10 ms·

> I don't think you'll be able to attribute that quote to me. Eich fucked up, and should have realized that you can't be leading a flagship of diversity on the

> I don't think you'll be able to attribute that quote to me. Eich fucked up, and should have realized that you can't be leading a flagship of diversity on the one hand and be a bigot on the other. I have a problem with characterizing Brendan Eich as a bigot for donating to a non-fringe political group. IIRC, the proposition campaign he donated to had close to a 50/50 split in support for/against. Eich's ouster crystalized in my mind that Mozilla wa no longer focused on its core mission (the signs were already there - dropped Thunderbird, had an oversized IoT dept). I am speaking as a person who was a vocal Firefox evangelist since the 2.x days

jacquesm 6y ago
I'm still a FF evangelist though it is getting harder by the day. Eich should have realized that his actions as CEO of a highly visible entity would be viewed in a different light than if he were merely just another nobody. Missing that was his crucial mistake, he could have made the donation anonymously, but decided to do it in his own name making it a given that this would be associated with Mozilla. That was stupid. But as it was he could have simply apologized and hunkered down, I suspect (based on board members' and Eichs' own statements) that it was the pressure from the employees that made him decide to resign. Whether a proposition has a 50/50 split or not does not matter, if half your country is made up of bigots that doesn't mean that it isn't bigotry, it just means that you have a very large problem.
- sangnoir 6y ago
  > Missing that was his crucial mistake, he could have made the donation anonymously, but decided to do it in his own name making it a given that this would be associated with Mozilla. That was stupid. So I guess this means no Mozilla leader should be making any private political donations at all, because if they do, Mozilla is at risk of losing half of its (US) leaders in red or blue states. I sure hope the employees still have jobs, and if not, they have vetted their new board & CEOs past donations. > Whether a proposition has a 50/50 split or not does not matter, if half your country is made up of bigots that doesn't mean that it isn't bigotry, it just means that you have a very large problem. Do those employees/volunteers feel equally strongly about their "bigoted" user base? Or are they more morally flexible since that directly impacts their incomes?
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    > So I guess this means no Mozilla leader should be making any private political donations at all, because if they do, Mozilla is at risk of losing half of its (US) leaders in red or blue states. They can, but they had better think this through. Note that money in politics is a problem to begin with, and that your regular votes are anonymous. If you decide to do so in a public way on a controversial subject then you take a risk. > I sure hope the employees still have jobs, and if not, they have vetted their new board & CEOs past donations. Writing this from liberal Europe, the American stance against gay marriage is very puzzling, though even here in the EU there are countries where this sentiment is still alive. > Do those employees/volunteers feel equally strongly about their "bigoted" user base? They typically don't know. By advertising it the rules were changed, and that was optional. > Or are they more morally flexible since that directly impacts their incomes? How many of the HN folk are in the MIC? How many of them are against anything other than heterosexual relationships? How many of them are racists? We do not know. We do occasionally get a glimpse when someone deliberately or accidentally outs themselves as such and when they do so in the name of a company that tends to reflect badly on that company. Eich made his own bed and chose to walk rather than to lie in it. Personally I think the bigger problem with Mozilla/FireFox is the lack of focus and as long as that isn't addressed it does not matter who is in the wheelhouse the only thing that it will affect is the rate at which the ship is going down. The way things are going there won't be another Google payday for Mozilla because there won't be a FireFox userbase left.
    - tomp 6y ago
      > Personally I think the bigger problem with Mozilla/FireFox is the lack of focus You do realize that you're contradicting yourself, right? Promoting cancel culture (ousting Eich) isn't exactly focusing on tech. Generally you can only pick one or the other
      - jacquesm 6y ago
        No, there is no contradiction. The actions of the CEO and the actions of the employees are two entirely different things. The CEO could have been just focused on tech and could have left his political flags in the proverbial closet. Instead he chose to bring them out. Mozilla was already an entity that had made some pretty strong statements about diversity, inclusivity and their view of the open web. If you then stir up a shitstorm you will find you can no longer effectively focus on the tech either. So you can very well pick both: make all those statements, live by them, attract employees who see things likewise and then focus on the tech. But that's a glass house of your own making and if you then start hurling bricks it will have a terrible effect.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >Whether a proposition has a 50/50 split or not does not matter, if half your country is made up of bigots that doesn't mean that it isn't bigotry, it just means that you have a very large problem. Morality (or what is "bigoted") is not a law of nature or an absolute, it's a societal convention (even murder is not an absolute "bad" - the US or Chinese or Saudi society deems capital punishment as immoral for example, whereas mine does not. Same for drug use or sale, and tons of other things, heck, even incest - not a big deal moraly in ancient Egypt, Westeros, and/or some parts of the rural South). So it very much matters what the split was.
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    No, it does not matter. If you are on the wrong side of history the size of the company you keep is irrelevant. The US has no problem with capital punishment last I checked (nor do they have a problem with life imprisonment without a trial), maybe not the best example?
    - Joker_vD 6y ago
      So basically, one shouldn't have wrong opinions, especially if they're publicly visible persons. Or rather, one is allowed to have wrong opinions (in private), but voicing them or goodness forbid, acting according to those, ist verbotten und un-Amerikane.
      - jacquesm 6y ago
        Wow, what a huge strawman. No, it is fine if you have wrong opinions. But be prepared to get the flak associated with those. Nobody forced Eich to make a donation, but doing so publicly set him up for a confrontation with a substantial chunk of Mozilla's employees further down the line. Just like a 'mild case of rape' could trip up a supreme court justice nominee. (Or at least, it should have.)
        coldtea 6y ago
        >No, it is fine if you have wrong opinions. But be prepared to get the flak associated with those. That's not different than Stalinist Russia, the Inquisition, Nazi Germany, McCarthyism, some conservative backwater, etc. If having "flak associated" with having wrong opinions is acceptable by your book, then those examples were all about free speech too. Their victims just got some heavy flak for their opinions. Or is it bad only when it involves an execution? Rest assured than in most cases in those regimes an execution wasn't needed either. Most were just fired, or beaten up, or ostacized, or disallowed to advance etc., so that's ok I guess. Doesn't even have to be the state to give "the flak". In the case of the Inquisition it was the church. And in other cases it has been an angry mob.
- ummonk 6y ago
  How could have have made the donation anonymously? Were FEC laws different at the time?
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    I'm sure Eich is smart enough to figure that one out. He could also have chosen to simply not donate given his position as CEO of a very visible entity. He must feel pretty strongly about this subject given the fact that he could have recanted but he chose to walk instead.
    - goatinaboat 6y ago
      He could also have chosen to simply not donate given his position as CEO of a very visible entity. He would have needed a time machine or a crystal ball, since the donation was made in 2008 and he became CEO in 2014.
      - jacquesm 6y ago
        Fair enough, at the time he was 'just' a co-founder of Mozilla and had not yet made the play to become CEO in 2014, but as recently as 2010 he made another such donation, and there is zero evidence that he had changed his mind at the time.
    - ummonk 6y ago
      Are you saying he should have broken campaign finance laws by donating under an alias?
- michaelt 6y ago
  > he could have made the donation anonymously, but decided to do it in his own name [...] That was stupid. Clearly it didn't work out well for him, but I'm not sure it rises to the level of stupidity so much as naïvety. After all, he'd probably seen plenty of his peers publicly supporting other political causes without problems. He just didn't realise the situation was "Leader of open source nonprofit, right-wing, publicly political, pick any 2"
  - quickthrowman 6y ago
    “Denying a minority group rights shared by others” is not a political cause, it is hate, plain and simple. What if he was donating to support miscegenation? Would that be over the line?
    - FeepingCreature 6y ago
      No. Anyone should be able to support any political cause at any time. In a free society, we do not rely on force to produce morally correct behavior, except by force of state. We rely on law instead, which conversely requires complete freedom to participate in the democratic apparatus. Anything that messes with that messes with the very heart of a liberal democracy.
      - pseudalopex 6y ago
        Freedom of association doesn't rely on law.
        FeepingCreature 6y ago
        Corporations do not have unlimited freedom of association anyways. For instance, we already acknowledge that corporations can't refuse to associate with people on the basis of skin color. Saying that they could, say, fire a black CEO because otherwise their KKK customers would walk out, already doesn't fly; I don't see why it should have with Eich. I think racial equality is important, but political neutrality is at least equally important, because if that fails then liberalism is fucked, and liberalism is the best guarantor of racial equality as well.
- zo1 6y ago
  The term "bigot" is highly loaded, ambiguous term and we seem to be using it in some random cancel-culture way that only applies to selective beliefs and ascribing some sort of "evil" property to the individuals we throw it at. I'll even go out and say that I am a bigot because I am unreasonable about a lot of different topics and points of view that I disagree with. Here are a bunch of variations of the definition, for your perusal. Oxford: "a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions." Merriam Webster: "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. Especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance" Cambridge: "a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who does not like other people who have different beliefs or a different way of life: " Dictionary.com: "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion." Collins: "Someone who is bigoted has strong, unreasonable prejudices or opinions and will not change them, even when they are proved to be wrong. " Oxford Learners: "a person who has very strong, unreasonable beliefs or opinions about race, religion or politics and who will not listen to or accept the opinions of anyone who disagrees"
- accountLost 6y ago
  bigot : a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions (google definition). So maybe half of the country is made up of bigots but they are from both side. The other half are those that don't have strong opinions or simply don't care.
- jcranmer 6y ago
  > Eich should have realized that his actions as CEO of a highly visible entity would be viewed in a different light than if he were merely just another nobody. You do realize that the donation occurred years before he was appointed CEO, right?
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    The sequence doesn't really matter though, does it? Eich felt strongly enough about the issue to donate money to it, then moved to become CEO of a company whose main charter is diametrically opposed to such a stance. I don't see how he would have been able to do that without it coming to a head sooner or later. Also, and this is just a general observation, whether Eich would have been a good CEO or not is a complete unknown.
    - jcranmer 6y ago
      The other context that's important here is that it's a political topic where popular shifted massively in the same timeframe--circa 20 percentage points IIRC. You're basically faulting him for taking a position which was reasonable and well within the center of public opinion at the time, which had subsequently become unpopular. And completely discounting the statement he made in the meantime showing that his opinions had, in fact, evolved over time, just as it had for a large fraction of the population. (Another thing to point out is that the board was aware of the political contribution when he was appointed CEO, and did not feel it was any obstacle.)
      - jacquesm 6y ago
        Sorry, but no, it being a common opinion does not necessarily a reasonable one. And one board member did resign over this prior to his appointment. For us here in NL (where 90%+ of the population supports gay marriage) the whole idea that this is even worth arguing over seems strange, about as strange as coming out pro-slavery would be.
        BrendanEich 6y ago
- vxNsr 6y ago
  > Eich should have realized that his actions as CEO of a highly visible entity would be viewed in a different light than if he were merely just another nobody. Missing that was his crucial mistake, he could have made the donation anonymously, but decided to do it in his own name making it a given that this would be associated with Mozilla. That was stupid. You do realize that all political donations in the US are not allowed to be anonymous right? This was years before citizens united, the only way to donate was through your own name. Nothing you’ve said in this entire thread has made any sense, please reconsider demonizing someone you don’t know about issues you don’t understand with arguments that are false.
- roca 6y ago
  He wasn't CEO when he made the donations in 2008, of course. Nor was he CEO when the donations came to light in 2012. Everyone at Mozilla knew about them when he was appointed CEO. > I suspect (based on board members' and Eichs' own statements) that it was the pressure from the employees that made him decide to resign. I worked on Firefox from 2000 and full time from 2005 to 2016. Your suspicion is completely wrong. All employees I knew, mostly on the engineering side, were happy with his appointment or at least didn't express any wish for him to step down. That includes the gay employees I knew. The only Mozilla group that I know of who expressed a desire for him to step down were a handful of people in the Mozilla Foundation (who would not have been part of Brendan's org since he was CEO of the Corporation). They went public with it and got a big PR splash, which I think spawned this meme that there was a clamour of Mozilla Corp employees demanding Brendan's resignation. There was not. You have posted many comments in this thread but apparently you weren't there and you aren't aware of basic relevant facts. Please show some humility.
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    The basic relevant facts that I'm aware of are those as reported in the various media and written up from the statements of the participants on the matter. If those are not to be taken as authoritative then I think we may as well shut down HN because there is nothing that can be debated past that point. I'm sure there are interesting and probably quite relevant details to be had but your word - an anonymous HN contributor to me - does not weigh as heavy as Eich's own statements on the matter. Maybe it is you that should show some humility? Or maybe you should attach your name to your profile to show that you actually were in the board room at the time that this was decided. If Eich wanted to record a different history then he was entirely free to do so. I clearly remember his statement of regret at the time, it seemed sincere as far as I could see and I think that he should have been given a fair chance, but I also understand how he may have decided to step down. There are lots of stories about what happened in that boardroom meeting, all of them more or less plausible, until the participants speak up to contradict it I will stick to basing my views on the official version.
    - pseudalopex 6y ago
- sequoia 6y ago
  > But as it was he could have simply apologized and hunkered down Apologize for what? Exercising his right to political speech? His views represented the views of 52% of the Californian voters, i.e. the majority of voters. He's supposed to apologize for, literally, "agreeing with most people?" If employees were revolting, perhaps him stepping down was the right choice. But suggesting that he should "apologize" for having political views some employees disagree with is completely unreasonable and indicative of a bullying power play.
  - pseudalopex 6y ago
    Eich acknowledged he hurt people.[1] He didn't just hold a view. 52% of Californian voters didn't ask Mozilla employees to trust them with their livelihoods and the culture of the company. A lot of them changed their minds by 2014 too. [1] https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/
    - sequoia 6y ago
      Eich expressed "sorrow at having caused pain" which is not the same as acknowledging having "hurt people." This is pedantic but if we're going to talk about what someone else said, we should be precise. I don't understand your point about 2014. Did Eich make more "controversial donations" that year?
      - pseudalopex 6y ago
        Causing someone pain hurts them by definition. Eich became CEO in 2014. He declined to say he wouldn't do the same thing again.
        sequoia 6y ago
        > He declined to say he wouldn't do the same thing again. Was he presented with a loyalty oath that he refused to sign? What do you mean he "declined to say"? Was he asked to say "I won't do this again" or do you think he should have volunteered such a statement? In the post you linked he acknowledges having "caused pain" & affirms that Mozilla is a 100% inclusive company. Do you think he should have done more than this? For my part, I find loyalty oaths odious & refuse to ever participate in them. I support gay rights, gay marriage etc. but if you demanded that I state my support for gay marriage upon your command, I would tell you to get lost.
renewiltord 6y ago
Why does the vote percentage matter? 43% of Germans voted for the NSDAP. Doesn't absolve them of their bigotry. If 100% of Americans voted that way that would just make all of them bigoted.
- hatch_q 6y ago
  Treaty of Versailles caused this. If NSDAP didn't happen, some other extreme would.
  - Qwertious 6y ago
    That's a hell of a controversial claim, it's still pretty hotly debated among historians. You could perhaps say that people used the treaty as a scapegoat, but as for Versaille being the actual cause, not so much.
    - jacquesm 6y ago
      I think it is an attempt at something approximating a reverse Godwin.
- kalleboo 6y ago
  If you have a country where half of the population disagrees with the other half, and each half "cancels" the other and refuses to do business with them, the country will grind to a halt.
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    But we are all witness to the fact that it doesn't, at least so far. The reason why it does not is that people don't typically wear their politics on their sleeves though the divisive nature of present day politics is not helping with that. So in fact, you may be prophetic, time will tell on that one.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
matthewmacleod 6y ago
That's great, but those of us who were directly affected by his actions—funding a group specifically intended to focus on ensuring we were prevented from accessing certain rights—will probably just dismiss this rather privileged view.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> I have a problem with characterizing Brendan Eich as a bigot for donating to a non-fringe political group Bigotry is not how, and never has been, a fringe position in the US. If you have a problem acknowledging that...well, it doesn't make it any less true.
jboog 6y ago
The leader of a large tech company was the government to ensure his gay and lesbian employees can never legally get married, despite straight employees enjoying all the personal/financial benefits of marriage. I don't care if it had 50/50 support. It's dead wrong. 50 years ago there were places in the US where interracial marriage had 50/50 support or less. Still dead wrong.
- djmobley 6y ago
  > It's dead wrong. Says who? 50% of voters? The employees of any large organisation are bound to have differing views, particularly on divisive political issues. Why should somebody be forced out of a role because their views differ with those of some of their employees?
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    Because they are supposed to lead those very employees. If you are going to square off over something like this in the workplace then it will - obviously - impact your ability to do your job.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      How could he support gay marriage without negatively impacting his ability to lead his devoutly conservative employees? I’m in favor of equality in marriage and broadly the rights of individuals to live true to themselves and free from discrimination, but if a divisive topic is 50/50, it’s hard to see how supporting one side or the other wouldn’t alienate some portion of your employee base. Obviously, never taking a stance on any issue is the most middle of the road, career-lengthening tactic to take, but that’s not exactly the world I want to live in either. I don’t have to (and do not) agree 100% with my CEO’s political views; that doesn’t impact his ability to lead nor my ability to execute.
      - jboog 6y ago
        "I’m in favor of equality in marriage and broadly the rights of individuals to live true to themselves and free from discrimination, but if a topic is 50/50, it’s hard to see how supporting one side or the other wouldn’t alienate some portion of your employee base." They are wrong. When the majority of Americans believed African Americans were inferior to whites they were also dead fucking wrong. These are basic human rights issues. Human rights don't depend on how many people support them.
_jal 6y ago
> I have a problem with characterizing [a person] as a bigot for donating to a non-fringe political group. Your word choice is your business. But why would a bigot become not-a-bigot because there were more of them? Morality is not a popularity contest.
FireBeyond 6y ago
> a bigot for donating to a non-fringe political group. IIRC, the proposition campaign he donated to had close to a 50/50 split in support for/against What? What does people's support for a proposition that denies rights to homosexual people do to make it less discriminatory? What if it's worse? "You're not being discriminated against, because 80% of the population are in support of you being discriminated against". This makes no sense.

jacquesm 6y ago

I'm still a FF evangelist though it is getting harder by the day. Eich should have realized that his actions as CEO of a highly visible entity would be viewed in a different light than if he were merely just another nobody. Missing that was his crucial mistake, he could have made the donation anonymously, but decided to do it in his own name making it a given that this would be associated with Mozilla. That was stupid. But as it was he could have simply apologized and hunkered down, I suspect (based on board members' and Eichs' own statements) that it was the pressure from the employees that made him decide to resign. Whether a proposition has a 50/50 split or not does not matter, if half your country is made up of bigots that doesn't mean that it isn't bigotry, it just means that you have a very large problem.

sangnoir 6y ago
> Missing that was his crucial mistake, he could have made the donation anonymously, but decided to do it in his own name making it a given that this would be associated with Mozilla. That was stupid. So I guess this means no Mozilla leader should be making any private political donations at all, because if they do, Mozilla is at risk of losing half of its (US) leaders in red or blue states. I sure hope the employees still have jobs, and if not, they have vetted their new board & CEOs past donations. > Whether a proposition has a 50/50 split or not does not matter, if half your country is made up of bigots that doesn't mean that it isn't bigotry, it just means that you have a very large problem. Do those employees/volunteers feel equally strongly about their "bigoted" user base? Or are they more morally flexible since that directly impacts their incomes?
- jacquesm 6y ago
  > So I guess this means no Mozilla leader should be making any private political donations at all, because if they do, Mozilla is at risk of losing half of its (US) leaders in red or blue states. They can, but they had better think this through. Note that money in politics is a problem to begin with, and that your regular votes are anonymous. If you decide to do so in a public way on a controversial subject then you take a risk. > I sure hope the employees still have jobs, and if not, they have vetted their new board & CEOs past donations. Writing this from liberal Europe, the American stance against gay marriage is very puzzling, though even here in the EU there are countries where this sentiment is still alive. > Do those employees/volunteers feel equally strongly about their "bigoted" user base? They typically don't know. By advertising it the rules were changed, and that was optional. > Or are they more morally flexible since that directly impacts their incomes? How many of the HN folk are in the MIC? How many of them are against anything other than heterosexual relationships? How many of them are racists? We do not know. We do occasionally get a glimpse when someone deliberately or accidentally outs themselves as such and when they do so in the name of a company that tends to reflect badly on that company. Eich made his own bed and chose to walk rather than to lie in it. Personally I think the bigger problem with Mozilla/FireFox is the lack of focus and as long as that isn't addressed it does not matter who is in the wheelhouse the only thing that it will affect is the rate at which the ship is going down. The way things are going there won't be another Google payday for Mozilla because there won't be a FireFox userbase left.
  - tomp 6y ago
    > Personally I think the bigger problem with Mozilla/FireFox is the lack of focus You do realize that you're contradicting yourself, right? Promoting cancel culture (ousting Eich) isn't exactly focusing on tech. Generally you can only pick one or the other
    - jacquesm 6y ago
      No, there is no contradiction. The actions of the CEO and the actions of the employees are two entirely different things. The CEO could have been just focused on tech and could have left his political flags in the proverbial closet. Instead he chose to bring them out. Mozilla was already an entity that had made some pretty strong statements about diversity, inclusivity and their view of the open web. If you then stir up a shitstorm you will find you can no longer effectively focus on the tech either. So you can very well pick both: make all those statements, live by them, attract employees who see things likewise and then focus on the tech. But that's a glass house of your own making and if you then start hurling bricks it will have a terrible effect.
coldtea 6y ago
>Whether a proposition has a 50/50 split or not does not matter, if half your country is made up of bigots that doesn't mean that it isn't bigotry, it just means that you have a very large problem. Morality (or what is "bigoted") is not a law of nature or an absolute, it's a societal convention (even murder is not an absolute "bad" - the US or Chinese or Saudi society deems capital punishment as immoral for example, whereas mine does not. Same for drug use or sale, and tons of other things, heck, even incest - not a big deal moraly in ancient Egypt, Westeros, and/or some parts of the rural South). So it very much matters what the split was.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  No, it does not matter. If you are on the wrong side of history the size of the company you keep is irrelevant. The US has no problem with capital punishment last I checked (nor do they have a problem with life imprisonment without a trial), maybe not the best example?
  - Joker_vD 6y ago
    So basically, one shouldn't have wrong opinions, especially if they're publicly visible persons. Or rather, one is allowed to have wrong opinions (in private), but voicing them or goodness forbid, acting according to those, ist verbotten und un-Amerikane.
    - jacquesm 6y ago
      Wow, what a huge strawman. No, it is fine if you have wrong opinions. But be prepared to get the flak associated with those. Nobody forced Eich to make a donation, but doing so publicly set him up for a confrontation with a substantial chunk of Mozilla's employees further down the line. Just like a 'mild case of rape' could trip up a supreme court justice nominee. (Or at least, it should have.)
      - coldtea 6y ago
        >No, it is fine if you have wrong opinions. But be prepared to get the flak associated with those. That's not different than Stalinist Russia, the Inquisition, Nazi Germany, McCarthyism, some conservative backwater, etc. If having "flak associated" with having wrong opinions is acceptable by your book, then those examples were all about free speech too. Their victims just got some heavy flak for their opinions. Or is it bad only when it involves an execution? Rest assured than in most cases in those regimes an execution wasn't needed either. Most were just fired, or beaten up, or ostacized, or disallowed to advance etc., so that's ok I guess. Doesn't even have to be the state to give "the flak". In the case of the Inquisition it was the church. And in other cases it has been an angry mob.
ummonk 6y ago
How could have have made the donation anonymously? Were FEC laws different at the time?
- jacquesm 6y ago
  I'm sure Eich is smart enough to figure that one out. He could also have chosen to simply not donate given his position as CEO of a very visible entity. He must feel pretty strongly about this subject given the fact that he could have recanted but he chose to walk instead.
  - goatinaboat 6y ago
    He could also have chosen to simply not donate given his position as CEO of a very visible entity. He would have needed a time machine or a crystal ball, since the donation was made in 2008 and he became CEO in 2014.
    - jacquesm 6y ago
      Fair enough, at the time he was 'just' a co-founder of Mozilla and had not yet made the play to become CEO in 2014, but as recently as 2010 he made another such donation, and there is zero evidence that he had changed his mind at the time.
  - ummonk 6y ago
    Are you saying he should have broken campaign finance laws by donating under an alias?
michaelt 6y ago
> he could have made the donation anonymously, but decided to do it in his own name [...] That was stupid. Clearly it didn't work out well for him, but I'm not sure it rises to the level of stupidity so much as naïvety. After all, he'd probably seen plenty of his peers publicly supporting other political causes without problems. He just didn't realise the situation was "Leader of open source nonprofit, right-wing, publicly political, pick any 2"
- quickthrowman 6y ago
  “Denying a minority group rights shared by others” is not a political cause, it is hate, plain and simple. What if he was donating to support miscegenation? Would that be over the line?
  - FeepingCreature 6y ago
    No. Anyone should be able to support any political cause at any time. In a free society, we do not rely on force to produce morally correct behavior, except by force of state. We rely on law instead, which conversely requires complete freedom to participate in the democratic apparatus. Anything that messes with that messes with the very heart of a liberal democracy.
    - pseudalopex 6y ago
      Freedom of association doesn't rely on law.
      - FeepingCreature 6y ago
        Corporations do not have unlimited freedom of association anyways. For instance, we already acknowledge that corporations can't refuse to associate with people on the basis of skin color. Saying that they could, say, fire a black CEO because otherwise their KKK customers would walk out, already doesn't fly; I don't see why it should have with Eich. I think racial equality is important, but political neutrality is at least equally important, because if that fails then liberalism is fucked, and liberalism is the best guarantor of racial equality as well.
zo1 6y ago
The term "bigot" is highly loaded, ambiguous term and we seem to be using it in some random cancel-culture way that only applies to selective beliefs and ascribing some sort of "evil" property to the individuals we throw it at. I'll even go out and say that I am a bigot because I am unreasonable about a lot of different topics and points of view that I disagree with. Here are a bunch of variations of the definition, for your perusal. Oxford: "a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions." Merriam Webster: "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. Especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance" Cambridge: "a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who does not like other people who have different beliefs or a different way of life: " Dictionary.com: "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion." Collins: "Someone who is bigoted has strong, unreasonable prejudices or opinions and will not change them, even when they are proved to be wrong. " Oxford Learners: "a person who has very strong, unreasonable beliefs or opinions about race, religion or politics and who will not listen to or accept the opinions of anyone who disagrees"
accountLost 6y ago
bigot : a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions (google definition). So maybe half of the country is made up of bigots but they are from both side. The other half are those that don't have strong opinions or simply don't care.
jcranmer 6y ago
> Eich should have realized that his actions as CEO of a highly visible entity would be viewed in a different light than if he were merely just another nobody. You do realize that the donation occurred years before he was appointed CEO, right?
- jacquesm 6y ago
  The sequence doesn't really matter though, does it? Eich felt strongly enough about the issue to donate money to it, then moved to become CEO of a company whose main charter is diametrically opposed to such a stance. I don't see how he would have been able to do that without it coming to a head sooner or later. Also, and this is just a general observation, whether Eich would have been a good CEO or not is a complete unknown.
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    The other context that's important here is that it's a political topic where popular shifted massively in the same timeframe--circa 20 percentage points IIRC. You're basically faulting him for taking a position which was reasonable and well within the center of public opinion at the time, which had subsequently become unpopular. And completely discounting the statement he made in the meantime showing that his opinions had, in fact, evolved over time, just as it had for a large fraction of the population. (Another thing to point out is that the board was aware of the political contribution when he was appointed CEO, and did not feel it was any obstacle.)
    - jacquesm 6y ago
      Sorry, but no, it being a common opinion does not necessarily a reasonable one. And one board member did resign over this prior to his appointment. For us here in NL (where 90%+ of the population supports gay marriage) the whole idea that this is even worth arguing over seems strange, about as strange as coming out pro-slavery would be.
      - BrendanEich 6y ago
vxNsr 6y ago
> Eich should have realized that his actions as CEO of a highly visible entity would be viewed in a different light than if he were merely just another nobody. Missing that was his crucial mistake, he could have made the donation anonymously, but decided to do it in his own name making it a given that this would be associated with Mozilla. That was stupid. You do realize that all political donations in the US are not allowed to be anonymous right? This was years before citizens united, the only way to donate was through your own name. Nothing you’ve said in this entire thread has made any sense, please reconsider demonizing someone you don’t know about issues you don’t understand with arguments that are false.
roca 6y ago
He wasn't CEO when he made the donations in 2008, of course. Nor was he CEO when the donations came to light in 2012. Everyone at Mozilla knew about them when he was appointed CEO. > I suspect (based on board members' and Eichs' own statements) that it was the pressure from the employees that made him decide to resign. I worked on Firefox from 2000 and full time from 2005 to 2016. Your suspicion is completely wrong. All employees I knew, mostly on the engineering side, were happy with his appointment or at least didn't express any wish for him to step down. That includes the gay employees I knew. The only Mozilla group that I know of who expressed a desire for him to step down were a handful of people in the Mozilla Foundation (who would not have been part of Brendan's org since he was CEO of the Corporation). They went public with it and got a big PR splash, which I think spawned this meme that there was a clamour of Mozilla Corp employees demanding Brendan's resignation. There was not. You have posted many comments in this thread but apparently you weren't there and you aren't aware of basic relevant facts. Please show some humility.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  The basic relevant facts that I'm aware of are those as reported in the various media and written up from the statements of the participants on the matter. If those are not to be taken as authoritative then I think we may as well shut down HN because there is nothing that can be debated past that point. I'm sure there are interesting and probably quite relevant details to be had but your word - an anonymous HN contributor to me - does not weigh as heavy as Eich's own statements on the matter. Maybe it is you that should show some humility? Or maybe you should attach your name to your profile to show that you actually were in the board room at the time that this was decided. If Eich wanted to record a different history then he was entirely free to do so. I clearly remember his statement of regret at the time, it seemed sincere as far as I could see and I think that he should have been given a fair chance, but I also understand how he may have decided to step down. There are lots of stories about what happened in that boardroom meeting, all of them more or less plausible, until the participants speak up to contradict it I will stick to basing my views on the official version.
  - pseudalopex 6y ago
sequoia 6y ago
> But as it was he could have simply apologized and hunkered down Apologize for what? Exercising his right to political speech? His views represented the views of 52% of the Californian voters, i.e. the majority of voters. He's supposed to apologize for, literally, "agreeing with most people?" If employees were revolting, perhaps him stepping down was the right choice. But suggesting that he should "apologize" for having political views some employees disagree with is completely unreasonable and indicative of a bullying power play.
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  Eich acknowledged he hurt people.[1] He didn't just hold a view. 52% of Californian voters didn't ask Mozilla employees to trust them with their livelihoods and the culture of the company. A lot of them changed their minds by 2014 too. [1] https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/
  - sequoia 6y ago
    Eich expressed "sorrow at having caused pain" which is not the same as acknowledging having "hurt people." This is pedantic but if we're going to talk about what someone else said, we should be precise. I don't understand your point about 2014. Did Eich make more "controversial donations" that year?
    - pseudalopex 6y ago
      Causing someone pain hurts them by definition. Eich became CEO in 2014. He declined to say he wouldn't do the same thing again.
      - sequoia 6y ago
        > He declined to say he wouldn't do the same thing again. Was he presented with a loyalty oath that he refused to sign? What do you mean he "declined to say"? Was he asked to say "I won't do this again" or do you think he should have volunteered such a statement? In the post you linked he acknowledges having "caused pain" & affirms that Mozilla is a 100% inclusive company. Do you think he should have done more than this? For my part, I find loyalty oaths odious & refuse to ever participate in them. I support gay rights, gay marriage etc. but if you demanded that I state my support for gay marriage upon your command, I would tell you to get lost.

renewiltord 6y ago

Why does the vote percentage matter? 43% of Germans voted for the NSDAP. Doesn't absolve them of their bigotry. If 100% of Americans voted that way that would just make all of them bigoted.

hatch_q 6y ago
Treaty of Versailles caused this. If NSDAP didn't happen, some other extreme would.
- Qwertious 6y ago
  That's a hell of a controversial claim, it's still pretty hotly debated among historians. You could perhaps say that people used the treaty as a scapegoat, but as for Versaille being the actual cause, not so much.
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    I think it is an attempt at something approximating a reverse Godwin.
kalleboo 6y ago
If you have a country where half of the population disagrees with the other half, and each half "cancels" the other and refuses to do business with them, the country will grind to a halt.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  But we are all witness to the fact that it doesn't, at least so far. The reason why it does not is that people don't typically wear their politics on their sleeves though the divisive nature of present day politics is not helping with that. So in fact, you may be prophetic, time will tell on that one.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

matthewmacleod 6y ago

That's great, but those of us who were directly affected by his actions—funding a group specifically intended to focus on ensuring we were prevented from accessing certain rights—will probably just dismiss this rather privileged view.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> I have a problem with characterizing Brendan Eich as a bigot for donating to a non-fringe political group Bigotry is not how, and never has been, a fringe position in the US. If you have a problem acknowledging that...well, it doesn't make it any less true.

jboog 6y ago

The leader of a large tech company was the government to ensure his gay and lesbian employees can never legally get married, despite straight employees enjoying all the personal/financial benefits of marriage. I don't care if it had 50/50 support. It's dead wrong. 50 years ago there were places in the US where interracial marriage had 50/50 support or less. Still dead wrong.

djmobley 6y ago
> It's dead wrong. Says who? 50% of voters? The employees of any large organisation are bound to have differing views, particularly on divisive political issues. Why should somebody be forced out of a role because their views differ with those of some of their employees?
- jacquesm 6y ago
  Because they are supposed to lead those very employees. If you are going to square off over something like this in the workplace then it will - obviously - impact your ability to do your job.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    How could he support gay marriage without negatively impacting his ability to lead his devoutly conservative employees? I’m in favor of equality in marriage and broadly the rights of individuals to live true to themselves and free from discrimination, but if a divisive topic is 50/50, it’s hard to see how supporting one side or the other wouldn’t alienate some portion of your employee base. Obviously, never taking a stance on any issue is the most middle of the road, career-lengthening tactic to take, but that’s not exactly the world I want to live in either. I don’t have to (and do not) agree 100% with my CEO’s political views; that doesn’t impact his ability to lead nor my ability to execute.
    - jboog 6y ago
      "I’m in favor of equality in marriage and broadly the rights of individuals to live true to themselves and free from discrimination, but if a topic is 50/50, it’s hard to see how supporting one side or the other wouldn’t alienate some portion of your employee base." They are wrong. When the majority of Americans believed African Americans were inferior to whites they were also dead fucking wrong. These are basic human rights issues. Human rights don't depend on how many people support them.

_jal 6y ago

> I have a problem with characterizing [a person] as a bigot for donating to a non-fringe political group. Your word choice is your business. But why would a bigot become not-a-bigot because there were more of them? Morality is not a popularity contest.

FireBeyond 6y ago

> a bigot for donating to a non-fringe political group. IIRC, the proposition campaign he donated to had close to a 50/50 split in support for/against What? What does people's support for a proposition that denies rights to homosexual people do to make it less discriminatory? What if it's worse? "You're not being discriminated against, because 80% of the population are in support of you being discriminated against". This makes no sense.