9 ms·

Maybe I didn't word my comment correctly. But I thought of politically neutral as not left-wing nor right-wing, not openly supporting capitalism nor being openl

by sandov 9y ago

Maybe I didn't word my comment correctly. But I thought of politically neutral as not left-wing nor right-wing, not openly supporting capitalism nor being openly against capitalism. I wouldn't be surprised by Mozilla pushing privacy, free speech and copyright related political agendas, but I am surprised by it supporting a left wing organization.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
kirillkh 9y ago
There is nothing new in Mozilla's leftist political stance, unfortunately. Remember what happened to Brendan Eich, former Mozilla's CEO? Back in 2014 he was forced to resign (and Mozilla was quoted to "believe it should have acted faster") over the fact that he donated $1000 to a campaign against gay marriage in California in 2008. The self-proclaimed liberals ousted him for holding a political opinion, nothing else. And no, he didn't write a memo about it, he just donated the money, that's it. When you recall that story, there is no wonder whatsoever that Mozilla feels great about having a political agenda and pushing it down its users' throats. Now don't get me wrong, I love what Mozilla stands for in the software world and I respect their achievements. But why do they have to be so politically biased?
- SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
  The attitude that Mozilla espouses (and they're not alone in it) is what's kept me from donating to them -- either in time/code or money. I don't want my activism on one set of issues co-opted to bolster other people's activism on completely unrelated topics. Mozilla insists on doing that; I won't be part of it. (And I encourage others to avoid that kind of extremist partisanship.)
- confounded 9y ago
  "Mozilla" isn't a man in a room smoking a cigar, it's a building full of relatively young and well-educated people, in San Francisco. If a leader does anything to lose a consensus of respect from their workers (and ultimately authority over them) the long term productivity of the organization is imperiled. Firing everyone except the leader isn't going to be a good option. Politics is a contentious issue, no matter how much people wish it wasn't. Involvement in it makes you polarizing, whether you like it or not. Do I believe in marriage equality? Absolutely, yes. Am I personally outraged that Eich donated that money? Not at all. Is it reasonable for him to expect to maintain authority and influence over a building full of relatively young and well-educated people, in San Francisco, after publicly (though perhaps inadvertently so) working against marriage equality? Of course not. Morals aside, it's a low probability outcome.
  - flukus 9y ago
    > If a leader does anything to lose a consensus of respect from their workers (and ultimately authority over them) the long term productivity of the organization is imperiled. So the leader has to go because employees can't separate work life from home life? Usually it's the other way around with companies being to over bearing of en employees private life. > Is it reasonable for him to expect to maintain authority over a building full of relatively young and well-educated people, in San Francisco, after publicly (though perhaps inadvertently so) working against marriage equality? Of course not. Morals aside, it's unrealistic proposition. Yes, because his opinion on gay marriage is irrelevant to his work as a CEO, just as my activities on the weekend should have no bearing on my job.
    - jaredandrews 9y ago
      > work life from home life I have to imagine it would be hard to separate your work life from your home life when you know your boss doesn't believe that you have the right to your home life.
      - flukus 9y ago
        Most employees would have been oblivious unless some SJW hadn't gone digging and publicized it. They'd happily worked under the man for 6 years after the donation and before he was forced out. The separation is necessary is there to protect people from being fired for having unpopular opinions because it's not an argument we want to follow to it's logical conclusion. If I wanted to donate to an anti-circumcision campaign am I unfit to be CEO because I might alienate circumcised people and religious people? If I want to donate to an atheist cause am I unfit because I will alienate religious people? If I donate to a feminist campaign am I unfit because I might alienate MRA's? How balkanized do work places have to become?
        jaredandrews 9y ago
        > The separation is necessary is there to protect people from being fired for having unpopular opinions because it's not an argument we want to follow to it's logical conclusion. We can follow it to it's logical conclusion because it happens all the time. People get fired for unpopular opinions frequently. This case is interesting because the unpopular opinion is "political" to some. I would contend that breathing is political. I can't answer any of the hypotheticals you present because they are exactly that: hypotheticals. It would require additional context for me to give a personal opinion on any of them. Even with that, your or my opinion on the situation would be irrelevant to the employees who are actually part of the organizations in question. They would be taking action to fix something within their organization that they found to be uncouth. Why shouldn't they be able to? I am getting the impression that you see a clear line between what belongs at work and what belongs at home. How do you define it?
- Sylos 9y ago
  I agree that there's not much new in Mozilla being more left-wing than right-wing, even open-source is practically software communism, but man this dead-beat horse of Eich, again, and still not telling the whole story as it happened, just because you want to push your political agenda. The witchhunt on Eich was primarily by the media, that of course had found the most exciting story in the tech industry in a long time. And as far as we know, Eich stepped back by himself. Maybe he was pressured to do that, but until you can find evidence for that, you're being dishonest, if you tell the story different. And lastly, yes, it was said by Mozilla that they should have reacted earlier, but that was not in the context of throwing Eich out, like you turn it, it was in the context of clearing that situation up, maybe talking to Eich, so that he makes a public statement about it or whatnot, before the public pressure gets big enough for him to step back. Because this story had become public at an earlier date already, Eich just wasn't yet CEO then, so it got much less press coverage. https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/03/brendan-eich-steps-down-as-mozilla-ceo/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/03/brendan-eich-steps-...
  - kirillkh 9y ago
    Thanks for linking that. I agree that whether or not stepping down was voluntary is an important question. But the answer is right there in your link. That whole memo is nothing else than a manifesto saying "Brendan had to go". Your only possible counterargument seems to be that the memo might have been just a PR move, while in fact he stepped down voluntarily. But, when you think of it, publicly saying "Brendan had to go" is not much different from actually making him go in the sense that in both cases the organization makes a bold political statement on behalf of its employees, its contributors, its supporters and with consequences for its users.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
confounded 9y ago
Mozilla certainly do lots of things to support capitalism, too.

by sandov 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

kirillkh 9y ago

There is nothing new in Mozilla's leftist political stance, unfortunately. Remember what happened to Brendan Eich, former Mozilla's CEO? Back in 2014 he was forced to resign (and Mozilla was quoted to "believe it should have acted faster") over the fact that he donated $1000 to a campaign against gay marriage in California in 2008. The self-proclaimed liberals ousted him for holding a political opinion, nothing else. And no, he didn't write a memo about it, he just donated the money, that's it. When you recall that story, there is no wonder whatsoever that Mozilla feels great about having a political agenda and pushing it down its users' throats. Now don't get me wrong, I love what Mozilla stands for in the software world and I respect their achievements. But why do they have to be so politically biased?

SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
The attitude that Mozilla espouses (and they're not alone in it) is what's kept me from donating to them -- either in time/code or money. I don't want my activism on one set of issues co-opted to bolster other people's activism on completely unrelated topics. Mozilla insists on doing that; I won't be part of it. (And I encourage others to avoid that kind of extremist partisanship.)
confounded 9y ago
"Mozilla" isn't a man in a room smoking a cigar, it's a building full of relatively young and well-educated people, in San Francisco. If a leader does anything to lose a consensus of respect from their workers (and ultimately authority over them) the long term productivity of the organization is imperiled. Firing everyone except the leader isn't going to be a good option. Politics is a contentious issue, no matter how much people wish it wasn't. Involvement in it makes you polarizing, whether you like it or not. Do I believe in marriage equality? Absolutely, yes. Am I personally outraged that Eich donated that money? Not at all. Is it reasonable for him to expect to maintain authority and influence over a building full of relatively young and well-educated people, in San Francisco, after publicly (though perhaps inadvertently so) working against marriage equality? Of course not. Morals aside, it's a low probability outcome.
- flukus 9y ago
  > If a leader does anything to lose a consensus of respect from their workers (and ultimately authority over them) the long term productivity of the organization is imperiled. So the leader has to go because employees can't separate work life from home life? Usually it's the other way around with companies being to over bearing of en employees private life. > Is it reasonable for him to expect to maintain authority over a building full of relatively young and well-educated people, in San Francisco, after publicly (though perhaps inadvertently so) working against marriage equality? Of course not. Morals aside, it's unrealistic proposition. Yes, because his opinion on gay marriage is irrelevant to his work as a CEO, just as my activities on the weekend should have no bearing on my job.
  - jaredandrews 9y ago
    > work life from home life I have to imagine it would be hard to separate your work life from your home life when you know your boss doesn't believe that you have the right to your home life.
    - flukus 9y ago
      Most employees would have been oblivious unless some SJW hadn't gone digging and publicized it. They'd happily worked under the man for 6 years after the donation and before he was forced out. The separation is necessary is there to protect people from being fired for having unpopular opinions because it's not an argument we want to follow to it's logical conclusion. If I wanted to donate to an anti-circumcision campaign am I unfit to be CEO because I might alienate circumcised people and religious people? If I want to donate to an atheist cause am I unfit because I will alienate religious people? If I donate to a feminist campaign am I unfit because I might alienate MRA's? How balkanized do work places have to become?
      - jaredandrews 9y ago
        > The separation is necessary is there to protect people from being fired for having unpopular opinions because it's not an argument we want to follow to it's logical conclusion. We can follow it to it's logical conclusion because it happens all the time. People get fired for unpopular opinions frequently. This case is interesting because the unpopular opinion is "political" to some. I would contend that breathing is political. I can't answer any of the hypotheticals you present because they are exactly that: hypotheticals. It would require additional context for me to give a personal opinion on any of them. Even with that, your or my opinion on the situation would be irrelevant to the employees who are actually part of the organizations in question. They would be taking action to fix something within their organization that they found to be uncouth. Why shouldn't they be able to? I am getting the impression that you see a clear line between what belongs at work and what belongs at home. How do you define it?
Sylos 9y ago
I agree that there's not much new in Mozilla being more left-wing than right-wing, even open-source is practically software communism, but man this dead-beat horse of Eich, again, and still not telling the whole story as it happened, just because you want to push your political agenda. The witchhunt on Eich was primarily by the media, that of course had found the most exciting story in the tech industry in a long time. And as far as we know, Eich stepped back by himself. Maybe he was pressured to do that, but until you can find evidence for that, you're being dishonest, if you tell the story different. And lastly, yes, it was said by Mozilla that they should have reacted earlier, but that was not in the context of throwing Eich out, like you turn it, it was in the context of clearing that situation up, maybe talking to Eich, so that he makes a public statement about it or whatnot, before the public pressure gets big enough for him to step back. Because this story had become public at an earlier date already, Eich just wasn't yet CEO then, so it got much less press coverage. https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/03/brendan-eich-steps-down-as-mozilla-ceo/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/03/brendan-eich-steps-...
- kirillkh 9y ago
  Thanks for linking that. I agree that whether or not stepping down was voluntary is an important question. But the answer is right there in your link. That whole memo is nothing else than a manifesto saying "Brendan had to go". Your only possible counterargument seems to be that the memo might have been just a PR move, while in fact he stepped down voluntarily. But, when you think of it, publicly saying "Brendan had to go" is not much different from actually making him go in the sense that in both cases the organization makes a bold political statement on behalf of its employees, its contributors, its supporters and with consequences for its users.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

confounded 9y ago

Mozilla certainly do lots of things to support capitalism, too.