5 ms·

I can't see how this partnership is not acceptable. Firefox is an NGO for the open web not one for human rights.

by mtct 13y ago

Theory5 13y ago
Why can't they be both? I can't celebrate this, even though I like Firefox and encourage their push for open web. But any company that has to install countermeasures to prevent worker suicides on premise isn't exactly aces in my book...
- mtct 13y ago
  You can, no, you should; but is not a "you must".
  - camus 13y ago
    Yes it is a must, or they are just a bunch or hypocrites ,like the "dont be evil" folks...
- kmasters 13y ago
  What "countermeasures" has the US "installed" to prevent suicides? Just because they aren't occurring in a sweatshop makes them no less real.
corin_ 13y ago
Without getting involved in the whole Foxconn debate: would you take the same stance on anyone partnering with Nazis, the KKK, terrorist organisations, the apartheid, etc. based on "they are not a human rights organisation, so it's not relevant"?
- mtct 13y ago
  Why not? A doctor should refuse a patient because is a terrorist, a racist or a killer?
  - corin_ 13y ago
    Doctors are generally held to, and hold themselves to, a different standard to others when it comes to dealing with bad people. (And obviously "bad" is subjective here.) On a personal level, many people chose their friends/acquaintances based on these sorts of things. On a consumer level, there are many examples of popular boycotts (for example see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Apartheid_Movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Apartheid_Movement ). On a company level, many companies consider things such as environmental or social duties when deciding who to do business with. In all cases, it could be because you hope that such a decision will cause change (e.g. organised/promoted boycotts) or it could be simply that you don't want to support something bad, even if knowing that refusing to spend $1 on some Nestlé chocolate (for example) probably won't change a thing.
    - mtct 13y ago
      Yes, and Mozilla choose to fight for the freedom of the web not for human rights. Amnesty international for people rigths and not for dophin right. Greenpeace for the environment and not for the freedom of the software. Nobody fight for everything, choose a niche and fight for that.
      - corin_ 13y ago
        I'm not arguing that they shouldn't be working with Foxconn, I'm trying to take the discussion out of this specific context. My point is that just because human rights is not their goal, it doesn't mean it can't be a consideration. And if Foxconn, rather than being a company with a somewhat poor track record regarding its staff, was a company known for funding terrorism, arms sales, etc. then I don't think anyone would be arguing that people shouldn't do business with them.

I can't see how this partnership is not acceptable. Firefox is an NGO for the open web not one for human rights.

by mtct 13y ago

I can't see how this partnership is not acceptable. Firefox is an NGO for the open web not one for human rights.

Why can't they be both? I can't celebrate this, even though I like Firefox and encourage their push for open web. But any company that has to install countermeasures to prevent worker suicides on premise isn't exactly aces in my book...

mtct 13y ago
You can, no, you should; but is not a "you must".
- camus 13y ago
  Yes it is a must, or they are just a bunch or hypocrites ,like the "dont be evil" folks...
kmasters 13y ago
What "countermeasures" has the US "installed" to prevent suicides? Just because they aren't occurring in a sweatshop makes them no less real.

corin_ 13y ago

Without getting involved in the whole Foxconn debate: would you take the same stance on anyone partnering with Nazis, the KKK, terrorist organisations, the apartheid, etc. based on "they are not a human rights organisation, so it's not relevant"?

mtct 13y ago
Why not? A doctor should refuse a patient because is a terrorist, a racist or a killer?
- corin_ 13y ago
  Doctors are generally held to, and hold themselves to, a different standard to others when it comes to dealing with bad people. (And obviously "bad" is subjective here.) On a personal level, many people chose their friends/acquaintances based on these sorts of things. On a consumer level, there are many examples of popular boycotts (for example see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Apartheid_Movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Apartheid_Movement ). On a company level, many companies consider things such as environmental or social duties when deciding who to do business with. In all cases, it could be because you hope that such a decision will cause change (e.g. organised/promoted boycotts) or it could be simply that you don't want to support something bad, even if knowing that refusing to spend $1 on some Nestlé chocolate (for example) probably won't change a thing.
  - mtct 13y ago
    Yes, and Mozilla choose to fight for the freedom of the web not for human rights. Amnesty international for people rigths and not for dophin right. Greenpeace for the environment and not for the freedom of the software. Nobody fight for everything, choose a niche and fight for that.
    - corin_ 13y ago
      I'm not arguing that they shouldn't be working with Foxconn, I'm trying to take the discussion out of this specific context. My point is that just because human rights is not their goal, it doesn't mean it can't be a consideration. And if Foxconn, rather than being a company with a somewhat poor track record regarding its staff, was a company known for funding terrorism, arms sales, etc. then I don't think anyone would be arguing that people shouldn't do business with them.