3 ms·
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 noth
by 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 agoIt 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 agoit'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?