6 ms·

Yeah no, (1) Mozilla was going to be in for a tough go no matter what; I don't think Eich would have fared any better. But (2) you can't donate to stop your own

• sltkr 10mo ago
  > Yeah no, (1) Mozilla was going to be in for a tough go no matter what; I don't think Eich would have fared any better. Nobody knows this for sure. We do know that Eich was fired for political reasons, and not because of his technological direction. This betrays a decision making process that prioritizes political correctness above leadership qualities and technical contributions. > you can't donate to stop your own employees and users from having civil rights without repercussions. Why not? Why can't the CEO of Mozilla have his own private political views just like anyone else, and donate his own private money to whatever democratic causes he likes? This really isn't obvious to anyone except the people, like you, who view Mozilla as a political project first, and as a software project a distant second. Firing your CEO for not being sufficiently aligned with the American Democratic Party only makes sense if you assume the purpose of Mozilla is to push American Democratic politics, rather than make good software that anyone in the world may use (spoiler alert: many users of open-source software are not American Democrats!)
  • Tadpole9181 10mo ago
    > Firing your CEO for not being sufficiently aligned with the American Democratic Party This is not what happened. He gave money to a cause with the explicit goal of using that money to prevent his coworkers and users from having equal civil rights based on an inalienable trait they were born with. That's not an "American Democratic Party" alignment issue, and if you genuinely believe it is, your dog whistle may be broken. It's sounding an awful lot like a normal whistle. He has a right to do that without fear of government retaliation. But Mozilla has a right to fire him for being a bad person because of it.
    • sltkr 10mo ago
      That's just factually wrong. Proposition 8 deprived nobody of any rights. Gay couples could get exactly the same rights as straight couples through a domestic partnership, or get married out of state, as even Wikipedia admits: > A same-sex marriage lawfully performed in another state or foreign jurisdiction on or after November 5, 2008 was fully recognized in California, but Proposition 8 precluded California from designating these relationships with the word "marriage." These couples were afforded every single one of the legal rights, benefits, and obligations of marriage. Note the last sentence! Additionally, proposition 8 was not extreme. It was carried by a majority of California voters, and Barack Obama said at the time: “I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman” which is essentially what the proposition established too, though Obama opposed using a ballot proposition to settle the issue. > He has a right to do that without fear of government retaliation. But Mozilla has a right to fire him for being a bad person because of it. I never argued that Mozilla doesn't have the right to fire people for their political views. We're just establishing that Eich _was_ fired for his political views, and that that shows Mozilla had become a political organization first, and a technological company second. In a politically neutral technology company there should be room for people who side with Barack Obama and the majority of Californian voters. The fact that that is not true of Mozilla proves it's not a politically neutral company; it's a political project that inherited a software project they are not particularly interested in maintaining except as a vehicle for further promoting their politics.
      • lern_too_spel 10mo ago
        > Barack Obama said at the time: “I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman” And yet he didn't force the country to only recognize marriages between men and women. Instead, he did the opposite. He voted against DOMA in 1996. He repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell in 2010. He appointed judges who looked favorably on gay marriage and then told the justice department not to defend DOMA against constitutional attacks. Then he celebrated the Supreme Court's ruling against DOMA. > In a politically neutral technology company there should be room for people who side with Barack Obama and the majority of Californian voters. Barack Obama and California voters (64% of likely voters in 2013 according to PPIC) were on the other side in 2014 when Eich was appointed CEO. Eich remained (and remains to this day) on the wrong side.
  • pseudalopex 10mo ago
    > Eich was fired Eich resigned. > private political views Donations are public material support. Not private views.
    • sltkr 10mo ago
      We both know that CEOs are never fired, but there is a difference between resigning on their own accord and “resigning” because they had no organizational support. What happened to Eich was the CEO-equivalent of getting fired. > Donations are public material support. Not private views. Not really? Nobody would know what causes Eich donates to if they didn't make an effort to look it up and broadcast that information. Even if you take that view, are you saying that nobody who works for Mozilla is allowed to make any political donations ever? Or are you simply saying that you Mozillians aren't allowed to donate money to conservative causes? Because it sounds a lot like the second one, and then we're back to the original allegation: that Mozilla today is a political project first, and a technological project second. Otherwise, how do you explain Mozilla caring so much about which political campaigns its employees donate to?
      • pseudalopex 10mo ago
        > We both know that CEOs are never fired, but there is a difference between resigning on their own accord and “resigning” because they had no organizational support. CEOs are never fired is false objectively. CEOs must earn support. And there was no reason to state false information if you believed everyone would understand the context of the facts. > Not really? Really. Public records are public. > Nobody would know what causes Eich donates to if they didn't make an effort to look it up and broadcast that information. No one would know most news stories if someone didn't research and publish them. No one would know what Mozilla's CEO was paid if no one looked it up and published it. > Even if you take that view, are you saying that nobody who works for Mozilla is allowed to make any political donations ever? People are allowed to make donations. People are allowed to choose who they follow or support or not. And jobs have different standards. Eich remained CTO years after his donation was published with little controversy. > Otherwise, how do you explain Mozilla caring so much about which political campaigns its employees donate to? Who are Mozilla to you? The board appointed Eich CEO years after his donation was published