3 ms·

more specifically, it was for donating to homophobic political groups trying to pass Prop 8 which made gay marriage illegal in California [0] the measure passe

by paimapi 2mo ago

more specifically, it was for donating to homophobic political groups trying to pass Prop 8 which made gay marriage illegal in California [0] the measure passed by 5% [1] - people were fairly incensed that Mozilla Foundation money (paid to him via his salary) might go to future donations of the same kind I'm sure people will say things about 'well of course he's legally free to do as he wants with this money' but then so too is the desire by employees to not want to be working under someone who has done something ideologically abhorrent to them. and given the multiple controversies that crop up about Brave seemingly every year where they push some combination of crypto, browser AI, etc, it's probably for the best [0] https://www.inc.com/jeremy-quittner/mozilla-ceo-brandon-eich-steps-down-twitter-campaign.html https://www.inc.com/jeremy-quittner/mozilla-ceo-brandon-eich... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_8

jimmygrapes 2mo ago
And yet the democratic process was subverted by the measure being overruled. Moot point.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2mo ago
  That's actually incorrect. Democracy doesn't mean allowing mob rule (or manufactured "consent") to trample fundamental human rights.
- throw101010 2mo ago
  The judicial branch is part of the US democracy, this was not subversion of the democratic process. Judges are elected/nominated depending the jurisdiction and in this case the decison of a District judge (nominated by George W Bush, through indirect democracy) stands: that proposition is unconstitutional, and the people who tried to appeal that decision in upper courts had no standing to do it (they suffered no personal and concrete injury from this decison).
- paimapi 2mo ago
  would love to live in a society where past harms and mistakes could simply be forgotten because the law has moved forward. I imagine a lot of low-level drug possession charges would be forgiven under that ethical conceit but since we're a long ways from that reality, the least we can do is to look for accountability from influential people with the same strictness we have for the poorest and least powerful

by paimapi 2mo ago

jimmygrapes 2mo ago

And yet the democratic process was subverted by the measure being overruled. Moot point.

HeatrayEnjoyer 2mo ago
That's actually incorrect. Democracy doesn't mean allowing mob rule (or manufactured "consent") to trample fundamental human rights.
throw101010 2mo ago
The judicial branch is part of the US democracy, this was not subversion of the democratic process. Judges are elected/nominated depending the jurisdiction and in this case the decison of a District judge (nominated by George W Bush, through indirect democracy) stands: that proposition is unconstitutional, and the people who tried to appeal that decision in upper courts had no standing to do it (they suffered no personal and concrete injury from this decison).
paimapi 2mo ago
would love to live in a society where past harms and mistakes could simply be forgotten because the law has moved forward. I imagine a lot of low-level drug possession charges would be forgiven under that ethical conceit but since we're a long ways from that reality, the least we can do is to look for accountability from influential people with the same strictness we have for the poorest and least powerful