7 ms·

[flagged]

by eastbound 1y ago

[flagged]

saubeidl 1y ago
Your point being?
MangoToupe 1y ago
How do you figure that this is "evil" in any way? Who cares about the CEO
- eastbound 1y ago
  Everyone can choose what they consider evil. I consider harassment for political opinions, evil. Privately held political opinions. And Mozilla barred itself from working with a top engineer, inventor of Javascript, for privately-held political reasons, and gave reigns from engineers to business types of people. They kept Mozilla dependent on Google, an economic tie which sidesteps Mozilla from being an alternative to Google. Some comments say I’m holding a grudge, but Brendan Eich is not the only one harassed, it was a statement from Mozilla, it meant We do not tolerate other opinions I consider harassment for political opinions, evil. You are free to believe differently, but at least you cannot say with a straight face that Mozilla has a moral standing against Google.
  - remram 1y ago
    Do you have any evidence at all of Mozilla doing anything? The facts are he resigned as CEO after visible external pressure.
  - dmit 1y ago
    > Privately held Which part of donating money to ensure a class of people don't get the same rights as the donor is private? That's as public of a move as one can imagine.
Moomoomoo309 1y ago
Do you think those opinions would have made it more difficult to work with certain employees at Mozilla based on certain protected traits in the law? If so, I think the donation is a red herring, it's the opinion itself that's the problem. Firing people for their opinions is actually fine - if you believe that certain types of people don't deserve rights, for example, and your company has those types of people in it, that's a problem. Freedom of opinion is not guaranteed.
- waterhouse 1y ago
  Does this approach ultimately lead to the conclusion that people on different sides of the abortion issue can't work in the same company?
  - saubeidl 1y ago
    I believe somebody who is strongly anti-abortion, even for medical reasons and somebody who needs an abortion to save their life probably shouldn't work in the same company.
    - DyslexicAtheist 1y ago
      why would both things every come up for discussion in a workplace environment. sounds like a place I would not want to work at
  - nisegami 1y ago
    There's a difference between a thing that a person does (usually once) and something that a person _is_.
  - smt88 1y ago
    No. It's easy to keep abortions secret. They're protected by privacy laws, so even HR can't ask about them. Medical issues are secret from the workplace by default. It's impossible to keep your sexuality secret if you're married. Your marital status at work is public by default. And no one should have to keep the identity of their spouse secret for fear of being treated worse by the CEO.
  - const_cast 1y ago
    No, it means that those with unsavory opinions should understand it's in their best interest to keep quiet. It's always been the case that saying something offensive can get you fired. I mean, if I call my boss ugly I'm liable to get fired. And that's not even political.
    - 1y ago
ZeroGravitas 1y ago
And the people angry about that have popped up in every Mozilla and Firefox discussion for a decade to let us know that Firefox is too woke and now we have a corporate browser monoculture. Well done folks, your MAGA browser culture war has ruined browsers just like it ruins everything else it touches. But maybe they'll actually ban gay marriage again and it will all have been worth it for you.
- saubeidl 1y ago
  Funnily enough, it's the same people who argue that corporations are people and should have free speech. Firing the CEO was an expression of said free speech.
  - bigstrat2003 1y ago
    No it isn't. I believe it was wrong to fire Brendan Eich (because I believe it's wrong to fire any employee for their activities outside work), but I also don't think corporations count as people and have a right to free speech under the constitution. You're painting with too broad of a brush.
    - saubeidl 1y ago
      Upvote for proving me wrong. It has been my perception that it's usually not a principled objection in this case, but mostly people mad because they share those specific beliefs he was fired for.
  - jasonlotito 1y ago
    > Firing the CEO was an expression of said free speech. They didn't fire him. They even tried to get him to stay after he resigned. https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/faq-on-ceo-resignation/ https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/faq-on-ceo-resignation/ He made a choice, and to the best of my knowledge, he hasn't corrected the record.
  - wk_end 1y ago
    The argument here is that being against punishing someone for their speech is anti-free speech? Because the punishment constitutes speech?
burkaman 1y ago
He wasn't fired, he resigned, almost certainly because of external pressure more than internal. The board (who had just appointed him 10 days before) tried to get him to stay in a different role after he submitted his resignation. https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/faq-on-ceo-resignation/ https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/faq-on-ceo-resignation/
- bigstrat2003 1y ago
  CEOs always "resign" instead of being fired. Is there reason to believe that this particular instance was truly voluntary, unlike every other time a CEO gets fired and then the company lies about it? I'm genuinely asking - I don't know much about corporate culture at Mozilla so maybe it genuinely was a resignation. Just pointing out that companies always claim that, and in other cases it's a lie.
  - burkaman 1y ago
    Yes, there are a few reasons: - External pressure, including a high profile boycott campaign, was widespread and widely reported - Brendan Eich remained a Mozilla employee for years after his donation was first publicly discussed (in the LA Times and on Twitter), with no apparent pressure to leave. The board appointed him CEO with full knowledge of his views and knowledge that they were publicly known. - There were relatively few public statements from Mozilla employees asking him to resign, and none from executives or board members. - I think it's unusual for companies to explicitly lie and say "we tried to get them to stay". It might even expose them to defamation claims or something. If the board forces a resignation, they'll just say "they resigned" (which is technically true) and leave it at that.
mmastrac 1y ago
... 11 years ago. Are you really hanging on to a vendetta this long?
- kbelder 1y ago
  Do you see the comments posted in any discussion about Brave? Some people are hanging on to the vendetta.
bryanrasmussen 1y ago
so how near exactly is that to Google levels of evil, the claim was it was nowhere near but you seem to think it is near, if not exactly a bullseye? How equivalent are these levels of evil I wonder?
JohnTHaller 1y ago
On a related note, a CEO who believes that some of his employees deserve fewer human rights than others is unlikely to be an effective CEO.
tomhow 1y ago
Please don't post flamebait like this on HN. This argument has been done to death countless times here, and there's nothing to be gained by re-litigating it yet again. We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44446181 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44446181 and marked it off topic.

[flagged]

saubeidl 1y ago

Your point being?

MangoToupe 1y ago

How do you figure that this is "evil" in any way? Who cares about the CEO

eastbound 1y ago
Everyone can choose what they consider evil. I consider harassment for political opinions, evil. Privately held political opinions. And Mozilla barred itself from working with a top engineer, inventor of Javascript, for privately-held political reasons, and gave reigns from engineers to business types of people. They kept Mozilla dependent on Google, an economic tie which sidesteps Mozilla from being an alternative to Google. Some comments say I’m holding a grudge, but Brendan Eich is not the only one harassed, it was a statement from Mozilla, it meant We do not tolerate other opinions I consider harassment for political opinions, evil. You are free to believe differently, but at least you cannot say with a straight face that Mozilla has a moral standing against Google.
- remram 1y ago
  Do you have any evidence at all of Mozilla doing anything? The facts are he resigned as CEO after visible external pressure.
- dmit 1y ago
  > Privately held Which part of donating money to ensure a class of people don't get the same rights as the donor is private? That's as public of a move as one can imagine.

Moomoomoo309 1y ago

Do you think those opinions would have made it more difficult to work with certain employees at Mozilla based on certain protected traits in the law? If so, I think the donation is a red herring, it's the opinion itself that's the problem. Firing people for their opinions is actually fine - if you believe that certain types of people don't deserve rights, for example, and your company has those types of people in it, that's a problem. Freedom of opinion is not guaranteed.

waterhouse 1y ago
Does this approach ultimately lead to the conclusion that people on different sides of the abortion issue can't work in the same company?
- saubeidl 1y ago
  I believe somebody who is strongly anti-abortion, even for medical reasons and somebody who needs an abortion to save their life probably shouldn't work in the same company.
  - DyslexicAtheist 1y ago
    why would both things every come up for discussion in a workplace environment. sounds like a place I would not want to work at
- nisegami 1y ago
  There's a difference between a thing that a person does (usually once) and something that a person _is_.
- smt88 1y ago
  No. It's easy to keep abortions secret. They're protected by privacy laws, so even HR can't ask about them. Medical issues are secret from the workplace by default. It's impossible to keep your sexuality secret if you're married. Your marital status at work is public by default. And no one should have to keep the identity of their spouse secret for fear of being treated worse by the CEO.
- const_cast 1y ago
  No, it means that those with unsavory opinions should understand it's in their best interest to keep quiet. It's always been the case that saying something offensive can get you fired. I mean, if I call my boss ugly I'm liable to get fired. And that's not even political.
  - 1y ago

ZeroGravitas 1y ago

And the people angry about that have popped up in every Mozilla and Firefox discussion for a decade to let us know that Firefox is too woke and now we have a corporate browser monoculture. Well done folks, your MAGA browser culture war has ruined browsers just like it ruins everything else it touches. But maybe they'll actually ban gay marriage again and it will all have been worth it for you.

saubeidl 1y ago
Funnily enough, it's the same people who argue that corporations are people and should have free speech. Firing the CEO was an expression of said free speech.
- bigstrat2003 1y ago
  No it isn't. I believe it was wrong to fire Brendan Eich (because I believe it's wrong to fire any employee for their activities outside work), but I also don't think corporations count as people and have a right to free speech under the constitution. You're painting with too broad of a brush.
  - saubeidl 1y ago
    Upvote for proving me wrong. It has been my perception that it's usually not a principled objection in this case, but mostly people mad because they share those specific beliefs he was fired for.
- jasonlotito 1y ago
  > Firing the CEO was an expression of said free speech. They didn't fire him. They even tried to get him to stay after he resigned. https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/faq-on-ceo-resignation/ https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/faq-on-ceo-resignation/ He made a choice, and to the best of my knowledge, he hasn't corrected the record.
- wk_end 1y ago
  The argument here is that being against punishing someone for their speech is anti-free speech? Because the punishment constitutes speech?

burkaman 1y ago

He wasn't fired, he resigned, almost certainly because of external pressure more than internal. The board (who had just appointed him 10 days before) tried to get him to stay in a different role after he submitted his resignation. https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/faq-on-ceo-resignation/ https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/faq-on-ceo-resignation/

bigstrat2003 1y ago
CEOs always "resign" instead of being fired. Is there reason to believe that this particular instance was truly voluntary, unlike every other time a CEO gets fired and then the company lies about it? I'm genuinely asking - I don't know much about corporate culture at Mozilla so maybe it genuinely was a resignation. Just pointing out that companies always claim that, and in other cases it's a lie.
- burkaman 1y ago
  Yes, there are a few reasons: - External pressure, including a high profile boycott campaign, was widespread and widely reported - Brendan Eich remained a Mozilla employee for years after his donation was first publicly discussed (in the LA Times and on Twitter), with no apparent pressure to leave. The board appointed him CEO with full knowledge of his views and knowledge that they were publicly known. - There were relatively few public statements from Mozilla employees asking him to resign, and none from executives or board members. - I think it's unusual for companies to explicitly lie and say "we tried to get them to stay". It might even expose them to defamation claims or something. If the board forces a resignation, they'll just say "they resigned" (which is technically true) and leave it at that.

mmastrac 1y ago

... 11 years ago. Are you really hanging on to a vendetta this long?

kbelder 1y ago
Do you see the comments posted in any discussion about Brave? Some people are hanging on to the vendetta.

bryanrasmussen 1y ago

so how near exactly is that to Google levels of evil, the claim was it was nowhere near but you seem to think it is near, if not exactly a bullseye? How equivalent are these levels of evil I wonder?

JohnTHaller 1y ago

On a related note, a CEO who believes that some of his employees deserve fewer human rights than others is unlikely to be an effective CEO.

tomhow 1y ago

Please don't post flamebait like this on HN. This argument has been done to death countless times here, and there's nothing to be gained by re-litigating it yet again. We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44446181 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44446181 and marked it off topic.