8 ms·

On Brendan Eich as CEO of Mozilla

78 points by mbrubeck 13y ago

alrs 13y ago
Down for me. Cached: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:E-3prdth0Z4J:subfictional.com/2014/03/24/on-brendan-eich-as-ceo-of-mozilla/&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:E-3prdt...
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
general_failure 13y ago
https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/ https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/ has Brendan's response to prop 8 donation.
- bcantrill 13y ago
  A nauseating non-apology that attempts to marginalize those that view this as a moral issue -- and many, many people now view this as a moral issue (to say nothing of the courts). He's obviously entitled to his opinions, but as a CEO, he's also held to a higher level of public scrutiny. The donation to Prop 8 -- which, to be fair, was six years ago -- was ill advised, and the non-apology even more so. At this point, he should issue an actual apology (and he can look to any number of politicians on how to express a "reconsideration" of this particular issue) and explain that it is now clear to him that the spirit of Prop 8 is entirely at odds with Mozilla's own policies, that as CEO he cannot have it both ways -- and that he picks Mozilla over Prop 8. Edit: Fair enough; it's not even a non-apology -- it's just nauseating.
  - jiggy2011 13y ago
    It doesn't read like it was intended as an apology. It wouldn't strike me as very honest for somebody to apologize for a view unless they had actually changed that view without the influence of public pressure.
  - andrewcooke 13y ago
    it's not a "non-apology". it's simply not an apology. are you so used to people kowtowing to indignant internet hordes that an authentic voice explaining his position just confuses you? and why should he issue an apology? he seems to think similarly to around 50% of the population. why on earth should he apologise for that?
- alexqgb 13y ago
  Wow, what a colossal piece of bullshit. I mean, this guy is making an appeal to the virtues of tolerance, diversity, and respectful disagreement when asking people to withhold judgement related to his political activism. And that would be fine if the issue in question pertained to any number of open questions facing lawmakers. But when we're talking about Prop. 8 - a law that was directly opposed to the exact values he's espousing here - it's hard to view his appeal as one made in good faith. That's twice as true when the campaign he supported was characterized by astonishing levels of malice and deceit.* Put simply: you don't get to demand that others be tolerant and passive and respectful when addressing your attempts to block their 14th Amendment rights. Just...no. * When Judge Vaughn heard the subsequent legal case he asked the supporters of Prop. 8 if they'd like to submit for his consideration any of the "facts" about the harmfulness of gay marriage that they'd repeatedly cited in public during their scorched-earth media campaign. The catch was that they would have to do so under oath, and suffer penalty of perjury if any claims were found to be knowingly dishonest. And how many "facts" did these supposedly religious supporters choose to supply? Zero. Zip. Nada. None. The good news was that while these "believers" didn't give a fig about bearing false witness in the eyes of God, they maintained the presence of mind not to do so before the State of California.
  - kevingadd 13y ago
    Bringing an individual's personal feelings and opinions into the workplace is unacceptable regardless of what they are. I wouldn't want a conservative using my sexual orientation or faith as an excuse to fire me or harass me at work, so I don't think it's appropriate to use Eich's (speculated) faith/opinions as an excuse to eject him from the workplace. If his behavior or decisionmaking at Mozilla is questionable, that's one thing. But he's never demonstrated any failings there. All that aside, yeah, it's super questionable why anyone would support prop 8. I can't even speculate. Eich did offer to explain privately to anyone who asked, so maybe you can ask to find out.
    - alexqgb 13y ago
      It's not about his beliefs so much as his basic human integrity (or lack thereof). Put simply the guys is an asshole. And that's different from a hypocrite, mind you. A hypocrite tries to hide the fact that what he says and does are different. He may not believe in what he's saying, but needs you to think he does. An asshole, on the other hand, is very open about his belief that different standards apply to him. He'll tell you not to do what he does openly because that's his prerogative. Not yours, his. Supporting an unjust, intolerant, hateful piece of legislation is one thing. Blasting those who oppose you on the grounds that they're not being tolerant and inclusive is something else. In other words, it's important for YOU to be tolerant. But he can be an intolerant as he damn well pleases.
- mindstab 13y ago
  "So I do not insist that anyone agree with me on a great many things, including political issues, and I refrain from putting my personal beliefs in others’ way in all matters Mozilla, JS, and Web. I hope for the same in return." On the other hand, I will spend cash money of my very own to try and force the law to comply with my beliefs against others. I always love bigots with one hand saying: "oh i have my beliefs but don't try and force them on others so please leave me alone" and with the other hand piling money on bigoted campaigns to keep rights from marginalized groups. It's tiresome and disingenuous.
  - kevingadd 13y ago
    That's kind of how democracy works in the US, you know. If you believe something, you campaign to try and put it into law. What's disingenuous? He never said he doesn't apply his personal beliefs to the political sphere; it's obvious that he does. The key is that he keeps them out of his work.
Udo 13y ago
This is really disappointing. I can see how, for example, a CTO role is not necessarily tied to a person's political and philosophical outlook. I think it's productive to actually disregard a person's political and religious views when working with them on tech matters. However, with CEOs it's an entirely different ballgame. For better or worse, the CEOs personality is the company's personality. A promotion to CEO carries with it an endorsement of the whole person, there is really no way to spin it as if his personal views are not connected to his professional ones. In this case it's especially jarring given Mozilla's role and mission.
- mst 13y ago
  If a CEO brings his politics to work and priviliges them over the good of the company, he's a bad CEO whether I agree with his politics or not. If he doesn't, I don't see how it matters.
  - alexqgb 13y ago
    If the CEOs politics are public, they follow him into the office whether he wants them to or not. It's one of the (many) burdens of leadership.
- kevingadd 13y ago
  I don't think you can argue that a CEO's entire life is within the purview of a company's directors; that is a double-edged sword that can equally harm the diverse and the majority. Private, personally held beliefs that don't enter the workplace simply shouldn't be a consideration in hiring and promotion choices, whether it's your faith, your sexual orientation, or something else. Ultimately the only way in which this entered the Mozilla sphere is the requirement that all donations have an individual's employer attached; other than that there is literally no connection. None of Eich's actions or behavior in his role at Mozilla has ever set a bad example for others or caused harm to LGBTQ individuals, as far as I know. I'd love to see counterexamples. His personality and behavior were always aligned with Mozilla as a whole being a welcoming and diverse organization. I say this as someone who felt completely welcome there (and sat at a desk next to Eich for months) and had many LGBTQ coworkers who seemed welcome in the workplace as well. On occasions where hostile or unacceptable personal views did enter the workplace, these issues were promptly addressed by management.
sillysaurus3 13y ago
Firefox share continues to decline, and this promotion may prevent Mozilla from acquiring top talent. Talent goes where talent feels like going, and if they feel it's unethical to work for someone, then it's easy to see why this may turn out badly. By the way, who was in charge of deciding whether to promote him to CEO?
- kevingadd 13y ago
  FWIW, he's been on the board for ages, and was instrumental in the founding of Mozilla as an organization as a company. A move from CTO -> CEO feels like an incredibly small change in ownership and reporting and I can't imagine it would affect people's opinion of Mozilla.
ZanyProgrammer 13y ago
Do you expect an employee to disparage their CEO in public? Maybe LGBT Mozillians really don't have a problem with his appointment, but they'd be foolish to diss the person who signs their paycheck.
- kevingadd 13y ago
  I can't imagine that saying pretty much anything about Eich in public would get a Mozilla employee fired; it's a pretty diverse company. Feel free to provide counter-examples :P
  - amuntner 13y ago
    Not only that, people ask very pointed and potentially embarrassing questions at company meetings. Everything is in the open at Mozilla. After spending more than a decade and a half in corporate America, it's very, very refreshing.
- hyperpape 13y ago
  Sure, though she could just stay quiet and let him be seen as an asshole. So while I don't think this article means there's nothing to talk about, I do think it should be considered relatively sincere.
- christiekoehler 13y ago
  To the contrary, I feel quite free to be openly and publicly critical of Mozilla leadership. Contributors to Mozilla, both paid and volunteer, have a great deal of freedom in how they engage with and about the project. More so than at any other organization I've been employed by.
TheBiv 13y ago
I am born and raised in Dallas, so please use that as context, as I was not privy to the lively debate that Californian's had while this prop was being discussed. I don't understand why someone who made a donation, in good faith and clarity, should have to be subjected to this sort of back and forth questioning and tearing down his ability to lead a company. Sadness, I understand. Disagreement, I understand. However calling Brendan unfit to be CEO simply bc of a donation he made, to a cause you don't agree with; seems completely unfair.
- bluthru 13y ago
  Denying people equal standing in society just because of their sexual preference is completely unfair.
  - TheBiv 13y ago
    I appreciate your reply. As he stated, he would be more than willing to discuss the issue with you personally, just not on the internet, so I cannot speak to the way he would reply. However, I respect his right to feel the way he feels.
    - lern_too_spel 13y ago
      I respect his right to feel whatever he wants. I don't respect his decision to spend money putting fear-mongering homophobic ads on TV that ultimately deny other people the right to live as equals. That's where a lot of us draw the line and where I find it difficult to support him as a figurehead for anything that I also support.
  - kevingadd 13y ago
    I completely agree, but it's a personal decision. Unfortunately this goes both ways: People with conservative views feel just as strongly about how you might wish to live your life, and allowing that to enter the employment sphere would be equally unacceptable.
    - deleted 13y ago
DatBear 13y ago
Here we go again, another thread to paint Brendan Eich as the anti-christ for a donation he made to a single organization over 6 years ago. This is getting ridiculous now.
- Udo 13y ago
  I see you made this account specifically to talk about the donation. First off, most non-religious people don't think in terms of "anti-christs" all that much. Outside of rhetorical amusement, that term has no real world meaning for most of us. ;) Kidding aside, the view offered of Eich is more nuanced than that. Certainly the man is entitled to his opinion, even if it's morally objectionable - which it definitely is in this case. I know of nothing that suggests Mr Eich is a bad technologist, a bad programmer, or even a bad communicator. He is also, by most accounts, a nice person to chat with, as are most religious extremists if you can interact with them outside of their zealotry area. However, Mr Eich must have known at the time that his employer's name would appear in the donation records. Even at that time, he apparently had no problems with making his own deplorable values part of the Mozilla message. The egregiousness here is not even due to his opinion about gay people per se, but his intention to marginalize them through legislation, which is a gross defect in his civic ethics. And now this guy gets to be CEO - a role that consists of nothing but the projection of personality and personal views. So, yes, it's understandable that people worry about Mozilla at this point.
  - sehr 13y ago
    Outside of rhetorical amusement, that term has no real world meaning for most of us. I very much doubt it was meant to be taken literally. he apparently had no problems with making his own deplorable ethics part of the Mozilla message. So essentially, if you are known to be a part of a company, all of your actions and views are representative of said company? I imagine that makes all of the "views expressed here are my own" disclaimers on people's blogs & twitter feeds invalid. a role that consists of nothing but the projection of personality and personal views I think the board of directors would have something to say about that.
  - Touche 13y ago
mantrax3 13y ago
We should fight against those whose opinions and work will make society a worse place, while the battle is going on. But the battle is over. Any display of outrage over an action that stopped mattering when Prop 8 was overturned serves little purpose right now, and should be considered a display of hate and bigotry. But all that is par for the course I guess. The oppressed shall become the oppressors, and the wheel keeps turning...
- crummy 13y ago
  Yes... soon we'll be oppressed by gays.
jedanbik 13y ago
Well...you get what you pay for.
md224 13y ago
Hey guys, don't worry! The mods have safely moved this thread off the front page, so we don't have to discuss this anymore.
- kevingadd 13y ago
  It really disappoints me that PG keeps changing HN to make it more difficult to have a discussion about topics of real importance and interest. More room for articles about the latest marketing startup, I guess...
pdeuchler 13y ago
I held my tongue in the other thread, but I feel like I need to say my piece (and as a white male, I have been told all my life that it is my right to be listened to, so forgive me for acting upon that impulse). HN holds a very special place in my heart. To me, this community is still one of the absolute best for impartial, high level, and overall courteous discussions about a lot of hot button and polarizing issues among some very smart and influential people (and this is completely setting aside the wonderful technical/startup aspect). Very often you find those who lose their cool downvoted to oblivion for the sake of rational discourse, whether people agree or not, and every day that warms my heart and gives me hope for the future of humanity. The greater internet has evolved into a global phenomenon, and with that has come an Eternal September of those who believe that anonymously shouting as loud as they can in comment sections and forums is a substitute for high level reasoning and discourse, thus I am driven to ever smaller enclaves, HN being one of those. For people that pride themselves on seeking out and eradicating cognitive biases both within themselves and within others I saw a dis-heartening amount of group think and cognitive dissonance among many earlier today. People who have been trusted as linchpins of our community for many years were immediately attacked for simply not being vitriolic towards BE, and even more worrying, his supporters. I will lay down my life for you to exercise your freedom of opinion and speech (this is not hyperbole... I see no point in living if I may not live freely), and some days I honestly wonder about whether my children (should I chose to have progeny) will enjoy those same freedoms, thanks to the fine people at the NSA. Yet never once was I ever afraid of being silenced on my home turf, if you will. Never could I have fathomed the amount of simple hate that came from both sides today. It shook a lot of my belief in this community, and made me finally realize that maybe PG has been right to tighten the moderating screws. As I'm sure a lot of you were, I was frequently bullied and insulted as a child and teen. Being different made me an easy target, and I still suffer from both the physical and emotional scars that I received. I would hope that many of you would remember a time you too were the target of a larger group simply for not conforming to what they expected. I would hope that many of you who were so quick to spew insults and acrid words would take a step back to remember that we are all human beings, that we are all different in so many wonderful ways, and diversity of thought, opinion and person is what makes us strong. Marriage equality is a large issue in our society today, and fortunately we still live in a country that gives us the right to freely express our political and social beliefs. We still have the right to change our government for the better. We still are able to mold our society as we see fit. Please, take your righteous anger and use it for the better good. If BE infuriates you, then go out there and start getting signatures on ballots in the various states where marriage equality is either ill defined or non-existent. If you subscribe to BE's views then start calling your representatives. Show your "hacker" spirit and build a website that provides literature on your beliefs, no matter what they were. But for the love of all that is good, and true, and beautiful, do not tear down a fellow human for simply exercising their God given (as per the Constitution and Human Rights charters) rights by voicing their beliefs, however repugnant they may be. Pain and suffering is a zero sum game, and the increase of it does our whole species a disfavor. If you must find a direct release to your anger please aim it at those who seek to incite this kind of partisan behavior for their own good. It would treat us all well to remember most of us have either purchased goods from companies that have given donations to both sides of the aisle on this issue, and yet we do not tear their representatives limb from limb when the topic arises. Being equitable in your dealings will never hurt you, I can assure you of that. These are my two cents. Take them for what you will, but please do not ruin this wonderful oasis of learning that we all benefit from daily.
bcj 13y ago
I don't have the information to be able to judge how Eich's views will affect his ability to be a CEO, but it's worth remembering that the CEOs of the companies that Mozilla competes with have been actively involved in illegal anti-competitive business practices (http://www.businessinsider.com/emails-eric-schmidt-sergey-brin-hiring-apple-2014-3 http://www.businessinsider.com/emails-eric-schmidt-sergey-br...).
ig1 13y ago
One way to introspect your own view-point is separating it from the current gay marriage debate and considering the alternate (but parallel) question "how would you feel if the CEO donated to a campaign for banning interracial marriages ?" You could also imagine you were part of an interracial couple working for the company, how would you feel about bringing your other half to company events (xmas parties, dinners, etc.) knowing your boss was actively involved in trying to legally prohibit your relationship, etc. If you'd see that scenario in a different light from this one, it might be worth considering why you consider it different and if your reasoning for doing so is sound.
cincinnatus 13y ago
Supporting prop 8, and then actually making the effort to put your money where your mouth is, demonstrates a world view that is incompatible with clarity of thought. Clarity of thought, the ability to see through bullshit and get to the truth of things, is a critical skill in any executive.
- lern_too_spel 13y ago
  Indeed, this is just another example of the hazy thinking that left us with falsy values.

78 points by mbrubeck 13y ago

alrs 13y ago

Down for me. Cached: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:E-3prdth0Z4J:subfictional.com/2014/03/24/on-brendan-eich-as-ceo-of-mozilla/&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:E-3prdt...

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

general_failure 13y ago

https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/ https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/ has Brendan's response to prop 8 donation.

bcantrill 13y ago
A nauseating non-apology that attempts to marginalize those that view this as a moral issue -- and many, many people now view this as a moral issue (to say nothing of the courts). He's obviously entitled to his opinions, but as a CEO, he's also held to a higher level of public scrutiny. The donation to Prop 8 -- which, to be fair, was six years ago -- was ill advised, and the non-apology even more so. At this point, he should issue an actual apology (and he can look to any number of politicians on how to express a "reconsideration" of this particular issue) and explain that it is now clear to him that the spirit of Prop 8 is entirely at odds with Mozilla's own policies, that as CEO he cannot have it both ways -- and that he picks Mozilla over Prop 8. Edit: Fair enough; it's not even a non-apology -- it's just nauseating.
- jiggy2011 13y ago
  It doesn't read like it was intended as an apology. It wouldn't strike me as very honest for somebody to apologize for a view unless they had actually changed that view without the influence of public pressure.
- andrewcooke 13y ago
  it's not a "non-apology". it's simply not an apology. are you so used to people kowtowing to indignant internet hordes that an authentic voice explaining his position just confuses you? and why should he issue an apology? he seems to think similarly to around 50% of the population. why on earth should he apologise for that?
alexqgb 13y ago
Wow, what a colossal piece of bullshit. I mean, this guy is making an appeal to the virtues of tolerance, diversity, and respectful disagreement when asking people to withhold judgement related to his political activism. And that would be fine if the issue in question pertained to any number of open questions facing lawmakers. But when we're talking about Prop. 8 - a law that was directly opposed to the exact values he's espousing here - it's hard to view his appeal as one made in good faith. That's twice as true when the campaign he supported was characterized by astonishing levels of malice and deceit.* Put simply: you don't get to demand that others be tolerant and passive and respectful when addressing your attempts to block their 14th Amendment rights. Just...no. * When Judge Vaughn heard the subsequent legal case he asked the supporters of Prop. 8 if they'd like to submit for his consideration any of the "facts" about the harmfulness of gay marriage that they'd repeatedly cited in public during their scorched-earth media campaign. The catch was that they would have to do so under oath, and suffer penalty of perjury if any claims were found to be knowingly dishonest. And how many "facts" did these supposedly religious supporters choose to supply? Zero. Zip. Nada. None. The good news was that while these "believers" didn't give a fig about bearing false witness in the eyes of God, they maintained the presence of mind not to do so before the State of California.
- kevingadd 13y ago
  Bringing an individual's personal feelings and opinions into the workplace is unacceptable regardless of what they are. I wouldn't want a conservative using my sexual orientation or faith as an excuse to fire me or harass me at work, so I don't think it's appropriate to use Eich's (speculated) faith/opinions as an excuse to eject him from the workplace. If his behavior or decisionmaking at Mozilla is questionable, that's one thing. But he's never demonstrated any failings there. All that aside, yeah, it's super questionable why anyone would support prop 8. I can't even speculate. Eich did offer to explain privately to anyone who asked, so maybe you can ask to find out.
  - alexqgb 13y ago
    It's not about his beliefs so much as his basic human integrity (or lack thereof). Put simply the guys is an asshole. And that's different from a hypocrite, mind you. A hypocrite tries to hide the fact that what he says and does are different. He may not believe in what he's saying, but needs you to think he does. An asshole, on the other hand, is very open about his belief that different standards apply to him. He'll tell you not to do what he does openly because that's his prerogative. Not yours, his. Supporting an unjust, intolerant, hateful piece of legislation is one thing. Blasting those who oppose you on the grounds that they're not being tolerant and inclusive is something else. In other words, it's important for YOU to be tolerant. But he can be an intolerant as he damn well pleases.
mindstab 13y ago
"So I do not insist that anyone agree with me on a great many things, including political issues, and I refrain from putting my personal beliefs in others’ way in all matters Mozilla, JS, and Web. I hope for the same in return." On the other hand, I will spend cash money of my very own to try and force the law to comply with my beliefs against others. I always love bigots with one hand saying: "oh i have my beliefs but don't try and force them on others so please leave me alone" and with the other hand piling money on bigoted campaigns to keep rights from marginalized groups. It's tiresome and disingenuous.
- kevingadd 13y ago
  That's kind of how democracy works in the US, you know. If you believe something, you campaign to try and put it into law. What's disingenuous? He never said he doesn't apply his personal beliefs to the political sphere; it's obvious that he does. The key is that he keeps them out of his work.

Udo 13y ago

This is really disappointing. I can see how, for example, a CTO role is not necessarily tied to a person's political and philosophical outlook. I think it's productive to actually disregard a person's political and religious views when working with them on tech matters. However, with CEOs it's an entirely different ballgame. For better or worse, the CEOs personality is the company's personality. A promotion to CEO carries with it an endorsement of the whole person, there is really no way to spin it as if his personal views are not connected to his professional ones. In this case it's especially jarring given Mozilla's role and mission.

mst 13y ago
If a CEO brings his politics to work and priviliges them over the good of the company, he's a bad CEO whether I agree with his politics or not. If he doesn't, I don't see how it matters.
- alexqgb 13y ago
  If the CEOs politics are public, they follow him into the office whether he wants them to or not. It's one of the (many) burdens of leadership.
kevingadd 13y ago
I don't think you can argue that a CEO's entire life is within the purview of a company's directors; that is a double-edged sword that can equally harm the diverse and the majority. Private, personally held beliefs that don't enter the workplace simply shouldn't be a consideration in hiring and promotion choices, whether it's your faith, your sexual orientation, or something else. Ultimately the only way in which this entered the Mozilla sphere is the requirement that all donations have an individual's employer attached; other than that there is literally no connection. None of Eich's actions or behavior in his role at Mozilla has ever set a bad example for others or caused harm to LGBTQ individuals, as far as I know. I'd love to see counterexamples. His personality and behavior were always aligned with Mozilla as a whole being a welcoming and diverse organization. I say this as someone who felt completely welcome there (and sat at a desk next to Eich for months) and had many LGBTQ coworkers who seemed welcome in the workplace as well. On occasions where hostile or unacceptable personal views did enter the workplace, these issues were promptly addressed by management.

sillysaurus3 13y ago

Firefox share continues to decline, and this promotion may prevent Mozilla from acquiring top talent. Talent goes where talent feels like going, and if they feel it's unethical to work for someone, then it's easy to see why this may turn out badly. By the way, who was in charge of deciding whether to promote him to CEO?

kevingadd 13y ago
FWIW, he's been on the board for ages, and was instrumental in the founding of Mozilla as an organization as a company. A move from CTO -> CEO feels like an incredibly small change in ownership and reporting and I can't imagine it would affect people's opinion of Mozilla.

ZanyProgrammer 13y ago

Do you expect an employee to disparage their CEO in public? Maybe LGBT Mozillians really don't have a problem with his appointment, but they'd be foolish to diss the person who signs their paycheck.

kevingadd 13y ago
I can't imagine that saying pretty much anything about Eich in public would get a Mozilla employee fired; it's a pretty diverse company. Feel free to provide counter-examples :P
- amuntner 13y ago
  Not only that, people ask very pointed and potentially embarrassing questions at company meetings. Everything is in the open at Mozilla. After spending more than a decade and a half in corporate America, it's very, very refreshing.
hyperpape 13y ago
Sure, though she could just stay quiet and let him be seen as an asshole. So while I don't think this article means there's nothing to talk about, I do think it should be considered relatively sincere.
christiekoehler 13y ago
To the contrary, I feel quite free to be openly and publicly critical of Mozilla leadership. Contributors to Mozilla, both paid and volunteer, have a great deal of freedom in how they engage with and about the project. More so than at any other organization I've been employed by.

TheBiv 13y ago

I am born and raised in Dallas, so please use that as context, as I was not privy to the lively debate that Californian's had while this prop was being discussed. I don't understand why someone who made a donation, in good faith and clarity, should have to be subjected to this sort of back and forth questioning and tearing down his ability to lead a company. Sadness, I understand. Disagreement, I understand. However calling Brendan unfit to be CEO simply bc of a donation he made, to a cause you don't agree with; seems completely unfair.

bluthru 13y ago
Denying people equal standing in society just because of their sexual preference is completely unfair.
- TheBiv 13y ago
  I appreciate your reply. As he stated, he would be more than willing to discuss the issue with you personally, just not on the internet, so I cannot speak to the way he would reply. However, I respect his right to feel the way he feels.
  - lern_too_spel 13y ago
    I respect his right to feel whatever he wants. I don't respect his decision to spend money putting fear-mongering homophobic ads on TV that ultimately deny other people the right to live as equals. That's where a lot of us draw the line and where I find it difficult to support him as a figurehead for anything that I also support.
- kevingadd 13y ago
  I completely agree, but it's a personal decision. Unfortunately this goes both ways: People with conservative views feel just as strongly about how you might wish to live your life, and allowing that to enter the employment sphere would be equally unacceptable.
  - deleted 13y ago

DatBear 13y ago

Here we go again, another thread to paint Brendan Eich as the anti-christ for a donation he made to a single organization over 6 years ago. This is getting ridiculous now.

Udo 13y ago
I see you made this account specifically to talk about the donation. First off, most non-religious people don't think in terms of "anti-christs" all that much. Outside of rhetorical amusement, that term has no real world meaning for most of us. ;) Kidding aside, the view offered of Eich is more nuanced than that. Certainly the man is entitled to his opinion, even if it's morally objectionable - which it definitely is in this case. I know of nothing that suggests Mr Eich is a bad technologist, a bad programmer, or even a bad communicator. He is also, by most accounts, a nice person to chat with, as are most religious extremists if you can interact with them outside of their zealotry area. However, Mr Eich must have known at the time that his employer's name would appear in the donation records. Even at that time, he apparently had no problems with making his own deplorable values part of the Mozilla message. The egregiousness here is not even due to his opinion about gay people per se, but his intention to marginalize them through legislation, which is a gross defect in his civic ethics. And now this guy gets to be CEO - a role that consists of nothing but the projection of personality and personal views. So, yes, it's understandable that people worry about Mozilla at this point.
- sehr 13y ago
  Outside of rhetorical amusement, that term has no real world meaning for most of us. I very much doubt it was meant to be taken literally. he apparently had no problems with making his own deplorable ethics part of the Mozilla message. So essentially, if you are known to be a part of a company, all of your actions and views are representative of said company? I imagine that makes all of the "views expressed here are my own" disclaimers on people's blogs & twitter feeds invalid. a role that consists of nothing but the projection of personality and personal views I think the board of directors would have something to say about that.
- Touche 13y ago

mantrax3 13y ago

We should fight against those whose opinions and work will make society a worse place, while the battle is going on. But the battle is over. Any display of outrage over an action that stopped mattering when Prop 8 was overturned serves little purpose right now, and should be considered a display of hate and bigotry. But all that is par for the course I guess. The oppressed shall become the oppressors, and the wheel keeps turning...

crummy 13y ago
Yes... soon we'll be oppressed by gays.

jedanbik 13y ago

Well...you get what you pay for.

md224 13y ago

Hey guys, don't worry! The mods have safely moved this thread off the front page, so we don't have to discuss this anymore.

kevingadd 13y ago
It really disappoints me that PG keeps changing HN to make it more difficult to have a discussion about topics of real importance and interest. More room for articles about the latest marketing startup, I guess...

pdeuchler 13y ago

I held my tongue in the other thread, but I feel like I need to say my piece (and as a white male, I have been told all my life that it is my right to be listened to, so forgive me for acting upon that impulse). HN holds a very special place in my heart. To me, this community is still one of the absolute best for impartial, high level, and overall courteous discussions about a lot of hot button and polarizing issues among some very smart and influential people (and this is completely setting aside the wonderful technical/startup aspect). Very often you find those who lose their cool downvoted to oblivion for the sake of rational discourse, whether people agree or not, and every day that warms my heart and gives me hope for the future of humanity. The greater internet has evolved into a global phenomenon, and with that has come an Eternal September of those who believe that anonymously shouting as loud as they can in comment sections and forums is a substitute for high level reasoning and discourse, thus I am driven to ever smaller enclaves, HN being one of those. For people that pride themselves on seeking out and eradicating cognitive biases both within themselves and within others I saw a dis-heartening amount of group think and cognitive dissonance among many earlier today. People who have been trusted as linchpins of our community for many years were immediately attacked for simply not being vitriolic towards BE, and even more worrying, his supporters. I will lay down my life for you to exercise your freedom of opinion and speech (this is not hyperbole... I see no point in living if I may not live freely), and some days I honestly wonder about whether my children (should I chose to have progeny) will enjoy those same freedoms, thanks to the fine people at the NSA. Yet never once was I ever afraid of being silenced on my home turf, if you will. Never could I have fathomed the amount of simple hate that came from both sides today. It shook a lot of my belief in this community, and made me finally realize that maybe PG has been right to tighten the moderating screws. As I'm sure a lot of you were, I was frequently bullied and insulted as a child and teen. Being different made me an easy target, and I still suffer from both the physical and emotional scars that I received. I would hope that many of you would remember a time you too were the target of a larger group simply for not conforming to what they expected. I would hope that many of you who were so quick to spew insults and acrid words would take a step back to remember that we are all human beings, that we are all different in so many wonderful ways, and diversity of thought, opinion and person is what makes us strong. Marriage equality is a large issue in our society today, and fortunately we still live in a country that gives us the right to freely express our political and social beliefs. We still have the right to change our government for the better. We still are able to mold our society as we see fit. Please, take your righteous anger and use it for the better good. If BE infuriates you, then go out there and start getting signatures on ballots in the various states where marriage equality is either ill defined or non-existent. If you subscribe to BE's views then start calling your representatives. Show your "hacker" spirit and build a website that provides literature on your beliefs, no matter what they were. But for the love of all that is good, and true, and beautiful, do not tear down a fellow human for simply exercising their God given (as per the Constitution and Human Rights charters) rights by voicing their beliefs, however repugnant they may be. Pain and suffering is a zero sum game, and the increase of it does our whole species a disfavor. If you must find a direct release to your anger please aim it at those who seek to incite this kind of partisan behavior for their own good. It would treat us all well to remember most of us have either purchased goods from companies that have given donations to both sides of the aisle on this issue, and yet we do not tear their representatives limb from limb when the topic arises. Being equitable in your dealings will never hurt you, I can assure you of that. These are my two cents. Take them for what you will, but please do not ruin this wonderful oasis of learning that we all benefit from daily.

bcj 13y ago

I don't have the information to be able to judge how Eich's views will affect his ability to be a CEO, but it's worth remembering that the CEOs of the companies that Mozilla competes with have been actively involved in illegal anti-competitive business practices (http://www.businessinsider.com/emails-eric-schmidt-sergey-brin-hiring-apple-2014-3 http://www.businessinsider.com/emails-eric-schmidt-sergey-br...).

ig1 13y ago

One way to introspect your own view-point is separating it from the current gay marriage debate and considering the alternate (but parallel) question "how would you feel if the CEO donated to a campaign for banning interracial marriages ?" You could also imagine you were part of an interracial couple working for the company, how would you feel about bringing your other half to company events (xmas parties, dinners, etc.) knowing your boss was actively involved in trying to legally prohibit your relationship, etc. If you'd see that scenario in a different light from this one, it might be worth considering why you consider it different and if your reasoning for doing so is sound.

cincinnatus 13y ago

Supporting prop 8, and then actually making the effort to put your money where your mouth is, demonstrates a world view that is incompatible with clarity of thought. Clarity of thought, the ability to see through bullshit and get to the truth of things, is a critical skill in any executive.

lern_too_spel 13y ago
Indeed, this is just another example of the hazy thinking that left us with falsy values.