6 ms·

> Actually, it isn't. Actions have consequences, if Eich wanted to be a contributor to that cause he could have done so silently. By doing it in a publicly visi

by koolba 6y ago

> Actually, it isn't. Actions have consequences, if Eich wanted to be a contributor to that cause he could have done so silently. By doing it in a publicly visible way as the CEO of a large company he made it a political statement and action begets reaction. Eich very explicitly brought his views into the office in a way that a substantial fraction of Mozilla's employees did not want to be associated with. He didn't bring his views into the office. He had them outside and the alphabet mob lit them as a Molotov cocktail and threw them into the building. Those employees could have quit and worked somewhere else too. In a lot of ways that would have been great as they could have cut down on a couple of the pointless projects. By your standard it's impossible for anyone to both have public views that disagree with your own and be the head of any large organization. > Besides that, money in politics is anti-democratic. Money in politics is the great equalizer. It's as democratic as it gets. Otherwise you end up with a handful of media and tech oligarchs controlling all messaging.

jacquesm 6y ago
> He didn't bring his views into the office. He had them outside and the alphabet mob lit them as a Molotov cocktail and threw them into the building. He made a public donation in his own name to a very divisive cause. That is a political statement if there ever was one and set the stage for a confrontation with at least a sizeable fraction of the company he as supposed to want to lead. > Those employees could have quit and worked somewhere else too. Yes, they could have. And they might have had Eich stayed on. > In a lot of ways that would have been great as they could have cut down on a couple of the pointless projects. Contrary to managements' viewpoint programmers are not fungible, and you can't just drop them into each others projects on a whim. What if the bulk of those that left had worked on FireFox? > By your standard it's impossible for anyone to both have public views that disagree with your own and be the head of any large organization. Why do you think CEOs are normally speaking quite careful about such public statements? Precisely because there is the possibility of backlash. Surely this isn't news. > Money in politics is the great equalizer. It's as democratic as it gets. Abject nonsense. Money in politics means that wealthy people get to vote many more times than poor people. An equalizer should make everybody more equal, not less equal. > Otherwise you end up with a handful of media and tech oligarchs controlling all messaging. Yes, like Rupert Murdoch for instance. Oh, wait.
- koolba 6y ago
  > Contrary to managements' viewpoint programmers are not fungible, and you can't just drop them into each others projects on a whim. What if the bulk of those that left had worked on FireFox? Salaries are paid in dollars and all dollars are fungible. That money could have been saved for a future date, which is coming sooner than they think, when search referrals will no longer pay the bills. > Abject nonsense. Money in politics means that wealthy people get to vote many more times than poor people. An equalizer should make everybody more equal, not less equal. Oh but it does. The issue you seem to be having is that you do not want anyone to hear opposing view points. If your ideas are so great they should be able to stay standing when the masses learn about alternatives. Or are you scared that it might actually change their minds? >> Otherwise you end up with a handful of media and tech oligarchs controlling all messaging. > Yes, like Rupert Murdoch for instance. Oh, wait. Yes exactly. And also like Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, Sundar Pichai... At least with the free flow of money someone working in a non-media industry can channel the fruits of their labors to pay to spread their message. Without that ability you're limited to whatever your media masters decide to let you hear.
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    > Salaries are paid in dollars and all dollars are fungible. Dollar donations made to political causes are not fungible when done in the name of the donor (as per the law). And that's the root cause. Whether or not employees would have walked or not you can not know, they very well might have because Mozilla made a big point of attracting those very people. > Oh but it does. The issue you seem to be having is that you do not want anyone to hear opposing view points. If your ideas are so great they should be able to stay standing when the masses learn about alternatives. I think you have your parties muddled up here and I think that you are not so much arguing for Eich's benefit as you are arguing for your own and your own views which you have made plenty visible on HN in the past. The people that don't agree with you are 'leftists'. For instance: "That's part and parcel the strategy of the left, shifting the Overton Window of what you're allowed to support publicly until anything representing traditional conservative values is safely out of range. " Traditional conservative bigoted values are what they are, if you want to publicly associate yourself with those then you are opening yourself up to - at a minimum - ridicule. > Or are you scared that it might actually change their minds? No horse in the race, so not scared. Why would I be? > Yes exactly. And also like Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, Sundar Pichai... In other countries it is called bribery, in the USA it is normal. But that is an aberration, one that is hard to fix because both of the powerful parties in the USA are benefiting from this and effectively manage to keep out any outside contender that does not manage to take over one of the parties (like what just happened to the Republicans). Or do you honestly believe that Trump embodies 'traditional conservative values'? > At least with the free flow of money someone working in a non-media industry can channel the fruits of their labors to pay to spread their message. Which effectively limits the speech of those not so privileged that they have money to spare, who - coincidentally - also happen to be the ones disenfranchised by tricks like Gerrymandering, voter identification, roll purges and a host of other strategies. Fairness doesn't enter into it. > Without that ability you're limited to whatever your media masters decide to let you hear. I read manufacturing consent the year it came out.
srtjstjsj 6y ago
> alphabet mob Discredits everything you have to say.

by koolba 6y ago

jacquesm 6y ago

> He didn't bring his views into the office. He had them outside and the alphabet mob lit them as a Molotov cocktail and threw them into the building. He made a public donation in his own name to a very divisive cause. That is a political statement if there ever was one and set the stage for a confrontation with at least a sizeable fraction of the company he as supposed to want to lead. > Those employees could have quit and worked somewhere else too. Yes, they could have. And they might have had Eich stayed on. > In a lot of ways that would have been great as they could have cut down on a couple of the pointless projects. Contrary to managements' viewpoint programmers are not fungible, and you can't just drop them into each others projects on a whim. What if the bulk of those that left had worked on FireFox? > By your standard it's impossible for anyone to both have public views that disagree with your own and be the head of any large organization. Why do you think CEOs are normally speaking quite careful about such public statements? Precisely because there is the possibility of backlash. Surely this isn't news. > Money in politics is the great equalizer. It's as democratic as it gets. Abject nonsense. Money in politics means that wealthy people get to vote many more times than poor people. An equalizer should make everybody more equal, not less equal. > Otherwise you end up with a handful of media and tech oligarchs controlling all messaging. Yes, like Rupert Murdoch for instance. Oh, wait.

koolba 6y ago
> Contrary to managements' viewpoint programmers are not fungible, and you can't just drop them into each others projects on a whim. What if the bulk of those that left had worked on FireFox? Salaries are paid in dollars and all dollars are fungible. That money could have been saved for a future date, which is coming sooner than they think, when search referrals will no longer pay the bills. > Abject nonsense. Money in politics means that wealthy people get to vote many more times than poor people. An equalizer should make everybody more equal, not less equal. Oh but it does. The issue you seem to be having is that you do not want anyone to hear opposing view points. If your ideas are so great they should be able to stay standing when the masses learn about alternatives. Or are you scared that it might actually change their minds? >> Otherwise you end up with a handful of media and tech oligarchs controlling all messaging. > Yes, like Rupert Murdoch for instance. Oh, wait. Yes exactly. And also like Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, Sundar Pichai... At least with the free flow of money someone working in a non-media industry can channel the fruits of their labors to pay to spread their message. Without that ability you're limited to whatever your media masters decide to let you hear.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  > Salaries are paid in dollars and all dollars are fungible. Dollar donations made to political causes are not fungible when done in the name of the donor (as per the law). And that's the root cause. Whether or not employees would have walked or not you can not know, they very well might have because Mozilla made a big point of attracting those very people. > Oh but it does. The issue you seem to be having is that you do not want anyone to hear opposing view points. If your ideas are so great they should be able to stay standing when the masses learn about alternatives. I think you have your parties muddled up here and I think that you are not so much arguing for Eich's benefit as you are arguing for your own and your own views which you have made plenty visible on HN in the past. The people that don't agree with you are 'leftists'. For instance: "That's part and parcel the strategy of the left, shifting the Overton Window of what you're allowed to support publicly until anything representing traditional conservative values is safely out of range. " Traditional conservative bigoted values are what they are, if you want to publicly associate yourself with those then you are opening yourself up to - at a minimum - ridicule. > Or are you scared that it might actually change their minds? No horse in the race, so not scared. Why would I be? > Yes exactly. And also like Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, Sundar Pichai... In other countries it is called bribery, in the USA it is normal. But that is an aberration, one that is hard to fix because both of the powerful parties in the USA are benefiting from this and effectively manage to keep out any outside contender that does not manage to take over one of the parties (like what just happened to the Republicans). Or do you honestly believe that Trump embodies 'traditional conservative values'? > At least with the free flow of money someone working in a non-media industry can channel the fruits of their labors to pay to spread their message. Which effectively limits the speech of those not so privileged that they have money to spare, who - coincidentally - also happen to be the ones disenfranchised by tricks like Gerrymandering, voter identification, roll purges and a host of other strategies. Fairness doesn't enter into it. > Without that ability you're limited to whatever your media masters decide to let you hear. I read manufacturing consent the year it came out.

srtjstjsj 6y ago

> alphabet mob Discredits everything you have to say.