigning to spend more time with their families really resign to spend more time with their families. It's not fooling anybody else, and I have very hard time believing it's fooling you. He resigned because he was asked to resign. That's how top management firing is done. > He could have stayed if he wanted to. Physically - yes, I guess, until they call security and carry him out :) Seriously - no, when Powers That Be in your org ask you to resign, you resign. > Because yes, I and many others care very much if the CEO of a product donates to strip a minority of equal rights. So if somebody who thinks firing people because they have different political opinion than you is wrong, would arrange to get you fired from your job - you'd be completely ok with that, according to your beliefs? Or it's only your political enemies that have to lose their jobs for their politics, but never you? > Mozilla did not cave to the protests, Mozilla absolutely, totally and completely caved to the protests.
- byuu 10y ago
  > He resigned because he was asked to resign. Sorry to post a link, but I responded to the same argument already here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12579498 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12579498 > So if somebody who thinks firing people because they have different political opinion than you is wrong, would arrange to get you fired from your job - you'd be completely ok with that, according to your beliefs? If they were truly my convictions, I would stand by them and tell the world that I was fired for my beliefs. I wouldn't suddenly become a liar. Especially not to protect the company that just fired me. If what you say is true, and there is zero evidence that it is, then I would lose the very last tiny bit of respect I have for Eich. It would also mean the Mozilla board was truly and utterly incompetent; because this was an extremely predictable result. They already knew of Eich's donation. And anyone with a functioning brain would have realized that this would become a much bigger issue when he was promoted to CEO. We do, however, share common ground that nobody should be fired for their personal beliefs (nor for that matter, for what they do in their personal time.) Yet at the same time, I refuse to accept a world where I would be denied the right to protest an abhorrent individual. Say there were a company run by a neo-nazi grandmaster wizard of the KKK that wanted to commit genocide. But hey, those were just his personal beliefs! Would you still be against anyone refusing to use that company's products? Against anyone saying the company shouldn't have hired such a man to lead them? The critics who called for his job were wrong to do so. Saying a man should be fired for his beliefs was almost as bad as saying that gay people should not be treated as equal citizens with the same rights as straight people. > Mozilla absolutely, totally and completely caved to the protests. Prove it. Or if that's no longer required, then NASA absolutely, totally and completely faked the moon landings.
BrendanEich 10y ago
Why don't you link to our past interactions on HN? Here's a last in thread link, so people can read up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10660792 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10660792 Hey, weren't you in Ohio the whole time, and not subject to California law in any event? Federal tax forms are not bound by California law. Nor are Ohio tax laws.
- near 10y ago
  I didn't link to that because you didn't answer the topic being debated here. Would you be willing to go on record and state whether you were forced to resign or not? If you were, then I agree that was wrong, and will stop linking to that FAQ post going forward. Instead, I'll link to your reply and offer my support that Mozilla was in the wrong for forcing you out. However, if you're going to stay with, "NDAs and none of your business", then I can't work with that. I can only work on what knowledge is available to the public. And all publicly available evidence is that your resignation was entirely voluntary. I hope you'll agree that unless someone actually involved (such as yourself) goes on record, everything else is just baseless speculation. It wouldn't be fair to penalize Mozilla based solely on conjecture. And yes, I was in Ohio during our 2004 vote to ban marriage equality via state constitutional amendment. I stated that people like you (as in, religious people imposing their views on others through force of law) helped make that happen. Marriage wasn't really on my radar until around 2008. I think it was just seeing California of all places vote against it that really crushed my spirit for a long time. I know empathy is really difficult, but imagine if our positions were reversed and I donated to successfully help prevent you from marrying your wife. How would you think of me? That I didn't live in California is 2008 is no reason I can't object to your actions. As always, even if we strongly disagree, I appreciate that you're willing to respond and have a discussion with a nobody such as myself, so thank you for that :)
  - BrendanEich 10y ago
    From the linked thread, I wrote "You have no idea why I stepped down" in reply to your "Eich chose to step down due to community pressure" line, which you made up. That "due to" explanation was your interpretation, nothing I ever said or wrote. Have you heard of the fallacy of the excluded middle? I resigned, I said so at the time and keep saying so, even today on this HN page. This does not exclude other possibilities that are none of your business. "Forced or resigned" is a false dilemma in general. Even if you don't know the specific details, the general point stands. I think you know this, since you understand oppression. Oppression does not in general remove all agency from the victim. Two things can be true at once: oppressors used force; victim had freedom to move. Note I'm not saying I am a victim, I'm using an analogy to knock down the excluded middle fallacy that I think you put forth. Can we agree on this much?

by byuu 10y ago

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.
    - ptomato 10y ago
      > It would have certainly worked here So no, you can't cite an example? > "I believe he was secretly (fired)" I see no reason to believe that what both the board and Eich are claiming is technically false. If you define "fired" to include "you know where this is going, get out now and save some face by resigning" then yes, sure, I believe he was secretly fired.
      - byuu 10y ago

lohankin 10y ago

Consider hypothetical situation: suddenly "Brave" browser (referred to below) becomes popular. Will you renew your personal vendetta against Brendan Eich? Because the reasons you cited still apply.

byuu 10y ago
I will never use Brave, no matter how popular it becomes. But yes, I have considered the opposite situation. And indeed, it's happened. It has only been 2-3 years since a majority of Americans have supported gay rights. It used to be that people would boycott over anything remotely supporting them. Most sponsors pulled out after Ellen Degeneres announced she was gay. The thing with free speech is that it always works both ways. If you truly care about it, you always have to defend those that are indefensible. Yet in this case, supporters of Eich seem to think what he said was okay, but what his protestors said was not. The people who protested had every bit as much of a right to their speech as Eich did to his. I believe Proposition 8 was a failure of government: that the rights of the minority should never be subjected to popular vote (tyranny of the majority.) But Eich was perfectly within his right to spend his money to say something truly abhorrent. And since freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences, so too did the people using Mozilla have a right to voice their displeasure.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

smsm42 10y ago

> "On April 3, 2014 Brendan Eich voluntarily stepped down as CEO of Mozilla." Yeah as voluntarily as those politicians resigning to spend more time with their families really resign to spend more time with their families. It's not fooling anybody else, and I have very hard time believing it's fooling you. He resigned because he was asked to resign. That's how top management firing is done. > He could have stayed if he wanted to. Physically - yes, I guess, until they call security and carry him out :) Seriously - no, when Powers That Be in your org ask you to resign, you resign. > Because yes, I and many others care very much if the CEO of a product donates to strip a minority of equal rights. So if somebody who thinks firing people because they have different political opinion than you is wrong, would arrange to get you fired from your job - you'd be completely ok with that, according to your beliefs? Or it's only your political enemies that have to lose their jobs for their politics, but never you? > Mozilla did not cave to the protests, Mozilla absolutely, totally and completely caved to the protests.

byuu 10y ago
> He resigned because he was asked to resign. Sorry to post a link, but I responded to the same argument already here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12579498 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12579498 > So if somebody who thinks firing people because they have different political opinion than you is wrong, would arrange to get you fired from your job - you'd be completely ok with that, according to your beliefs? If they were truly my convictions, I would stand by them and tell the world that I was fired for my beliefs. I wouldn't suddenly become a liar. Especially not to protect the company that just fired me. If what you say is true, and there is zero evidence that it is, then I would lose the very last tiny bit of respect I have for Eich. It would also mean the Mozilla board was truly and utterly incompetent; because this was an extremely predictable result. They already knew of Eich's donation. And anyone with a functioning brain would have realized that this would become a much bigger issue when he was promoted to CEO. We do, however, share common ground that nobody should be fired for their personal beliefs (nor for that matter, for what they do in their personal time.) Yet at the same time, I refuse to accept a world where I would be denied the right to protest an abhorrent individual. Say there were a company run by a neo-nazi grandmaster wizard of the KKK that wanted to commit genocide. But hey, those were just his personal beliefs! Would you still be against anyone refusing to use that company's products? Against anyone saying the company shouldn't have hired such a man to lead them? The critics who called for his job were wrong to do so. Saying a man should be fired for his beliefs was almost as bad as saying that gay people should not be treated as equal citizens with the same rights as straight people. > Mozilla absolutely, totally and completely caved to the protests. Prove it. Or if that's no longer required, then NASA absolutely, totally and completely faked the moon landings.

BrendanEich 10y ago

Why don't you link to our past interactions on HN? Here's a last in thread link, so people can read up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10660792 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10660792 Hey, weren't you in Ohio the whole time, and not subject to California law in any event? Federal tax forms are not bound by California law. Nor are Ohio tax laws.

near 10y ago
I didn't link to that because you didn't answer the topic being debated here. Would you be willing to go on record and state whether you were forced to resign or not? If you were, then I agree that was wrong, and will stop linking to that FAQ post going forward. Instead, I'll link to your reply and offer my support that Mozilla was in the wrong for forcing you out. However, if you're going to stay with, "NDAs and none of your business", then I can't work with that. I can only work on what knowledge is available to the public. And all publicly available evidence is that your resignation was entirely voluntary. I hope you'll agree that unless someone actually involved (such as yourself) goes on record, everything else is just baseless speculation. It wouldn't be fair to penalize Mozilla based solely on conjecture. And yes, I was in Ohio during our 2004 vote to ban marriage equality via state constitutional amendment. I stated that people like you (as in, religious people imposing their views on others through force of law) helped make that happen. Marriage wasn't really on my radar until around 2008. I think it was just seeing California of all places vote against it that really crushed my spirit for a long time. I know empathy is really difficult, but imagine if our positions were reversed and I donated to successfully help prevent you from marrying your wife. How would you think of me? That I didn't live in California is 2008 is no reason I can't object to your actions. As always, even if we strongly disagree, I appreciate that you're willing to respond and have a discussion with a nobody such as myself, so thank you for that :)
- BrendanEich 10y ago
  From the linked thread, I wrote "You have no idea why I stepped down" in reply to your "Eich chose to step down due to community pressure" line, which you made up. That "due to" explanation was your interpretation, nothing I ever said or wrote. Have you heard of the fallacy of the excluded middle? I resigned, I said so at the time and keep saying so, even today on this HN page. This does not exclude other possibilities that are none of your business. "Forced or resigned" is a false dilemma in general. Even if you don't know the specific details, the general point stands. I think you know this, since you understand oppression. Oppression does not in general remove all agency from the victim. Two things can be true at once: oppressors used force; victim had freedom to move. Note I'm not saying I am a victim, I'm using an analogy to knock down the excluded middle fallacy that I think you put forth. Can we agree on this much?