10 ms·

Goodbye, Firefox Marketplace

182 points by isopod 13y ago

vsviridov 13y ago
"By using Arabic numerals you are helping terrorists." As long as Mozilla products do not feature a "Not to be used by gays" warning, whatever Eich does in his time is irrelevant. He's free to spend his money in any way he likes. What prevented the authors of this article to spend $1000 to counterbalance Eich's contribution if they are so concerned?
- trentmb 13y ago
  > What prevented the authors of this article to spend $1000 to counterbalance Eich's contribution if they are so concerned? Outrage is cheaper and gets more attention. Kinda like when a toddler throws a tantrum.
  - crummy 13y ago
    Depending on their sales it may not be cheaper.
- Delenda 13y ago
  > What prevented the authors of this article to spend $1000 to counterbalance Eich's contribution if they are so concerned? So only people who pay for their rights deserve them. Noted.
  - vsviridov 13y ago
    Helloooo... This is in USA. Does the word "lobbying" ring a bell?
    - alexqgb 13y ago
      Lobbying is fine. After all, a representative government can't function if talking to your representatives is a crime. The problem is not the right to deliver petitions. It's the practice of doing so with cash (or check!) included.
      - vsviridov 13y ago
        Huh, lobbying, in my view, these days is nothing but paying people lots of money to steer their decisions... Otherwise why bother doing it...
  - NAFV_P 13y ago
    Irrespective of the proposition in question, Mr Eich debited $1000 to the influence of politics. His financial position gives him more political leverage than myself. Bang on, you read my mind.
- ceejayoz 13y ago
  > What prevented the authors of this article to spend $1000 to counterbalance Eich's contribution if they are so concerned? Who says they didn't?
  - vsviridov 13y ago
    And if they did - good for them. Did Eich imply that he wants special treatment because he donated - probably not. Do the authors imply that they want special treatment because of this - it looks to me that way. Again, they are free and welcome to boycott whomever they wish.
    - ceejayoz 13y ago
      > Did Eich imply that he wants special treatment because he donated - probably not. I'd say he likely wants special treatment for his particular brand of religious views. > Do the authors imply that they want special treatment because of this - it looks to me that way. What special treatment are they requesting?
- Blahah 13y ago
  > whatever Eich does in his time is irrelevant Of course it isn't. If he was backdooring JS crypto libraries for the NSA, or shooting orphans, or selling crack, that would be seriously inappropriate behaviour and he would lose his job for it. Many people might consider it inappropriate to be fighting against gay marriage - it's not just a political issue, it's a moral one.
  - yeukhon 13y ago
    Many people might consider it inappropriate to be fighting against gay marriage - it's not just a political issue, it's a moral one. Yet, we are forcing everyone to take a stand on this "moral" issue.
    - Blahah 13y ago
      How is everyone being forced to take a stand? People who don't care don't have to do anything.
      - yeukhon 13y ago
        Here is how I interpret it. If today Brendan says he will pick No Opinion to "Should Bills of Rights be included in the Constitution of the United States", then should he be held accountable for his decision? He can either support Bills of Rights, against Bills of Rights, or he can do nothing about it, in which case is pretty much in the same camp as the opposition. The only difference is he chose to not care and yet he will probably be judged for not helping human rights. And human rights, to many is a worthwhile ethic cause. Not an individual morality debate; just as gay advocates would think gay rights is a basic right of human. If Brendan chose to say "I have no opinion" he is neither against nor supporting gay rights but his decision will disappoint the gay advocates in which case the advocates will not be happy with Mozilla. Therefore, everyone has to take a stand even if it were "I don't have any opinion."
    - npizzolato 13y ago
      No one is being forced to take a stand. Eich chose to take his own stand by donating $1000 in support of Prop 8. It is completely fair to judge him for that action.
- pessimizer 13y ago
  Because it's not about the $1000 (and you didn't honestly think it was.) With your prescription of discriminated against minorities offsetting the donations of bigots to parties who would fortify or extend that discrimination, gay people would also have to worry about bankruptcy. There's at least 5 bigots for each gay person.
  - vsviridov 13y ago
    It's only a matter of time. Maybe universal gay marriage will not be achieved in my lifetime but it will be achieved. If people have power to bring it closer with their efforts or monetary contributions - they are welcome to do so, but it is still quite inevitable. This topic might hold relevance and controversy for now, but ultimately - it is not. Just another footnote in history.
ChrisNorstrom 13y ago
Would you also reject Tomas Jefferson as a founding father of America because he owned slaves? Should Martin Luther King also be rejected as an icon of the civil rights movement because he plagiarized material and had extramarital affairs with women. What people do or think in their personal lives and the value they add to a company are two different things. What about Nelson Mandella? Bill Clinton? Or all the other men with weaknesses, sins, mistakes, and flaws? Sit down with me for 5 minutes and I'll find a whole bunch of personal things about you I don't like either, but should that affect weather or not I employ you?
- daeken 13y ago
  > Sit down with me for 5 minutes and I'll find a whole bunch of personal things about you I don't like either "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." - Cardinal Richelieu
- general_failure 13y ago
  You are picking people in the past and comparing them to the present. Continuing your line of thought..So you are saying if someone had slaves today, you would condone that act and continue supporting other stuff they make? Sorry, I would not.
  - Zikes 13y ago
    He's saying that morality is independent of context, and the idea of owning slaves was just as reprehensible in the past as it is today, it was merely more socially acceptable. Much like Proposition 8 was, at the time.
- orthecreedence 13y ago
  If Brian had funded a political campaign to deny voting rights to all people named Chris, you may be singing a different tune. They outlined that they were personally affected by his political choices, and therefor hurt that Mozilla would promote him. This isn't about someone's personal flaws. It's about someone's actions affecting someone else personally and boycotting a company for not acknowledging that. Seems valid to me.
mankyd 13y ago
Relevant link to Eich's suppport of California's Prop 8: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/04/business/la-fi-tn-brendan-eich-prop-8-contribution-20120404 http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/04/business/la-fi-tn-br... This is not something that I was familiar with.
- sehr 13y ago
  An equally relevant link to Eich's response to the backlash: https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/ https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/
ilovecomputers 13y ago
"This is a strange one to me and can indeed be a sticky situation. I am NOT judging people who use Firefox, work at Mozilla, or even support Brendan’s right to his opinions. It’s fine that you think I shouldn’t judge his opinion. (This is getting confusing). However, this particular subject is not one that is negotiable to us. We are personally affected by his actions. It’s not his belief that hurts us. It’s that he actively donated to a cause that directly negatively affected us, personally. It’s not abstract. It’s not a witch hunt. He’s certainly allowed to have his opinion, of course, but I’m allowed to judge his actions of supporting the cause financially. Actions have consequences." There you go, sums it up right there. Some past actions are hard to overlook when you're personally affected by it. However you view the news of Brendan Eich's new CEO position and people's opinions of that, you can't ignore the human element of his insignificant (financially) but significant (philosophically) prop 8 contribution and how people take it personally. Edit: Adding onto my thought of how I view the human element in this story: we all try to be rational, but I bet you everyone of us throw that away for a gut feeling we have of someone. If you don't like someone, no amount of reason will make that go away. That feeling spreads to what they're associated with. In retrospect, we reason our gut feeling and we either turn out right or wrong. I understand hcatlin's decision in that sense since I have felt that way before.
- msujaws 13y ago
  There are people at every large software company that donated to one of the sides of the political battle. Some of them may have received a promotion after the fact. Does that mean that you should boycott those companies too? (Google, Apple, etc.) After all, after people get paid from their job, shouldn't it be their right that they can use their money as they please?
  - hcatlin 13y ago
    If they are promoted to CEO, then... yes. Hence why we were building apps for it knowing full-well that he was a homophobic CTO. CEO is a whole other level, and was our personal line.
  - archgoon 13y ago
evertonfuller 13y ago
Irrelevant of any feelings towards being gay or not. Surely this is a form of oppression in itself. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, whether you approve of them or not, and so by effectively black-mailing others to conform to your perceived social 'right'. I see this as a sad attempt at press. Having never heard of this company or product before.
- autarch 13y ago
  Calling this a "form of oppression" is a bit silly. How are Brendan Eich's rights being denied here? How is Brendan being prevented from acting on his own beliefs? These two people decided that they don't want to associate with an organization where the CEO is, in their opinion, anti-gay. That's entirely within their rights, isn't it? As others in the thread said, action have consequences. One consequence of being publicly perceived as anti-gay is that gay people and their supporters may not want to associate with you.
  - yeukhon 13y ago
    If you actually read the article: We will continue our boycott until Brendan Eich is completely removed from any day to day activities at Mozilla, which we believe is extremely unlikely after all he’s survived and the continued support he has received from Mozilla. A quick interpretation would be "Mozilla should never pick someone who doesn't like gays." That's against employment equality even though CEO is a unique position. But still, personal belief doesn't always mean the CEO will turn out bad and disrespect everyone else. I have question for the founders: if you were told one of your employees doesn't believe in gay rights will you fire him?
    - glesica 13y ago
      That's against employment equality... Is it though? Are homophobes a protected class? Would a company be forced at the point of a lawsuit to hire a goose-stepping neo-Nazi if he or she had impeccable credentials?
      - 13y ago
m0skit0 13y ago
I understand your posture and I totally support gay marriage, but you're mixing politics with work, and you're taking a personal issue to a professional level. It's Brendan Eich that supported the prop 8, not Mozilla. That's a very very very VERY unprofessional stance. From now on I will be very careful in buying/getting anything from your company because of huge lack of professionalism being shown here. This said, I wish you the best luck in your personal life and I hope you get that gay marriage bill ASAP! All my support from Morocco!
- jasonlotito 13y ago
  And Mozilla chose Brendan Eich to represent them as CEO. There is a distinct difference between being an employee, and being the CEO.
  - transitionality 13y ago
    No, there isn't. A CEO is an employee, just one that tends to get paid above average.
    - bronson 13y ago
      And one that steers the direction of the company every single day. Mere employees don't.
      - transitionality 13y ago
        Every employee affects the direction of the company in some amount, commensurate with their hierarchical level, security clearance, expertise, etc. In normal, day to day operations, the CEO tends to have a bigger share of influence than other employees, but he neither has sole influence, nor always the biggest influence. One could very well argue that Jonathan Ives had a bigger influence than Steve Jobs on Apple's direction around the time of iPod's release, for example. That product singlehandedly changed Apple's market segment and consumer perception. In short, a CEO is just an employee, often getting paid more than the average employee, and often having more influence than the average employee, but not always.
kawliga 13y ago
Irony at its best.
- crummy 13y ago
  Why is this ironic?
  - rux 13y ago
    Because it's like rain on your wedding day
wudf 13y ago
Gotta be extreme to get any attention. At least give Brendan a way out other than stepping down. Maybe he will apologize and try to make amends in light of his new responsibility.
- futurist 13y ago
  A way out... For what? Standing up for his moral convictions?
  - npizzolato 13y ago
    People have the right to stand up for their moral conviction, including Eich. However, other people have the right to judge others based on their actions, including the authors.
  - wudf 13y ago
    To clarify his "moral convictions" and promise to keep his personal beliefs from violating the will of the community as well as Mozilla's mission.
- davidgerard 13y ago
  He had the chance before, he punted on it: https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/ https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/
transitionality 13y ago
When you're attempting blackmail, you need to ensure that your hostage has value to your victims that is commensurate with your ransom demand. You have a shitty puzzle game that's getting "thousands of downloads" and you want Mozilla to fire their CEO over that. Not going to happen. We can do without your shitty puzzle game, thanks.
- it_learnses 13y ago
  It's not just them or their puzzle game. It's not just gay people either. It's everybody who wants everyone to be treated equally and not be denied their humanity. The CEO's values fly in the face of Mozilla's values. That's why he should be shown the exit door.
  - transitionality 13y ago
    They're certainly not treating Brendan Eich equally. Discrimination on the basis of political stance is bigotry, too. Their position is extremely hypocritical, and by defending it, you become complicit in their hypocrisy.
    - it_learnses 13y ago
      How are they not treating Brendan Eich equally? He's the bigot here who wants to deny them happiness, not the other way around.
      - transitionality 13y ago
        They're discriminating against him on the basis of his political stance, trying to start up a witch hunt or mob against him, and trying to disenfranchise him of his employment. They're bigots, pure and simple, and so is everyone who defends them.
        it_learnses 13y ago
        stop marginalizing this issue by calling it a "political stance." Hitler's "political stance" was to get rid of jews. Political stances affect real lives. Get your head out of your ass.
badman_ting 13y ago
I was unaware of this issue until today but I think Hampton is really great. And I think his position here is thoroughly defensible. How unfortunate this all is. Edit: I see he is being accused here of blackmail and oppression himself. Wow. Fuck you guys.
tbatterii 13y ago
boycott javascript as well?
- tommorris 13y ago
  http://noscript.net/ http://noscript.net/ I'm okay with that.
general_failure 13y ago
I am sure this was a hard decision to make but this was the right one. It is hard to overlook one's past actions and afaik brendan has not apologized/redacted his stance. BTW, Apple rejected quite a few gay apps in the past. They should strongly consider rejecting everything Apple made.
it_learnses 13y ago
Good for you. I also up until now thought Mozilla was fighting for the little guy and as a developer I've been wanting to work for them. Not anymore. There's no way I want to work for a company whose CEO has publicly supported voting against two people's right to be happy. For those that say don't mix business with politics, think about what you are saying. Politics affect our day to day lives and the way we live or die. How can we separate politics from any other sphere of our lives?
solo_ 13y ago
I understand where the authors are coming from. They're made that Eich supported a bill that denies their rights. However, what Eich does is his own, personal business. The writers, at least in my mind, are mixing business with their personal lives. I support gay marriage, but I think that this isn't too much more than needless outrage. When someone boycotts Google because Google supports gay marriage, a lot of us look at them and go "Wow! What an idiot, boycotting Google because they think that Google is immoral! They're the immoral ones!" This is the exact same thing, it just happens that the authors' views align with our own. I think it's ultimately just petty. I'm glad gay couples can marry in California, where I currently live. I think it's a step in the right direction. I just think that needless outrage like this, which only isolates you from potential customers, gets us nowhere. We get it, you disagree with the CEO's personal values. I understand your outrage, and that might mean nothing to you. I just think there has to be a better way than this to actually get your point across.
- Ensorceled 13y ago
  Exactly, we look at them and say "They're the immoral ones." ... now everybody's looking at the authors and saying "why are they mixing business with their personal lives". Notice the difference: we are still defending the corporations from the protestors but now the reasons are a bit weird.
- wpietri 13y ago
  By trying to keep these guys from getting married, Eich made it personal. As the court decisions have shown, keeping them from getting married was an unconstitutional imposition upon their civil rights. Whereas them deciding whom to do business with is totally legit. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
  - transitionality 13y ago
    I don't know what sort of consequences you're implying, but threatening someone over anything they say or think is certainly illegal.
shmerl 13y ago
Misdirected rant.
spindritf 13y ago
ComputerIndustryBlacklist.com is availble as of writing if someone was looking for a side project. Considering the professions involved, I'm sure we can do better than a bunch of Hollywood execs.
- transitionality 13y ago
  I just blacklisted you in my mind for unironically proposing that.
- sehr 13y ago
  Seriously? I understand this is pretty emotional topic for a lot of people here, but this is just absolutely ridiculous.
chrismonsanto 13y ago
I support your decision to boycott, although I personally disagree with it. I wish you would give Brendan the chance to repent. First of all, and most importantly, it's unlikely they are going to shitcan him as CEO. Second, he has not spoken about his motivations for donating to Prop 8. If he was doing so in pursuit of abolishing the marriage institution altogether, I consider that very different than doing it because he only wants straight people to marry. (Since this is a politically charged issue, I will say that while I am personally in favor of abolishing marriage altogether, I think actively working to deny gays the right to marry in the interim is an exceptionally absurd idea.) Third, his views may have changed over the years. If he came out saying he was wrong and donated 10x the amount he donated to Prop 8 to a LGBT charity, I would consider that a win. There are ways to make this right without shitcanning him.
- Blahah 13y ago
  Perhaps I'm missing something - how could donating to Prop 8 be in support of abolishing the marriage institution? Full text: Section I. Title This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act." Section 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read: Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
  - chrismonsanto 13y ago
    Sorry, it was a typo.
- thinkpad20 13y ago
  > I wish you would give Brendan the chance to repent. They have, and he hasn't. This is mentioned in the article.
  - chrismonsanto 13y ago
    From the article: > He has not, and said he will not, so it’s too late in my mind. Any public change of opinion at this time would only be to ensure his new powerful position at the Mozilla foundation. I disagree with this, hence my post. I think if he puts his money where his mouth is, that good undoes his past failings. I don't think he is going to use Mozilla as a vehicle for promoting homophobia. Therefore, I see two options: 1) he leaves, Mozilla doesn't contribute to societal homophobia, and there is no monetary contribution. 2) he stays, Mozilla doesn't contribute to societal homophobia, and there is a monetary contribution. (Option #3 where he leaves and also makes a monetary contribution is extremely unlikely to happen, so I will not list it here) I am admittedly very pragmatic about these issues. I don't care if he is shamed by being forced out of the company. I don't think that really helps.
trustfundbaby 13y ago
I wouldn't necessarily do the same thing but I can understand why they did it. It can be really really hard to stomach doing work that in anyway benefits somebody so opposed to something that fundamentally defines you as a person.
judah 13y ago
This is definitely one of those moral fashions [1] that Paul Graham wrote about: "What scares me is that there are moral fashions too. They're just as arbitrary, and just as invisible to most people. But they're much more dangerous. Fashion is mistaken for good design; moral fashion is mistaken for good. Dressing oddly gets you laughed at. Violating moral fashions can get you fired, ostracized, imprisoned, or even killed." Society has shifted on this issue, such that the traditional is considered unacceptable to hold; you're ostracized with negative labels should you hold the unfashionable position. This is precisely what TeamRarebit is doing to Brendan Eich: ostracizing him for his moral stance, one that has fallen out of fashion. [1]: http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
- bronson 13y ago
  When his "moral stance" directly affects your own quality of life and standing as a US citizen then it's probably more than just fashion, hm?
  - PeterisP 13y ago
    Well no, he has the exact same rights as any other citizen to vote and donate for whatever laws he prefers. It's inappropriate to do various things that hurt people around you; but it's perfectly fine to vote and support laws that directly affect quality of life of people in both directions (surprise - pretty much all laws/propositions do!). It's exactly the same as boycotting a company because CEO belongs to a really opposite political party - USA doesn't have any really opposite parties; but the rest of the world has seen quite a lot of such partisanism, and it ends up just as ugly as any other bigotry.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - scott_karana 13y ago
      I think you missed the part where one husband in this couple was granted a green card due to marital status, and was able to immigrate to the US. So there would be no or little recourse, much less voting.
gcb0 13y ago
Good luck finding a browser where the ceo or vps behind it agree 100% with anyone's views. Unless you can point out that his (asshole, imho) views affected how he worked for Mozilla, than doing what you are doing is as bad as people that fired or did not purchased from companies supporting gay rights.
- alexqgb 13y ago
  Easy, the dude openly and activly opposes the basic legal equality of gay people. Given that he runs the place, that creates a hostile working for gay people. End of story.
  - scott_karana 13y ago
    > Given that he runs the place, that creates a hostile working for gay people That's a bit of an assumption.
DatBear 13y ago
I can't believe this absurdly tiny donation to a single organization, 6+ years ago, has produced so much anger. This seems pretty ridiculous to me, no matter what the organization.
- npizzolato 13y ago
  Do you honestly think the amount of money donated is the issue here?
pvnick 13y ago
I don't know what it is about gay marriage that draws people in to this ridiculous witch hunt. I'm neutral on the issue because I feel it's complicated like every other polarizing topic, but to a lot of folks it's solid black-and-white, good-vs-evil. But the pro-gay-marriage crowd seems to go beyond that. To them, it's so black-and-white that one's not even allowed to hold the other view. These people don't even acknowledge the legitimacy of any other beliefs but their own and refuse to stoop to the level of debating the other side on intellectual grounds. > It’s not a witch hunt. You bet your ass it is. It's another in a string of incidents, including boycotting chick fil a for it's owner's beliefs, boycotting duck dynasty for that one guy's beliefs, boycotting starbucks for it's owner's beliefs, the list goes own. Now this is not to take a particular stance on the issue. It's to say that dismissing the legitimacy of other's beliefs besides your own shows a pretty absurd level of intellectual hubris (not unheard of around these parts).
- zorpner 13y ago
  Why would anyone "acknowledge the legitimacy" of beliefs that would e.g. prevent them from visiting their spouse on their deathbed? There's no middle ground here. Also, it's worth trying not to use the term "witch hunt" to describe attacks on a group which has held an oppressive majority for hundreds of years and which is actively continuing to attempt to deny the rights of a minority. The analogy does not hold.
  - samelawrence 13y ago
    The majority / minority argument does not hold. Oppressed minorities are not always in the right. Arguments around gay marriage / politics / Brendan need to step back and argue the issues, not the size or relative social power of the groups involved. I happen to agree with your side of the issue, but let's talk about the issue, not make it a David and Goliath straw man debate. The term "witch hunt" may or may not apply. As an example, we might say that during the French Revolution, the proletariat (oppressed majority, wat?) went on a witch hunt against aristocracy (minority holding majority power) and members of the royal court, regardless of their fault.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- lucasnemeth 13y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich Brendan Eich (/ˈaɪk/; born 1961)[1] is an American computer programmer and creator of the JavaScript scripting language. He is the chief executive officer at the Mozilla Corporation.
  - jbeja 13y ago
    Oh too late :p.
waterlesscloud 13y ago
So this thread is a good candidate for the "pending" feature (it has rapidly and predictably become toxic), yet it doesn't seem to be turned on here...
- jasonlotito 13y ago
  pg disabled it site wide.
  - waterlesscloud 13y ago
    Right, with the caveat that it would be turned on per-thread, as needed.
    - jasonlotito 13y ago
      Ahh, I hadn't read that part. I thought it was just disabled for the time being. Thanks. =)
adrianlmm 13y ago
Let me get this, if some one donates his own money to a totally legal cause should be fired? This has a name, is called extortion, I would definitively boycott Firefox if they remove this person.
tehwalrus 13y ago
Gay rights is not a "moral fashion" as some people are calling it. This is a group of people who have been systematically terrorised throughout history, and some people still want to keep that status quo that holds them down as second class citizens, with less legal rights (like the right to immigrate in order to live together.) Screw that meta-ethical/normative moral relativism[1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
JohnTHaller 13y ago
Eich's response to the publicity surrounding the donation in 2012: https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/ https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/
huslage 13y ago
It's not like he hasn't been at the company all along in a management capacity. I don't see how this changes anything or why anyone should choose now to retaliate as opposed to any other arbitrary time.
mantrax3 13y ago
Goodbye, Firefox Marketplace? All right, goodbye... some marginal puzzle game. The part these folks don't get is that their tantrum is not affecting Brendan Eich as much as it's insulting to the fans of their game (whoever they are). They're trying to sic their fans and us against Mozilla with their actions. Prop 8 was justly overturned. It was a battle worth fighting. But we're all equal now. So do we owe these two fools our support right now? Is this "battle" they're starting worth fighting? What's the cause? To prove we don't take kind to them folk like Brendan Eich round 'ere? Hell no. Part of equality is that I, Mozilla and our society as a whole shouldn't feel the need to care more about the games (literally and figuratively) of these two guys than we care about anyone else out there, now that we're equal. I don't care about "your history", I don't care about your wedding photos, I don't care about any of that. To me, you're just two average folks with a crappy puzzle game. Might be gay, straight, white, black, red, brown, tall, short, I don't care. Your cheap outrage doesn't mean anything more than usual to me just because you're gay. I'm equally indifferent.
TheAceOfHearts 13y ago
I should start this off by saying I believe gay couples should be allowed to get married. I cannot fathom what reasoning you can use to say that gay people should not be allowed to marriage. However, the more I learn about the topic, the more I realize it's actually very complicated. With that being said... Marriage seems screwed up. Why do we have unions of two people? Why don't we allow the union of three people? Or more? Where do we draw the line? What if some guy/gal wants to marry his waifu/husbando, or another person wants to marry their car? People say stuff about the sanctity of marriage, but it seems like a horrible joke. Look at divorce rates! Traditional marriage looks like a joke. I'll admit I'm not very well educated on the topic, I'd love to hear the reasoning for these limitations. Maybe it would make sense to just break out the benefits [1] into more types of unions. For example, I can see how you might not want to allow a 5 person marriage where only 1 person has citizenship in the US; then you would have four people gaining citizenship at the same time. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_...
hrktb 13y ago
I have a hard time understanding all the call for separating private and work. The issue brought by this post is not private (in the sense that the donations were public) and the purpose of the donation was to make a private view to pass into law, not just express some personal opinion. Also, the position of a CEO on social issues has non negligible impacts on the organization. He won't block Mozilla from hiring gay people of course, but nobody would expect him to actively push gay peoples' rights inside the organization if these were not upheld enough. Or does Mozilla have full parity when it comes to married gays and married hetero couples ? Will married gay people get to work intimately with the new CEO (and not just as a token gay people in the team)? These are all legitimate questions. Perhaps Eich won't be worse than anyone else on these issues, but now his public karma is negative. If from here Mozilla appeared to be championing gay rights and parity more than ever before, then I think team rarebit would revise their position. But until then their reaction, while emotionally charged, seems fair enough※ and sends the right message. ※ especially as in anyway they are bound to build for Mozilla's platform nor use Mozilla's products. PS: From Mozilla's donation page : "At the heart of Mozilla is a global community with a shared mission—to build the Internet the world needs. Support Mozilla with a donation today—for a better web and a better world." I think a lot of people really see Mozilla as organization with strong moral stance, and actually working towards making the world better. Visceral reactions on events like this one are the flip side of the coin.
- general_failure 13y ago
  First para is brilliant. Thanks for writing this
tn13 13y ago
This is an absolutely knee jerk reaction. Just the way I stand for a gay couple's right to remain together I also support Eich's right to oppose a government policy which he believes is not right. I do not think anyone should boycott Eich or his organization because of the opinions which he holds about an issue that has nothing to do with his organization. Also please do not paint the Gay marriages as some kind of black & white issue. There are plenty of subtle differences here. Traditional marriage laws which gives so many benefits to couples were designed with an assumption that marriages are only between man and woman. We can not mindlessly extend them to all kind of marriages. Just the way I support gay marriages, I also support man-woman-woman or man-woman-man or [man|woman|] relationships also. Does that mean if an American man marries 3 Arab women all of them should get a green card ? Should a person with two wives be given more tax benefits ? What happens to parent's property distribution when brother marries his sister ? The only moral position I feel worth taking is that government should protect individual liberties which involves getting into any kind of partnership among consenting adults. Beyond that everything has shades of grey.
Torgo 13y ago
Their actions seem perfectly reasonable considering they are a gay, married couple in California. And they are just announcing why they are breaking off their association with Mozilla. As far as I can tell they aren't making a "with us or against us" stand against anybody else not following suit, so I can hardly begrudge them this.
chris_wot 13y ago
Boycotting over this issue is reasonable. However, I hope that the author also understands that different people can have freedom to express differing views, in a private capacity. In my experience, anyone expressing any viewpoints other than a pro-LGBT one are vociferously attacked, which again would be fine if the tone was more reasonable. People who fight for LGBT rights were once treated with extreme disrespect and abuse. It sadly still occurs. But now the shoe is on the other foot: I think it's odd that those who were previously mistreated start mistreating others when they gain acceptance.
agapos 13y ago
There is no "except for gays" part in the TOS or anything, but they decide to go full "except for Mozillians" over one person's acts, who acted not as a will-be-CEO, or as a Mozilla member, but as a single civilian individual. Technically, they are doing against Mozilla what they think Mozilla could be doing against them, but it doesn't. As Uncel Dolan once said: Okei, bai
mpyne 13y ago
I find it fascinating how so many people are content to crucify Mozilla for appointing as a CEO a man who had the sheer gall to contribute to a PAC opposing gay marriage. Yet every time Rand Paul gets brought up his own opposition to same-sex marriage doesn't seem to draw 2 separate 200+ comment HN threads dedicated to how morally bankrupt he is. Is that simply because opposing the NSA is more morally noble than building an open browser that we feel inclined to overlook his baggage? Better yet, what about people who support the Republican Party. As recently as April 2013 (i.e. not even a year ago) the Republican Party re-affirmed (unanimously) their opposition to same-sex marriage in their party platform. If you donate to or support a GOP candidate you are opposing gay marriage just as surely as if you'd funded Prop. 8 yourself. It's for this reason that it's very important to separate a person's own political preferences from professional duties to the extent possible. And since I apparently have to be worried about pitchforks I'll pre-emptively make clear: I'm proud to support, and have supported, equality of gay marriage rights.
ue_ 13y ago
I don't think that the reaction of these people is proportional to what's happened. The CEO of an organisation supports a cause that he wants in a private capacity, and the people at Firefox Marketplace are conflating this guy with what Mozilla does. Mozilla isn't this CEO, and this CEO isn't Mozilla. Would you boycott the US constitution because a couple of the authors owned slaves?

182 points by isopod 13y ago

"By using Arabic numerals you are helping terrorists." As long as Mozilla products do not feature a "Not to be used by gays" warning, whatever Eich does in his time is irrelevant. He's free to spend his money in any way he likes. What prevented the authors of this article to spend $1000 to counterbalance Eich's contribution if they are so concerned?

trentmb 13y ago
> What prevented the authors of this article to spend $1000 to counterbalance Eich's contribution if they are so concerned? Outrage is cheaper and gets more attention. Kinda like when a toddler throws a tantrum.
- crummy 13y ago
  Depending on their sales it may not be cheaper.
Delenda 13y ago
> What prevented the authors of this article to spend $1000 to counterbalance Eich's contribution if they are so concerned? So only people who pay for their rights deserve them. Noted.
- vsviridov 13y ago
  Helloooo... This is in USA. Does the word "lobbying" ring a bell?
  - alexqgb 13y ago
    Lobbying is fine. After all, a representative government can't function if talking to your representatives is a crime. The problem is not the right to deliver petitions. It's the practice of doing so with cash (or check!) included.
    - vsviridov 13y ago
      Huh, lobbying, in my view, these days is nothing but paying people lots of money to steer their decisions... Otherwise why bother doing it...
- NAFV_P 13y ago
  Irrespective of the proposition in question, Mr Eich debited $1000 to the influence of politics. His financial position gives him more political leverage than myself. Bang on, you read my mind.
ceejayoz 13y ago
> What prevented the authors of this article to spend $1000 to counterbalance Eich's contribution if they are so concerned? Who says they didn't?
- vsviridov 13y ago
  And if they did - good for them. Did Eich imply that he wants special treatment because he donated - probably not. Do the authors imply that they want special treatment because of this - it looks to me that way. Again, they are free and welcome to boycott whomever they wish.
  - ceejayoz 13y ago
    > Did Eich imply that he wants special treatment because he donated - probably not. I'd say he likely wants special treatment for his particular brand of religious views. > Do the authors imply that they want special treatment because of this - it looks to me that way. What special treatment are they requesting?
Blahah 13y ago
> whatever Eich does in his time is irrelevant Of course it isn't. If he was backdooring JS crypto libraries for the NSA, or shooting orphans, or selling crack, that would be seriously inappropriate behaviour and he would lose his job for it. Many people might consider it inappropriate to be fighting against gay marriage - it's not just a political issue, it's a moral one.
- yeukhon 13y ago
  Many people might consider it inappropriate to be fighting against gay marriage - it's not just a political issue, it's a moral one. Yet, we are forcing everyone to take a stand on this "moral" issue.
  - Blahah 13y ago
    How is everyone being forced to take a stand? People who don't care don't have to do anything.
    - yeukhon 13y ago
      Here is how I interpret it. If today Brendan says he will pick No Opinion to "Should Bills of Rights be included in the Constitution of the United States", then should he be held accountable for his decision? He can either support Bills of Rights, against Bills of Rights, or he can do nothing about it, in which case is pretty much in the same camp as the opposition. The only difference is he chose to not care and yet he will probably be judged for not helping human rights. And human rights, to many is a worthwhile ethic cause. Not an individual morality debate; just as gay advocates would think gay rights is a basic right of human. If Brendan chose to say "I have no opinion" he is neither against nor supporting gay rights but his decision will disappoint the gay advocates in which case the advocates will not be happy with Mozilla. Therefore, everyone has to take a stand even if it were "I don't have any opinion."
  - npizzolato 13y ago
    No one is being forced to take a stand. Eich chose to take his own stand by donating $1000 in support of Prop 8. It is completely fair to judge him for that action.
pessimizer 13y ago
Because it's not about the $1000 (and you didn't honestly think it was.) With your prescription of discriminated against minorities offsetting the donations of bigots to parties who would fortify or extend that discrimination, gay people would also have to worry about bankruptcy. There's at least 5 bigots for each gay person.
- vsviridov 13y ago
  It's only a matter of time. Maybe universal gay marriage will not be achieved in my lifetime but it will be achieved. If people have power to bring it closer with their efforts or monetary contributions - they are welcome to do so, but it is still quite inevitable. This topic might hold relevance and controversy for now, but ultimately - it is not. Just another footnote in history.

ChrisNorstrom 13y ago

Would you also reject Tomas Jefferson as a founding father of America because he owned slaves? Should Martin Luther King also be rejected as an icon of the civil rights movement because he plagiarized material and had extramarital affairs with women. What people do or think in their personal lives and the value they add to a company are two different things. What about Nelson Mandella? Bill Clinton? Or all the other men with weaknesses, sins, mistakes, and flaws? Sit down with me for 5 minutes and I'll find a whole bunch of personal things about you I don't like either, but should that affect weather or not I employ you?

daeken 13y ago
> Sit down with me for 5 minutes and I'll find a whole bunch of personal things about you I don't like either "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." - Cardinal Richelieu
general_failure 13y ago
You are picking people in the past and comparing them to the present. Continuing your line of thought..So you are saying if someone had slaves today, you would condone that act and continue supporting other stuff they make? Sorry, I would not.
- Zikes 13y ago
  He's saying that morality is independent of context, and the idea of owning slaves was just as reprehensible in the past as it is today, it was merely more socially acceptable. Much like Proposition 8 was, at the time.
orthecreedence 13y ago
If Brian had funded a political campaign to deny voting rights to all people named Chris, you may be singing a different tune. They outlined that they were personally affected by his political choices, and therefor hurt that Mozilla would promote him. This isn't about someone's personal flaws. It's about someone's actions affecting someone else personally and boycotting a company for not acknowledging that. Seems valid to me.

mankyd 13y ago

Relevant link to Eich's suppport of California's Prop 8: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/04/business/la-fi-tn-brendan-eich-prop-8-contribution-20120404 http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/04/business/la-fi-tn-br... This is not something that I was familiar with.

sehr 13y ago
An equally relevant link to Eich's response to the backlash: https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/ https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/

ilovecomputers 13y ago

"This is a strange one to me and can indeed be a sticky situation. I am NOT judging people who use Firefox, work at Mozilla, or even support Brendan’s right to his opinions. It’s fine that you think I shouldn’t judge his opinion. (This is getting confusing). However, this particular subject is not one that is negotiable to us. We are personally affected by his actions. It’s not his belief that hurts us. It’s that he actively donated to a cause that directly negatively affected us, personally. It’s not abstract. It’s not a witch hunt. He’s certainly allowed to have his opinion, of course, but I’m allowed to judge his actions of supporting the cause financially. Actions have consequences." There you go, sums it up right there. Some past actions are hard to overlook when you're personally affected by it. However you view the news of Brendan Eich's new CEO position and people's opinions of that, you can't ignore the human element of his insignificant (financially) but significant (philosophically) prop 8 contribution and how people take it personally. Edit: Adding onto my thought of how I view the human element in this story: we all try to be rational, but I bet you everyone of us throw that away for a gut feeling we have of someone. If you don't like someone, no amount of reason will make that go away. That feeling spreads to what they're associated with. In retrospect, we reason our gut feeling and we either turn out right or wrong. I understand hcatlin's decision in that sense since I have felt that way before.

msujaws 13y ago
There are people at every large software company that donated to one of the sides of the political battle. Some of them may have received a promotion after the fact. Does that mean that you should boycott those companies too? (Google, Apple, etc.) After all, after people get paid from their job, shouldn't it be their right that they can use their money as they please?
- hcatlin 13y ago
  If they are promoted to CEO, then... yes. Hence why we were building apps for it knowing full-well that he was a homophobic CTO. CEO is a whole other level, and was our personal line.
- archgoon 13y ago

evertonfuller 13y ago

Irrelevant of any feelings towards being gay or not. Surely this is a form of oppression in itself. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, whether you approve of them or not, and so by effectively black-mailing others to conform to your perceived social 'right'. I see this as a sad attempt at press. Having never heard of this company or product before.

autarch 13y ago
Calling this a "form of oppression" is a bit silly. How are Brendan Eich's rights being denied here? How is Brendan being prevented from acting on his own beliefs? These two people decided that they don't want to associate with an organization where the CEO is, in their opinion, anti-gay. That's entirely within their rights, isn't it? As others in the thread said, action have consequences. One consequence of being publicly perceived as anti-gay is that gay people and their supporters may not want to associate with you.
- yeukhon 13y ago
  If you actually read the article: We will continue our boycott until Brendan Eich is completely removed from any day to day activities at Mozilla, which we believe is extremely unlikely after all he’s survived and the continued support he has received from Mozilla. A quick interpretation would be "Mozilla should never pick someone who doesn't like gays." That's against employment equality even though CEO is a unique position. But still, personal belief doesn't always mean the CEO will turn out bad and disrespect everyone else. I have question for the founders: if you were told one of your employees doesn't believe in gay rights will you fire him?
  - glesica 13y ago
    That's against employment equality... Is it though? Are homophobes a protected class? Would a company be forced at the point of a lawsuit to hire a goose-stepping neo-Nazi if he or she had impeccable credentials?
    - 13y ago

m0skit0 13y ago

I understand your posture and I totally support gay marriage, but you're mixing politics with work, and you're taking a personal issue to a professional level. It's Brendan Eich that supported the prop 8, not Mozilla. That's a very very very VERY unprofessional stance. From now on I will be very careful in buying/getting anything from your company because of huge lack of professionalism being shown here. This said, I wish you the best luck in your personal life and I hope you get that gay marriage bill ASAP! All my support from Morocco!

jasonlotito 13y ago
And Mozilla chose Brendan Eich to represent them as CEO. There is a distinct difference between being an employee, and being the CEO.
- transitionality 13y ago
  No, there isn't. A CEO is an employee, just one that tends to get paid above average.
  - bronson 13y ago
    And one that steers the direction of the company every single day. Mere employees don't.
    - transitionality 13y ago
      Every employee affects the direction of the company in some amount, commensurate with their hierarchical level, security clearance, expertise, etc. In normal, day to day operations, the CEO tends to have a bigger share of influence than other employees, but he neither has sole influence, nor always the biggest influence. One could very well argue that Jonathan Ives had a bigger influence than Steve Jobs on Apple's direction around the time of iPod's release, for example. That product singlehandedly changed Apple's market segment and consumer perception. In short, a CEO is just an employee, often getting paid more than the average employee, and often having more influence than the average employee, but not always.

kawliga 13y ago

Irony at its best.

crummy 13y ago
Why is this ironic?
- rux 13y ago
  Because it's like rain on your wedding day

wudf 13y ago

Gotta be extreme to get any attention. At least give Brendan a way out other than stepping down. Maybe he will apologize and try to make amends in light of his new responsibility.

futurist 13y ago
A way out... For what? Standing up for his moral convictions?
- npizzolato 13y ago
  People have the right to stand up for their moral conviction, including Eich. However, other people have the right to judge others based on their actions, including the authors.
- wudf 13y ago
  To clarify his "moral convictions" and promise to keep his personal beliefs from violating the will of the community as well as Mozilla's mission.
davidgerard 13y ago
He had the chance before, he punted on it: https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/ https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/

transitionality 13y ago

When you're attempting blackmail, you need to ensure that your hostage has value to your victims that is commensurate with your ransom demand. You have a shitty puzzle game that's getting "thousands of downloads" and you want Mozilla to fire their CEO over that. Not going to happen. We can do without your shitty puzzle game, thanks.

it_learnses 13y ago
It's not just them or their puzzle game. It's not just gay people either. It's everybody who wants everyone to be treated equally and not be denied their humanity. The CEO's values fly in the face of Mozilla's values. That's why he should be shown the exit door.
- transitionality 13y ago
  They're certainly not treating Brendan Eich equally. Discrimination on the basis of political stance is bigotry, too. Their position is extremely hypocritical, and by defending it, you become complicit in their hypocrisy.
  - it_learnses 13y ago
    How are they not treating Brendan Eich equally? He's the bigot here who wants to deny them happiness, not the other way around.
    - transitionality 13y ago
      They're discriminating against him on the basis of his political stance, trying to start up a witch hunt or mob against him, and trying to disenfranchise him of his employment. They're bigots, pure and simple, and so is everyone who defends them.
      - it_learnses 13y ago
        stop marginalizing this issue by calling it a "political stance." Hitler's "political stance" was to get rid of jews. Political stances affect real lives. Get your head out of your ass.

badman_ting 13y ago

I was unaware of this issue until today but I think Hampton is really great. And I think his position here is thoroughly defensible. How unfortunate this all is. Edit: I see he is being accused here of blackmail and oppression himself. Wow. Fuck you guys.

tbatterii 13y ago

boycott javascript as well?

tommorris 13y ago
http://noscript.net/ http://noscript.net/ I'm okay with that.

general_failure 13y ago

I am sure this was a hard decision to make but this was the right one. It is hard to overlook one's past actions and afaik brendan has not apologized/redacted his stance. BTW, Apple rejected quite a few gay apps in the past. They should strongly consider rejecting everything Apple made.

it_learnses 13y ago

Good for you. I also up until now thought Mozilla was fighting for the little guy and as a developer I've been wanting to work for them. Not anymore. There's no way I want to work for a company whose CEO has publicly supported voting against two people's right to be happy. For those that say don't mix business with politics, think about what you are saying. Politics affect our day to day lives and the way we live or die. How can we separate politics from any other sphere of our lives?

solo_ 13y ago

I understand where the authors are coming from. They're made that Eich supported a bill that denies their rights. However, what Eich does is his own, personal business. The writers, at least in my mind, are mixing business with their personal lives. I support gay marriage, but I think that this isn't too much more than needless outrage. When someone boycotts Google because Google supports gay marriage, a lot of us look at them and go "Wow! What an idiot, boycotting Google because they think that Google is immoral! They're the immoral ones!" This is the exact same thing, it just happens that the authors' views align with our own. I think it's ultimately just petty. I'm glad gay couples can marry in California, where I currently live. I think it's a step in the right direction. I just think that needless outrage like this, which only isolates you from potential customers, gets us nowhere. We get it, you disagree with the CEO's personal values. I understand your outrage, and that might mean nothing to you. I just think there has to be a better way than this to actually get your point across.

Ensorceled 13y ago
Exactly, we look at them and say "They're the immoral ones." ... now everybody's looking at the authors and saying "why are they mixing business with their personal lives". Notice the difference: we are still defending the corporations from the protestors but now the reasons are a bit weird.
wpietri 13y ago
By trying to keep these guys from getting married, Eich made it personal. As the court decisions have shown, keeping them from getting married was an unconstitutional imposition upon their civil rights. Whereas them deciding whom to do business with is totally legit. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
- transitionality 13y ago
  I don't know what sort of consequences you're implying, but threatening someone over anything they say or think is certainly illegal.

shmerl 13y ago

Misdirected rant.

spindritf 13y ago

ComputerIndustryBlacklist.com is availble as of writing if someone was looking for a side project. Considering the professions involved, I'm sure we can do better than a bunch of Hollywood execs.

transitionality 13y ago
I just blacklisted you in my mind for unironically proposing that.
sehr 13y ago
Seriously? I understand this is pretty emotional topic for a lot of people here, but this is just absolutely ridiculous.

chrismonsanto 13y ago

I support your decision to boycott, although I personally disagree with it. I wish you would give Brendan the chance to repent. First of all, and most importantly, it's unlikely they are going to shitcan him as CEO. Second, he has not spoken about his motivations for donating to Prop 8. If he was doing so in pursuit of abolishing the marriage institution altogether, I consider that very different than doing it because he only wants straight people to marry. (Since this is a politically charged issue, I will say that while I am personally in favor of abolishing marriage altogether, I think actively working to deny gays the right to marry in the interim is an exceptionally absurd idea.) Third, his views may have changed over the years. If he came out saying he was wrong and donated 10x the amount he donated to Prop 8 to a LGBT charity, I would consider that a win. There are ways to make this right without shitcanning him.

Blahah 13y ago
Perhaps I'm missing something - how could donating to Prop 8 be in support of abolishing the marriage institution? Full text: Section I. Title This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act." Section 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read: Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
- chrismonsanto 13y ago
  Sorry, it was a typo.
thinkpad20 13y ago
> I wish you would give Brendan the chance to repent. They have, and he hasn't. This is mentioned in the article.
- chrismonsanto 13y ago
  From the article: > He has not, and said he will not, so it’s too late in my mind. Any public change of opinion at this time would only be to ensure his new powerful position at the Mozilla foundation. I disagree with this, hence my post. I think if he puts his money where his mouth is, that good undoes his past failings. I don't think he is going to use Mozilla as a vehicle for promoting homophobia. Therefore, I see two options: 1) he leaves, Mozilla doesn't contribute to societal homophobia, and there is no monetary contribution. 2) he stays, Mozilla doesn't contribute to societal homophobia, and there is a monetary contribution. (Option #3 where he leaves and also makes a monetary contribution is extremely unlikely to happen, so I will not list it here) I am admittedly very pragmatic about these issues. I don't care if he is shamed by being forced out of the company. I don't think that really helps.

trustfundbaby 13y ago

I wouldn't necessarily do the same thing but I can understand why they did it. It can be really really hard to stomach doing work that in anyway benefits somebody so opposed to something that fundamentally defines you as a person.

judah 13y ago

This is definitely one of those moral fashions [1] that Paul Graham wrote about: "What scares me is that there are moral fashions too. They're just as arbitrary, and just as invisible to most people. But they're much more dangerous. Fashion is mistaken for good design; moral fashion is mistaken for good. Dressing oddly gets you laughed at. Violating moral fashions can get you fired, ostracized, imprisoned, or even killed." Society has shifted on this issue, such that the traditional is considered unacceptable to hold; you're ostracized with negative labels should you hold the unfashionable position. This is precisely what TeamRarebit is doing to Brendan Eich: ostracizing him for his moral stance, one that has fallen out of fashion. [1]: http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

bronson 13y ago
When his "moral stance" directly affects your own quality of life and standing as a US citizen then it's probably more than just fashion, hm?
- PeterisP 13y ago
  Well no, he has the exact same rights as any other citizen to vote and donate for whatever laws he prefers. It's inappropriate to do various things that hurt people around you; but it's perfectly fine to vote and support laws that directly affect quality of life of people in both directions (surprise - pretty much all laws/propositions do!). It's exactly the same as boycotting a company because CEO belongs to a really opposite political party - USA doesn't have any really opposite parties; but the rest of the world has seen quite a lot of such partisanism, and it ends up just as ugly as any other bigotry.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - scott_karana 13y ago
    I think you missed the part where one husband in this couple was granted a green card due to marital status, and was able to immigrate to the US. So there would be no or little recourse, much less voting.

gcb0 13y ago

Good luck finding a browser where the ceo or vps behind it agree 100% with anyone's views. Unless you can point out that his (asshole, imho) views affected how he worked for Mozilla, than doing what you are doing is as bad as people that fired or did not purchased from companies supporting gay rights.

alexqgb 13y ago
Easy, the dude openly and activly opposes the basic legal equality of gay people. Given that he runs the place, that creates a hostile working for gay people. End of story.
- scott_karana 13y ago
  > Given that he runs the place, that creates a hostile working for gay people That's a bit of an assumption.

DatBear 13y ago

I can't believe this absurdly tiny donation to a single organization, 6+ years ago, has produced so much anger. This seems pretty ridiculous to me, no matter what the organization.

npizzolato 13y ago
Do you honestly think the amount of money donated is the issue here?

pvnick 13y ago

I don't know what it is about gay marriage that draws people in to this ridiculous witch hunt. I'm neutral on the issue because I feel it's complicated like every other polarizing topic, but to a lot of folks it's solid black-and-white, good-vs-evil. But the pro-gay-marriage crowd seems to go beyond that. To them, it's so black-and-white that one's not even allowed to hold the other view. These people don't even acknowledge the legitimacy of any other beliefs but their own and refuse to stoop to the level of debating the other side on intellectual grounds. > It’s not a witch hunt. You bet your ass it is. It's another in a string of incidents, including boycotting chick fil a for it's owner's beliefs, boycotting duck dynasty for that one guy's beliefs, boycotting starbucks for it's owner's beliefs, the list goes own. Now this is not to take a particular stance on the issue. It's to say that dismissing the legitimacy of other's beliefs besides your own shows a pretty absurd level of intellectual hubris (not unheard of around these parts).

zorpner 13y ago
Why would anyone "acknowledge the legitimacy" of beliefs that would e.g. prevent them from visiting their spouse on their deathbed? There's no middle ground here. Also, it's worth trying not to use the term "witch hunt" to describe attacks on a group which has held an oppressive majority for hundreds of years and which is actively continuing to attempt to deny the rights of a minority. The analogy does not hold.
- samelawrence 13y ago
  The majority / minority argument does not hold. Oppressed minorities are not always in the right. Arguments around gay marriage / politics / Brendan need to step back and argue the issues, not the size or relative social power of the groups involved. I happen to agree with your side of the issue, but let's talk about the issue, not make it a David and Goliath straw man debate. The term "witch hunt" may or may not apply. As an example, we might say that during the French Revolution, the proletariat (oppressed majority, wat?) went on a witch hunt against aristocracy (minority holding majority power) and members of the royal court, regardless of their fault.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

lucasnemeth 13y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich Brendan Eich (/ˈaɪk/; born 1961)[1] is an American computer programmer and creator of the JavaScript scripting language. He is the chief executive officer at the Mozilla Corporation.
- jbeja 13y ago
  Oh too late :p.

waterlesscloud 13y ago

So this thread is a good candidate for the "pending" feature (it has rapidly and predictably become toxic), yet it doesn't seem to be turned on here...

jasonlotito 13y ago
pg disabled it site wide.
- waterlesscloud 13y ago
  Right, with the caveat that it would be turned on per-thread, as needed.
  - jasonlotito 13y ago
    Ahh, I hadn't read that part. I thought it was just disabled for the time being. Thanks. =)

adrianlmm 13y ago

Let me get this, if some one donates his own money to a totally legal cause should be fired? This has a name, is called extortion, I would definitively boycott Firefox if they remove this person.

tehwalrus 13y ago

Gay rights is not a "moral fashion" as some people are calling it. This is a group of people who have been systematically terrorised throughout history, and some people still want to keep that status quo that holds them down as second class citizens, with less legal rights (like the right to immigrate in order to live together.) Screw that meta-ethical/normative moral relativism[1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

JohnTHaller 13y ago

Eich's response to the publicity surrounding the donation in 2012: https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/ https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/

huslage 13y ago

It's not like he hasn't been at the company all along in a management capacity. I don't see how this changes anything or why anyone should choose now to retaliate as opposed to any other arbitrary time.

mantrax3 13y ago

Goodbye, Firefox Marketplace? All right, goodbye... some marginal puzzle game. The part these folks don't get is that their tantrum is not affecting Brendan Eich as much as it's insulting to the fans of their game (whoever they are). They're trying to sic their fans and us against Mozilla with their actions. Prop 8 was justly overturned. It was a battle worth fighting. But we're all equal now. So do we owe these two fools our support right now? Is this "battle" they're starting worth fighting? What's the cause? To prove we don't take kind to them folk like Brendan Eich round 'ere? Hell no. Part of equality is that I, Mozilla and our society as a whole shouldn't feel the need to care more about the games (literally and figuratively) of these two guys than we care about anyone else out there, now that we're equal. I don't care about "your history", I don't care about your wedding photos, I don't care about any of that. To me, you're just two average folks with a crappy puzzle game. Might be gay, straight, white, black, red, brown, tall, short, I don't care. Your cheap outrage doesn't mean anything more than usual to me just because you're gay. I'm equally indifferent.

TheAceOfHearts 13y ago

I should start this off by saying I believe gay couples should be allowed to get married. I cannot fathom what reasoning you can use to say that gay people should not be allowed to marriage. However, the more I learn about the topic, the more I realize it's actually very complicated. With that being said... Marriage seems screwed up. Why do we have unions of two people? Why don't we allow the union of three people? Or more? Where do we draw the line? What if some guy/gal wants to marry his waifu/husbando, or another person wants to marry their car? People say stuff about the sanctity of marriage, but it seems like a horrible joke. Look at divorce rates! Traditional marriage looks like a joke. I'll admit I'm not very well educated on the topic, I'd love to hear the reasoning for these limitations. Maybe it would make sense to just break out the benefits [1] into more types of unions. For example, I can see how you might not want to allow a 5 person marriage where only 1 person has citizenship in the US; then you would have four people gaining citizenship at the same time. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_...

hrktb 13y ago

I have a hard time understanding all the call for separating private and work. The issue brought by this post is not private (in the sense that the donations were public) and the purpose of the donation was to make a private view to pass into law, not just express some personal opinion. Also, the position of a CEO on social issues has non negligible impacts on the organization. He won't block Mozilla from hiring gay people of course, but nobody would expect him to actively push gay peoples' rights inside the organization if these were not upheld enough. Or does Mozilla have full parity when it comes to married gays and married hetero couples ? Will married gay people get to work intimately with the new CEO (and not just as a token gay people in the team)? These are all legitimate questions. Perhaps Eich won't be worse than anyone else on these issues, but now his public karma is negative. If from here Mozilla appeared to be championing gay rights and parity more than ever before, then I think team rarebit would revise their position. But until then their reaction, while emotionally charged, seems fair enough※ and sends the right message. ※ especially as in anyway they are bound to build for Mozilla's platform nor use Mozilla's products. PS: From Mozilla's donation page : "At the heart of Mozilla is a global community with a shared mission—to build the Internet the world needs. Support Mozilla with a donation today—for a better web and a better world." I think a lot of people really see Mozilla as organization with strong moral stance, and actually working towards making the world better. Visceral reactions on events like this one are the flip side of the coin.

general_failure 13y ago
First para is brilliant. Thanks for writing this

tn13 13y ago

This is an absolutely knee jerk reaction. Just the way I stand for a gay couple's right to remain together I also support Eich's right to oppose a government policy which he believes is not right. I do not think anyone should boycott Eich or his organization because of the opinions which he holds about an issue that has nothing to do with his organization. Also please do not paint the Gay marriages as some kind of black & white issue. There are plenty of subtle differences here. Traditional marriage laws which gives so many benefits to couples were designed with an assumption that marriages are only between man and woman. We can not mindlessly extend them to all kind of marriages. Just the way I support gay marriages, I also support man-woman-woman or man-woman-man or [man|woman|] relationships also. Does that mean if an American man marries 3 Arab women all of them should get a green card ? Should a person with two wives be given more tax benefits ? What happens to parent's property distribution when brother marries his sister ? The only moral position I feel worth taking is that government should protect individual liberties which involves getting into any kind of partnership among consenting adults. Beyond that everything has shades of grey.

Torgo 13y ago

Their actions seem perfectly reasonable considering they are a gay, married couple in California. And they are just announcing why they are breaking off their association with Mozilla. As far as I can tell they aren't making a "with us or against us" stand against anybody else not following suit, so I can hardly begrudge them this.

chris_wot 13y ago

Boycotting over this issue is reasonable. However, I hope that the author also understands that different people can have freedom to express differing views, in a private capacity. In my experience, anyone expressing any viewpoints other than a pro-LGBT one are vociferously attacked, which again would be fine if the tone was more reasonable. People who fight for LGBT rights were once treated with extreme disrespect and abuse. It sadly still occurs. But now the shoe is on the other foot: I think it's odd that those who were previously mistreated start mistreating others when they gain acceptance.

agapos 13y ago

There is no "except for gays" part in the TOS or anything, but they decide to go full "except for Mozillians" over one person's acts, who acted not as a will-be-CEO, or as a Mozilla member, but as a single civilian individual. Technically, they are doing against Mozilla what they think Mozilla could be doing against them, but it doesn't. As Uncel Dolan once said: Okei, bai

mpyne 13y ago

I find it fascinating how so many people are content to crucify Mozilla for appointing as a CEO a man who had the sheer gall to contribute to a PAC opposing gay marriage. Yet every time Rand Paul gets brought up his own opposition to same-sex marriage doesn't seem to draw 2 separate 200+ comment HN threads dedicated to how morally bankrupt he is. Is that simply because opposing the NSA is more morally noble than building an open browser that we feel inclined to overlook his baggage? Better yet, what about people who support the Republican Party. As recently as April 2013 (i.e. not even a year ago) the Republican Party re-affirmed (unanimously) their opposition to same-sex marriage in their party platform. If you donate to or support a GOP candidate you are opposing gay marriage just as surely as if you'd funded Prop. 8 yourself. It's for this reason that it's very important to separate a person's own political preferences from professional duties to the extent possible. And since I apparently have to be worried about pitchforks I'll pre-emptively make clear: I'm proud to support, and have supported, equality of gay marriage rights.

ue_ 13y ago

I don't think that the reaction of these people is proportional to what's happened. The CEO of an organisation supports a cause that he wants in a private capacity, and the people at Firefox Marketplace are conflating this guy with what Mozilla does. Mozilla isn't this CEO, and this CEO isn't Mozilla. Would you boycott the US constitution because a couple of the authors owned slaves?