16 ms·

OkCupid urges users to abandon Firefox

205 points by thu 13y ago

Fakeyfakerson 13y ago
To those of you that support this, did any of you boycott Obama pre-2012 because he was against gay marriage?
thu 13y ago
Edit: this link works for everyone (it is provided in another submission): http://www.okcupid.com/home?mozilla_message=1 http://www.okcupid.com/home?mozilla_message=1 Edit 2: the Internet Exploder typo is theirs. Here is the text (for those who don't use Firefox): Hello there, Mozilla Firefox user. Pardon this interruption of your OkCupid experience. Mozilla’s new CEO, Brendan Eich, is an opponent of equal rights for gay couples. We would therefore prefer that our users not use Mozilla software to access OkCupid. Politics is normally not the business of a website, and we all know there’s a lot more wrong with the world than misguided CEOs. So you might wonder why we’re asserting ourselves today. This is why: we’ve devoted the last ten years to bringing people—all people—together. If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly 8% of the relationships we’ve worked so hard to bring about would be illegal. Equality for gay relationships is personally important to many of us here at OkCupid. But it’s professionally important to the entire company. OkCupid is for creating love. Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure. If you want to keep using Firefox, the link at the bottom will take you through to the site. However, we urge you to consider different software for accessing OkCupid: [3 buttons:] Google Chrome Internet Exploder Opera Thank you, OkCupid
- steve19 13y ago
  "Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly 8% of the relationships we’ve worked so hard to bring about would be illegal" I don't know much about Eich, but I don't think he was working to make same-sex relationships illegal (like Uganda or nigeria). it does okcupid no credit to infer that he does (using weasel words like "people like Mr eich".) saying "eich wanted to prevent 8% of our customers from enjoying the fulfillment that marriage can bring to a relationship" would be much more honest.
  - mkr-hn 13y ago
    Marriage is a possibility for a relationship if you're straight. To deny that for gay people is to deny them the full legal potential of their relationship. edit: added legal before potential
    - oneeyedpigeon 13y ago
      Please rephrase that. Whilst I entirely agree with your sentiment about equality, your implication that those of us in a loving relationship who choose not to marry aren't realising the 'full potential of our relationship' is pretty hurtful. It's precisely this kind of attitude that makes me so reluctant to get married myself.
      - oneeyedpigeon 13y ago
        edit: thanks for your edit. And I'm still bitter about that, but that's a whole other argument ;)
    - fennecfoxen 13y ago
      What you get down is really a question about what marriage is about. Is marriage about giving government benefits (property transfer benefits, tax treatment changes, certain treatment under health insurance regulations, adoption miscellaneous other things) to two people who like each other a lot? Or is it about giving government benefits to people who might found a family with children and things (notwithstanding the fact that not every heterosexual couple actually does or plans to do this?) That's the real question here. This issue isn't about hate and dehumanization -- I mean, there's way too much hate and dehumanization, certainly, but not enough to drive electoral victories we've seen. The question is just an extension of the social upheaval of the sexual revolution of the 1960s. The real remarkable thing is that it's been simmering for so long without coming to the forefront yet. Probably many people thought that it was substantially settled, on account of this quiet, but it looks more like the two camps just quietly went their separate ways. This is also why religious groups outside of Westboro mostly talk about focusing on the family and the social problems associated with single-parent households and divorce. (If you are not a member of these groups or do not have friends and family who are members of these groups, you are probably unaware of what this advocacy looks like. See also: the entire public policy of the Catholic church on this matter.) FYI: This is how you can have an eminently nice person with nothing but respect for the intrinsic human rights and dignity of homosexuals, but who still votes for Prop 8 or Amendment 1 or a similar measure. And you know what? What goes on between two people in private of their bedroom is nobody's business. What benefits the government makes available to people, through spending the public purse or giving people tax breaks or mandating certain sorts of treatment... that kind of is peoples' business. It's a public-policy question, and structuring public policy one way or another impacts society in several ways - including, in some jurisdictions, making your ability to operate as a business contingent on you performing some services that you might not want to perform (cf. New Mexico photography etc etc). (Postscript. No particular stance for or against Proposition 8, or for or against Amendment 1, or any other public policy recommendation, is hereby endorsed. The following ideas are hereby endorsed: Gay people are human beings and deserve a substantially identical set of human rights and dignity as any other human being is entitled to receive. People who treat them otherwise may be some sort or another of monster. The extent to which these rights overlap with public policy in the matter of issuing marriages is controversial. Voters who support Amendment 1 or Prop 8, electorally or fiscally, are not monsters for doing so. Pluralism is good and it would be great if we all had some way to get along. Maybe we can start with more understanding.) (Post-postscript. Added adoption to the list of misc. benefits as it is of special relevance as a way for a married gay couple to raise children.)
- MichaelDickens 13y ago
  > Edit: this link works for everyone (it is provided in another submission): http://www.okcupid.com/home?mozilla_message=1 http://www.okcupid.com/home?mozilla_message=1 That message doesn't work for me. I think you have to be logged in.
  - Omni5cience 13y ago
    Try http://www.okcupid.com/?mozilla_message=1 http://www.okcupid.com/?mozilla_message=1
    - MichaelDickens 13y ago
      This link works for me. Thanks!
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- waterlesscloud 13y ago
  "Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure." Well that kind of bellicose chest-thumping should certainly win people over to the cause.
- vacri 13y ago
  OkCupid is for creating love. Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure. There is an irony that an entity that declares it is for creating love is going around declaring enemies, and wishing them failure. This clearly undermines their own message, and shows them to be of a similar us vs them hateship. There are Sides to be taken, and you don't want to be on the wrong one. What they should have said is "we are disappointed, and would like to see Eich publicly change his opinion and make some form of recompense; we would like Eich to join us in our view"... instead of "FUCK THAT GUY". Remember the people that picketed Fred Phelps' funeral with the sign "Sorry for your loss"? That is how you fight hate, not with more hate.
  - tunesmith 13y ago
    That's not really irony. It's generally okay to have a self-referential asterisk in rules like; Tolerance, except for intolerance. Free will, except where it impedes that of another. Peace & good will, except where you're about to punch me in the face. Etc. When people argue inconsistency in those cases, it's usually sophistry. That's not to defend okcupid's tactics in this case. I'm just saying that it's not really an example of hypocrisy.
    - vacri 13y ago
      It's definitely an example of hypocrisy. To put it in prison terms, OKC is pursuing punishment rather than rehabilitation. If you're really about bringing people together and love, then you should be promoting trying to change peoples' minds to make them more inclusive, not blocking them altogether. Being hateful back at them simply reinforces their beliefs, and gives them a martyrdom story to pass on to like-minded people: "they say they're for love, but declared me an enemy and wished me failure". Making enemies of demographic groups divides people, pretty much by definition.
      - Borogove 13y ago
        Our most brilliant scientists have recently discovered that the word "love" has multiple overlapping definitions. Strange but true.
mankyd 13y ago
Provided link doesn't work for me. Use just https://www.okcupid.com/ https://www.okcupid.com/, and it must be visited in Firefox.
Omni5cience 13y ago
The home one only works if you're signed in. This works for everyone http://www.okcupid.com/?mozilla_message=1 http://www.okcupid.com/?mozilla_message=1
- general_failure 13y ago
  Not anymore
  - davidgerard 13y ago
    Worked for me on Chromium just now.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
honksillet 13y ago
This is petulant and abrasive. Eich's personal politic's is only tangentially related to OkCupid business and not at all related to Mozilla's business. Also it should be obvious that Eich != Mozilla. It is very off-putting to have a company bludgeon it's user with the personal politics of it's runners.
- fingerprinter 13y ago
  Politics aside, this is brilliant from OKC's perspective. No effort, they show their users, many of whom are gay, they care. And, here we are talking about OKC on HN. Going to be the same in many other sites, social portals.
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  The takeaway is that businesses and non-profits don't operate in a vacuum, and there are real consequences for having a bigot as the head of your operation. I find it highly disingenuous to call supporting equal rights "petulant and abrasive".
  - mkr-hn 13y ago
    I don't think honksillet said supporting equal rights is petulant and abrasive.
    - toomuchtodo 13y ago
      My interpretation of what honksillet said was that OKCupid asking users not to use Firefox is petulant and abrasive. If I am incorrect, I'll retract my statement [honksillet: reply to me if this is the case]. OKCupid's business revolves around personal relationships. Some of those relationships are same sex relationships. To OKC, this issue is important to them. Let's not confuse meaningful concern with rhetoric. How is this any different then when same sex couples boycotted businesses in California where the owner donated to Prop 8 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)]?
mkr-hn 13y ago
Each of the non-Firefox browsers falls short of my needs in its own way. Firefox is more than one bigot at the top. And people will be watching him like a hawk for bad behavior, so I doubt it'll be an issue.
- davidgerard 13y ago
  The point is it's people outside Mozilla, not just the techie insiders. See also, from the other side of the world: http://gaynewsnetwork.com.au/news/victoria/vac-gmhc-to-boycott-mozilla-13422.html http://gaynewsnetwork.com.au/news/victoria/vac-gmhc-to-boyco... That's a significant gay charity issuing a press release to say they're boycotting.
ancarda 13y ago
I really think Eich is going to have to step down at some point. The backlash hasn't calmed down and Mozilla is going to risk losing more users over this. At some point you have to ask if it's really worth it. Does Eich bring more value to Mozilla that countless developers and users that are boycotting the software?
- zobzu 13y ago
  actually stepping down might be worse than not, at this point. besides, people complaining about it are quite dumb: eich has been a major player in firefox since the birth of firefox. so basically, nothing has changed - him being ceo or not. If anything, this is triggered by people who want to hurt firefox, in any possible way. This includes but isn't limited to, competitors (Google Chrome, IE, etc.), disgruntled volunteers (refused checkings, you didn't fix my bug, etc), disgruntled employees (you don't work well you're fired, etc), people gaining from any advertising (okcupid, news, etc)
  - davidgerard 13y ago
    Yes, it must be astroturf, not anyone sincerely pissed off on principle. Well done.
  - omni 13y ago
    "besides, people complaining about it are quite dumb: eich has been a major player in firefox since the birth of firefox. so basically, nothing has changed - him being ceo or not." Except he's CEO now. The leader of the company. The public face that the company puts forward. The person that all the other employees are supposed to look up to. Other than that, nothing's changed.
    - vacri 13y ago
      Previously he was CTO of the same tech company - not exactly a minor CxO position with few people looking to him.
    - agapos 13y ago
namuol 13y ago
They might as well disable Javascript for all their users, while they're at it.
- jrs99 13y ago
  I would not doubt for a second that new browsers without javascript, but using other languages, will start popping up in the future simply because of this.
  - justinreeves 13y ago
    If something is to replace Javascript, it's going to be because of the language, not Brendan Eich.
    - jrs99 13y ago
      I disagree. I think people can replace JavaScript simply because of Brendan Eich. I can see it happening easily.
      - smokinjoe 13y ago
        How? I'm actually really curious how it could be done easily.
        jrs99 13y ago
        i didn't mean it would be done easily. I meant that I could easily see it happening. It would definitely be hard. I actually love JavaScript. But I could easily imagine someone who has something against Brendan Eich start their own browser without javascript. And I can imagine it becoming viral, too.
        MichaelGG 13y ago
        The JVM, the CLR, Flash, NaCL -- all of these already exist with browser implementations yet are having traction issues. On top of that, it is unlikely Eich controls JS to the same level as FF, so it'd be a mostly pointless gesture. It'd be like finding out John McCarthy was a vile person, and abandoning all LISP-like languages.
sssbc 13y ago
Hmm, maybe Firefox should blacklist OKcupid. Turnabout is fair...
- arjie 13y ago
  In the browser? It'll be suicide. It doesn't matter what else a browser does. If it blacklists sites for political reasons, users will flee.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
diydsp 13y ago
OK, so are they going to make a shitstorm out of this single issue, or apply principles equally? IOW: Are we (they) going to dig up ALL of the CEOs of all the products they use and find out who else donated money to anti-gay-marriage organizations and boycott all of them? Here's a partial list: http://www.phillymag.com/news/2012/08/01/boycott-chick-fil-a-more-companies/ http://www.phillymag.com/news/2012/08/01/boycott-chick-fil-a...
- davidgerard 13y ago
  It's a dot-org, so people expect them to have principles. No-one would expect Larry Ellison to be other than a shitweasel, but they expect Mozilla to have actual principles. If you sincerely don't understand this, it is possible that you do not understand the Internet customer base sufficiently.
- stormbrew 13y ago
  No one should ever do anything for social justice reasons unless they solve every problem in the history of mankind as well!
  - davidgerard 13y ago
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as remains a perennial bad argument.
- MrZongle2 13y ago
  Well, if you're going to do it right, there should be Congressional hearings on the matter, where private citizens are asked if they are or ever have been a member or supporter of an organization that is against same-sex marriage. After all, isn't that where all this is heading?
itg 13y ago
Will OKCupid also stop using javascript?
- davidgerard 13y ago
  There is no easy swap-in replacement.
  - Zikes 13y ago
    It's good to know we can set aside our moral values when convenience is at stake.
    - whyenot 13y ago
      The point is to make a statement and educate users. Not cut off your nose to spite your face.
      - Zikes 13y ago
        Yes! Let's destroy a man in the name of equality and social justice! Let's educate everyone about our high and mighty (selectively applied) morals at any cost! It'll be totally worth it for that sweet, sweet sense of smugness we'll feel when we look in the mirror.
        whyenot 13y ago
        I donated both money and time to Mozilla in the pre-Google days when they were really struggling. I'm also gay and a resident of California. When proposition 8 passed it really hurt. Finding out that an organization I've supported now has chosen a leader who explicitly acted to take away my rights, that really hurts too. It's a betrayal. I would hope that you can understand why or at least have the empathy not to belittle those who do feel strongly about it.
      - notdonspaulding 13y ago
        Or in this case, to have your users cut of their collective noses to spite their collective faces.
Todd 13y ago
Why doesn't OkCupid take a bolder stance and remove all JavaScript from their site? Brendan invented it. I guess that wouldn't be convenient. Better to ask users to inconvenience themselves. This really isn't fair to all of the people who have worked so hard to make Firefox what it is today.
- MichaelDickens 13y ago
  > This really isn't fair to all of the people who have worked so hard to make Firefox what it is today. Do you mean it's not fair because it hurts these people, even though they haven't done anything objectionable?
- vinceguidry 13y ago
  > Brendan invented it. You're just giving people more of a reason to hate him.
- badman_ting 13y ago
  I agree with the last sentence, but the first is a bit silly.
  - lawl 13y ago
    So boycotting something thousands of developers have worked on (including add-ons) because you don't like something the new CEO of a company did once that has nothing to do with the product you're boycotting is not silly. But boycotting something that same person invented is. I don't see the logic here. Really.
- davidgerard 13y ago
  Because there is no trivially replaceable substitute for JavaScript in the site construction, as there is for the browser.
  - Zikes 13y ago
    So you're saying that even someone who once made a morally wrong decision can still be competent enough to produce a technology that could serve to become a foundational component to the web as we know it?
dangayle 13y ago
This is ridiculous. If we started boycotting every company based on our disagreements with their CEOs beliefs, we'd have to eventually boycott everyone.
randywaterhouse 13y ago
Without stated context I of course jumped on this link like "oh jeez what's Mozilla done, broken some click-to-flirt functionality on OkCupid"!? But alas, it is not a technical reason. Nor even a product oriented one. It is a political statement regarding the head of the nonprofit Mozilla Foundation. So he made a mistake. Once. Maybe many times. That's his personal dealings, and while one may dislike Eich personally for this, and one may be inclined to not vote for Eich in, say, a public election, I find it absurd to protest a product that has but a tenuous connection to the man. Firefox is, has been, and probably will be for a long time into the future (we hope) a product of many hardworking people, perhaps the least of which is the CEO, so far removed from the product we all know and (some) love. The speed, the engineering... Has nothing to do with Eich. He drives the overall vision of the foundation, naturally, as CEOs do. Does his personal preference/mistake mean he's going to destroy Firefox? No. Does it even mean he will destroy Mozilla with his personal viewpoint on social issues? Probably not. Does it mean he a "bad" guy? Well, on the whole one is inclined to say no, although it will and is argued he has a character flaw, this may be true. The philosophy of dropping one of the most widely use browsers (outside of corporate environments) simply due to one man's one-time view... Seem absurd. (I've tried my best to avoid putting my own opinion on his viewpoint in here, but perhaps he's made a mistake or two in the past. Given the amount of criticism recently, this much is clear, now.)
spicyj 13y ago
Mozilla released a blog post on Saturday clearly stating: > Mozilla supports equality for all, including marriage equality for LGBT couples. https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/03/29/mozilla-supports-lgbt-equality/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/03/29/mozilla-supports-lg... There's no evidence that Brendan Eich will bring any of his political views to the workplace; this continued backlash feels unwarranted.
- davidgerard 13y ago
  They released it too late. If they had ANY clue, they'd have thought of this ahead of time. e.g. Brendan donates $2k or $5k to a gay charity requiring a public record (as the Prop 8 donation did) three months ago, someone notices two months ago, he can then stay as gnomic as he likes. Something like that. But, y’know, literally nobody in the upper echelons of Mozilla thought of this. That neither Eich or the board thought of this ahead of the time does, actually, suggest they're not up to the job. This is SIMPLE STUFF.
  - intslack 13y ago
    >That neither Eich or the board thought of this ahead of the time does, actually, suggest they're not up to the job. This is SIMPLE STUFF. Evidence suggests that they've been spending months fighting a battle pertaining to picking an insider as CEO, which ultimately caused three members to resign from the Moz Co. board. Which explains why they were so unprepared for anything else. e: Bogus theory by Ars and WSJ, Mozilla issued a statement that the shake-up of board members was planned well in advance amongst themselves for various reasons.
    - Osmose 13y ago
      Two of the three resignations were planned beforehand and were not related to the CEO choice (see the update at the bottom of http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/03/three-mozilla-board-members-including-two-former-ceos-step-down/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/03/three-mozilla-board-...).
Zikes 13y ago
We'll forgive Fred Phelps, but apparently the hate for Javascript just runs too deep.
- davidgerard 13y ago
  Fortunately, we have an answer for that: http://newstechnica.com/2014/03/27/mozilla-announces-javascript-for-heterosexuals/ http://newstechnica.com/2014/03/27/mozilla-announces-javascr... It solves the equality operator problem by not having any.
kephra 13y ago
Dear Gays, we hate Mozilla, so please use a browser that spies on you like Google Chrome, or deinstall your Linux and switch to Windows Explorer, or install a browser that has problems with 80% of the other webpages.
- slurry 13y ago
  I think it's a shame that this comment has been downvoted to hell, because it's actually quite illuminating: the satire in it, such as it is, revolves around the assumption that FOSS politics is equal to or greater in urgency than any other kind of politics. Human rights violation? GPL violation! Same category. The reason I think it's so valuable is that a version of it probably informed the board's decision to appoint Eich despite the already controversial Prop 8 donation. "Sure, there's this $1000 he gave and that's terrible, but look at all the great FOSS code he's contributed! The controversy can't last long, we're Mozilla, we're the good guys. Everybody knows that." Lots of people out there do not think like this. Lots of people care about social justice and see no problem using IE.
  - anonbanker 13y ago
    Apparently, the people that care about social justice give zero care toward security or the four essential freedoms of software.
zobzu 13y ago
oh look , at okcupid we just found out a way to use the current news as advertising! i think such stuff despises more than eich's support for prop 8.
- eropple 13y ago
  You have a history of general reprehensibility on this site, so I probably shouldn't bother to give you the attention you crave. Because we all know that your beef isn't with them doing this, but with people not tolerating hatred of gays. And women, but, you know, one at a time. That said, I want to stand up for a couple of my friends who work at OKCupid. They're excellent people and I don't believe the culture at OKC would be okay with using this as a vector for advertising. I'm confident they believe what they're saying and I wish more companies would take a stand against the bigots you like.
  - zobzu 13y ago
    history wah? half my friends are gay. Many are women. One is my best friend. I think that using the excuse of being a minority to enforce ridicule arguments is stupid - that's different. Accusing people at random seems just as wrong. -- In fact, this is an interesting point. I noticed that any "negative" comment towards reactions to this story generates very strong reactions from some people (including death messages). This doesn't happen with other topics. What makes you entitled to think this is ok? (this is an honest question)
stephanerangaya 13y ago
Here's the full text: Hello there, Mozilla Firefox user. Pardon this interruption of your OkCupid experience. Mozilla’s new CEO, Brendan Eich, is an opponent of equal rights for gay couples. We would therefore prefer that our users not use Mozilla software to access OkCupid. Politics is normally not the business of a website, and we all know there’s a lot more wrong with the world than misguided CEOs. So you might wonder why we’re asserting ourselves today. This is why: we’ve devoted the last ten years to bringing people—all people—together. If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly 8% of the relationships we’ve worked so hard to bring about would be illegal. Equality for gay relationships is personally important to many of us here at OkCupid. But it’s professionally important to the entire company. OkCupid is for creating love. Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure. If you want to keep using Firefox, the link at the bottom will take you through to the site. However, we urge you to consider different software for accessing OkCupid: Google Chrome / Internet Exploder / Opera / Safari Thank you, OkCupid Background on Mr. Eich and Mozilla In 2008, Mr. Eich supported the passage of California’s Prop 8, a statewide initiative to ban gay marriage, with a $1000 donation. Granted, his contribution is now six years in the past, and people can change. But Mr. Eich’s boilerplate statements in the time since make it seem like he has the same views now as he did then. Mozilla recently promoted him to CEO, hence the issue only now coming to our attention. His donation was known to Mozilla at the time of his promotion, and, furthermore, CEOs are rewarded based on their company’s performance. The CEO is the visionary for a company and its products. We are sad to think that any OkCupid page loads would even indirectly contribute towards the success of an individual who supported Prop 8—and who for all we know would support it again. We wish Mozilla’s institutional commitment to freedom and openness were better reflected by their choice of leadership. Continue to OkCupid
trhway 13y ago
>Google Chrome Internet Exploder Opera yep, there is no good working browser around that i can trust. Chrome is just like the "Exploder" only from another, new generation, MS. edit: i fully support the equal rights (among others the right to file joint return with object of your sexual desire) and kind of surprised to learn that a supposedly smart techie would actively support the opposite. I'm surprised at Mozilla too - would they hire an open segregationist or a anti-women-election-right proponent?
- soperj 13y ago
  Chromium then?
  - aye 13y ago
    Also, surf (http://surf.suckless.org http://surf.suckless.org), or Midori, or Iceweasel, or Uzbl, or Jumanji... :)
    - Havvy 13y ago
      Iceweasel is Firefox with the branding changed. It's otherwise identical.
cpeterso 13y ago
This article's assertion that "half of Mozilla's six-person board resigned over the Proposition 8 donation" is incorrect. If you follow the link to The Verge's own article about the Mozilla board, that article has been amended with Mozilla's response: http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/28/5559284/half-of-mozillas-board-reportedly-resign-over-new-ceo-choice http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/28/5559284/half-of-mozillas-b...
dang 13y ago
We don't need more than one story about this on the front page, so I'm killing the others. Commenters: To state the obvious, this is an inflammatory topic. If you post a comment, make sure that it is a thoughtful one. Readers: If you see a comment that is not thoughtful, please downvote it. Most comments in this thread so far have not been, so you have your work cut out for you. In extreme cases, flag the comment. To flag a comment, click on "link" to go to the item page, then look for the "flag" link at the top. As a calibration hint, I haven't seen any comments in this thread that deserve flagging. But I can't read them all. As I hope everyone knows by now, we're experimenting with ways to solve the problem of toxic comments on Hacker News. I believe that the community has to solve this problem, rather than us imposing a solution. Consider this our appeal to all fair-minded readers to pitch in.
- lawl 13y ago
  I think submitting a separate story would be better so it gets proper attention and can be discussed without derailing this submission. Hmm, yeah I guess I just accused the mods of derailing.
  - dang 13y ago
    I'm afraid you may have missed my point. I was deliberately intervening in this submission, because the thread sucked. Edit: it might be a bit better now. All: Unthoughtful comments should be downvoted. Have at it. Edit: I've mollified my wording slightly. Please downvote judiciously.
    - lawl 13y ago
      Sorry. I wasn't talking about this. I was talking about the invitation to pitch in how to solve the general problem of hateful comments. Which I think shouldn't be discussed here, because it's not only a problem of this specific submission. Sorry if I misunderstood this invitation.
      - dang 13y ago
        We're entering a period of experimentation where things will be in flux for a while. For now, as one experiment, I'm adding moderation comments to specific posts. I won't keep doing it, because it's tiring and tedious to write (and no doubt to read). But I want to send a clear signal to the community that we're engaged, and also address the low-handing fruit of transparency concerns, if that makes sense.
mavdi 13y ago
This has just reached a new level of silliness.
wtbob 13y ago
Utterly stupid. Gives me an excuse to close my OkCupid account though.
- ossreality 13y ago
  OOOOOH YOU SHOWED THEM1
lexcorvus 13y ago
This from a company that lists only "female" and "male" as gender options—fifty-four fewer than Facebook. Who's insufficiently inclusive now?
- ancarda 13y ago
  Facebook only has male or female on the signup page and you also can only change gender to male or female in the settings: http://imgur.com/OcnmwkB http://imgur.com/OcnmwkB
  - ossreality 13y ago
    That hasn't been true for ages. It's an auto-fill/auto-complete combo box now. I can literally put whatever I want in there like "Cis Male". I don't have strong opinions about what OkCupid is doing here, but it's a bit absurd that they aren't more progressive on the gender frotn.
- aray 13y ago
  NB: this only happens in english. In any other localization there aren't these options. I <3 that facebook has done this, but realize that it's only for a fraction of its user base, not the entire site.
gojomo 13y ago
And if this doesn't work, eventually when you try to message a Catholic, Mormon, Muslim, or other religiously-observant person from a denomination whose leaders publicly disapprove of homosexuality, you'll see a message from OKCupid like: Religion isn't normally the business of a website. But you've expressed an interest in dating someone whose religion denies equal rights to gay people. Sure, this person may seem OK, and may even have their own opinions, but the leaders of their religion spread hatred, and it pains us to send even a single quantum of relationship happiness towards people who still affiliate with that religion. If you still want to date them, you can click the link below, but wouldn't you really rather date the following matches, who we've determined from their public and private questionnaire answers better reflect OKCupid's approved religious and political values? Seriously, I would have expected a dating website to have a deeper respect for the often-arbitrary reasons individual beliefs deviate from the norms of their family, employer, or community.
- pvnick 13y ago
  This is not about what's right. It's about attention, meaning user growth and ad revenue. OkCupid's leadership does not actually care about Eich's appointment.
  - munificent 13y ago
    Like most dichotomies, this one is false. It is more probably true that OkCupid cares about both attention and the underlying social issue.
- dmazin 13y ago
  The problem is not that Eich's beliefs are a deviation from a norm (whether they are or not is irrelevant). His beliefs are hateful. The reason for this particular message is because it is part of a greater campaign to show Mozilla that users and producers on the internet are not in support of Eich's appointment.
  - Diamons 13y ago
    America - everyone can have their own opinion unless it disagrees with the majority.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
waterlesscloud 13y ago
I look forward to a full public review of the politics of OkCupid executives and investors. Actually, I'm sure someone is going to do exactly this now. Now that Pandora's Box has been opened, it's not going to shut very easily. It's going to get bloody.
ignostic 13y ago
I disagree with the comments saying the CEO's personal beliefs are irrelevant. I believe OKC's message is both relevant and appropriate. I'll grant that the "8% of relationships... would be illegal" argument is a little weak, but the CEO IS paid by Mozilla. In the past he has donated to anti-gay-marriage causes, and may continue to do so in the future enabled by Mozilla's money. Firefox users help Mozilla make money. The browser is the medium for the site and the user. The user, in accessing sites like OKC, allows Mozilla to give some money to the CEO who in turn could give it to a cause many see as encouraging bigotry. Websites like OKC are an essential (even if indirect) part of Mozilla's revenue model. Brendan Eich has a right to free speech, and so does OKCupid. We also have a right to responsible consumerism. In a true free market, responsible consumption helps us ensure companies are using their profits in a way we believe is ethical. Personally I'm glad OKC is helping to send the message that supporting discrimination based on sexual orientation isn't acceptable to many of us in today's society.
- adamors 13y ago
  > but the CEO IS paid by Mozilla. In the past he has donated to anti-gay-marriage causes, and may continue to do so in the future enabled by Mozilla's money. Going by this logic, we should be vetting every person who works at a company whose product we use, because they may have contributed to some cause we don't agree with.
  - ignostic 13y ago
    Yes, and I wish we could. But given the size of companies and products available, we obviously have to do the best we can. It makes sense to start with the company itself and its top leader.
    - adamors 13y ago
      But it's not possible. Every company is lead by scumbags, your only choice is which scumbag's product you buy. This entire situation reminds me of this scene from 30 Rock: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zm3TepXcD8A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zm3TepXcD8A
pubman 13y ago
I find it interesting that match.com which owns okcupid works fine in firefox. So it seems they are making a statement with the smaller site that wont cost them nearly as much in traffic. I could be wrong but that is my 5sec observation.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
pvnick 13y ago
Eich has made it clear, both through promises as well as actions, that he is not going to force his beliefs on Mozilla. Does OkCupid seriously wish harm upon an organization that employs hundreds of innocent individuals, most of whom likely hold different beliefs than Eich? An organization that works for the open web everyday and defends our privacy against actual harmful actions by criminal organizations? Intentionally trying to bring down Mozilla's browser market share means they have less negotiating power with the search engine providers that make up the majority of their revenue. Talk about forcing your beliefs on others. OkCupid is shamelessly exploiting this situation for attention.
- ignostic 13y ago
  > "Talk about forcing your beliefs on others." What? How does OKC's use of free speech amount to "forcing" their beliefs on others? > "OkCupid is shamelessly exploiting this situation for attention." Care to back that up? Do you have the information necessary to say OKC is exploiting the situation for attention? Do you know their beliefs? Their intentions? Do you know their motivations and what they hope to accomplish? Do you actually know anything about anyone involved in what OKC did? If not, I suggest you stop making claims of fact where you are wholly ignorant of the truth.
  - agapos 13y ago
    This is my first time hearing about OKC, and I already saw at least six references to this act of theirs on HNews alone, until one of the mods (or their local counterparts) deleted those. What you make out of this information is up to you.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Glyptodon 13y ago
I wonder if Firefox users are more likely to use adblock.
sveme 13y ago
This actually made me remove my (dormant, but still) account on okcupid. I am absolutely a proponent of equal rights and I absolutely disagree with Brendan Eich's actions. Still I continue using Firefox and Thunderbird (and Javascript) as Mozilla remains the last really influential supporter of an open web. The efforts of the many Mozilla developers outweigh the hateful beliefs of one Eich. Why then remove my okcupid account? I feel pushed, I feel that they tried to create a bad conscience, I feel emotionally manipulated. That's not how a business should treat me.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
kfcm 13y ago
Clicked on link and got this: OkCupid needs JavaScript to function, but you have it disabled. Check your browser settings.
septerr 13y ago
When I read the title of this post, I first thought 'Oh okCupid's website breaks in FF and instead of fixing the site, they are asking their users to switch to another browser'. Then the comments here completely threw me off. Took some digging to figure out what the real issue was. The okcupid link in the title (at least on mobile) just goes to their login page, no message about ditching FF there.
- tempestn 13y ago
  Can you save others that digging by saying what the real issue was? Edit: Here, this explains it: http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/31/okcupid-offers-firefox-visitors-links-to-alternate-browsers-to-protest-new-mozilla-ceo/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/31/okcupid-offers-firefox-visi...
tasty_freeze 13y ago
Let's pick a different hot button issue. Say Eich contributed to a pro or anti gun control measure. Hell, as far as I know, he has. How many of you, who are as intensely interested in gun control/rights as people are over gay/anti-gay marriage rights, would be demanding that he step down? And if you say you would, there are hundreds of corporations actually in that position (either for or against) with whom you are probably doing business.
- MichaelGG 13y ago
  Reducing it to a "hot button issue" is invalid. As far as human rights goes, there's no rational way to arrive at same-sex marriages not being allowed, if heterosex marriages are. Whereas in the US, gun ownership is enshrined in the constitution, so even if gun ownership was a major net negative, it'd still be an issue. Just like in some countries, complete bank secrecy is a constitutional issue, so even giving the local IRS-equivalent, while demonstrably a net positive for society, becomes a "hot button" issue. Probably the closest modern issue is being against euthanasia/suicide. It's obviously cruel to force people to suffer, and safety issues aside, it's obvious someone should be able to terminate their life in face of insurmountable suffering. Yet people will object to that on all sorts of grounds.
  - pbhjpbhj 13y ago
    >there's no rational way to arrive at same-sex marriages not being allowed, if heterosex marriages are // There are plenty of rational ways to do that. I'm guessing you'd primarily disagree with the axioms on which they're founded. How about "state recognition of marriage is primarily about supporting the family unit as the nucleus of society - as same-sex union can't create children, long-term partnerships engendering opposite-sex union are to be promoted in order create a general impetus towards stable home environments for child rearing and raising". That seems rational; disregarding verity do you disagree it's rational? If you argue against this definition then to my mind you come to define a new relationship, let's call it civil-union. In civil-union there seems no logical reason to exclude same-family, or multiple-person unions. I can't see how you can say "the definition of marriage as the union of a man and woman [who're not closely related]" is wrong because it limits marriage to a particular historical/tradition form and then come up with a new definition to foist on people that excludes groups (families, polyamorous, etc.) for arbitrary reasons that don't even have the support of history or tradition [or theology]. >Probably the closest modern issue is [...] // So are you saying if a CEO of a company believed euthanasia to be wrong you'd stop using that companies products?
Justsignedup 13y ago
Isn't the whole point of america that PEOPLE DISAGREE? If you have an opinion, you are entitled to it. Your personal feelings on gay marriage should not mean that you are to be barred from getting a job where gay people also work. If, however, you go on record as the CEO of a company saying the company does not support gay marriage, then this is a different discussion. So basically he is being ostracized all over for having an opinion. This is mob rule. I like it not.
- albedoa 13y ago
  You are entitled to an opinion. You are not entitled to protection from the consequences of acting on that opinion. This is not an issue of "personal feelings".
stevekinney 13y ago
I would be more impressed if they boycotted JavaScript.
agapos 13y ago
Kinda adorable how people keep arguing back and forth, but fail to take notes on how the actual Moz employees act or think on it. And most of them think he is entitled to his beliefs and acts, and he should not be banished for it, even if they do not agree with him. Please, try to learn this approach, pro-gay activists. http://bholley.wordpress.com/2014/03/31/on-brendan-eich-and-the-thought-police/ http://bholley.wordpress.com/2014/03/31/on-brendan-eich-and-... https://staktrace.com/spout/entry.php?id=823 https://staktrace.com/spout/entry.php?id=823 http://christianheilmann.com/2014/03/31/on-hating/ http://christianheilmann.com/2014/03/31/on-hating/ http://www.twobraids.com/2014/03/the-mozilla-ceo.html http://www.twobraids.com/2014/03/the-mozilla-ceo.html http://patrickfinch.com/2014/03/31/the-most-important-decisions-we-make/ http://patrickfinch.com/2014/03/31/the-most-important-decisi... https://ozten.com/psto/2014/03/28/pick-your-battles/ https://ozten.com/psto/2014/03/28/pick-your-battles/
- nnethercote 13y ago
  Also: http://subfictional.com/2014/03/24/on-brendan-eich-as-ceo-of-mozilla/ http://subfictional.com/2014/03/24/on-brendan-eich-as-ceo-of...
azth 13y ago
Let's drag down the internet experience based on what a single person did. What retards.
igl 13y ago
Javascript and now this! Why shouldn't you say something? Religion enjoys way too much freedom. A lot of people here give these discriminators a free pass for no rational reason. Horrible.
vise890 13y ago
Am I the only one here who thinks that maybe a petition asking Mozilla to pressure Eich to step down may be a better solution to this? I seems that all the years of contributions and sacrifices by the community to build a great product, fight for a better internet and all that mozilla has stood for could be very rapidly undone if we continue portraying it as a homophobic institution. All of this good, from so many people, undone for the views of one man. Say we are successful with this, Firefox goes out of the picture. Mozilla is dead. Would that be something to aspire for? I'm creeped out by the state of the internet as it is already, mozilla seems like the last company that truly cares. Who would fight for keeping the internet open then? Google? Let's direct the criticism to the man for his beliefs, lets let know mozilla that their choice is not cool and we won't accept it. Let's not bring the whole thing down with it please.
- exodust 13y ago
  Even better, let's not criticise someone for their beliefs about marriage. "Marriage" is not a person, or natural thing. If people think it should be limited then so be it. Legal rights on the other hand, that's another matter. The problem is that people lump marriage and legal rights in the same boat, then don't hesitate to unleash hell on anyone who thinks marriage should remain traditional and.. "YOU"RE ANTI-GAY"... wait, what? I just think marriage is between a man and... "YOU'RE HOMOPHOBIC". I'm sick of it. A lot of people are sick of hearing about gay marriage. Sure, let's recognise civil unions and the rights there, but leave marriage out of it.
hetman 13y ago
Eich's reponse to the concerns: https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/
Osiris 13y ago
Are people suggesting that holding a personal opinion that is contrary to another person's opinion disqualifies that person from having a job? I haven't seen any suggestions that he has attempted to discriminate, or implement discriminatory policies, against any individuals at Mozilla or otherwise. I voted for Amendment 64 in Colorado to legalize canabis. Should that disqualify me from working because maybe means I get high too much (though I don't use)? The argument against him is that he's discriminating, but now we have a case where OkCupid is literally and actively discriminating against users based on their choice of browser. Other people have actively threatened him. Those actions are, from my perspective, completely hypocritical: "We don't like people that discriminate, so we're going to discriminate against people that we don't agree with."
- Borogove 13y ago
  For the record, you can still use OKC with Firefox; you just get a lecture when you do it. Is it okay to discriminate against Nazis, or is that hypocritical?
  - Osiris 13y ago
    That depends. Have they actually killed people or just talked about it?
    - Borogove 13y ago
      Seriously? That's your dividing line? Incidentally, you mentioned threats to Eich above; I haven't personally seen any but I don't support threats of violence to him. I don't even have particularly strong feelings one way or the other about boycotting Mozilla. Mostly we're having a conversation here. I do feel it's perfectly reasonable to point fingers of shame towards Eich for his donations and weaseling, and at Mozilla for elevating Eich.
jebblue 13y ago
Eric Schmidt is a progressive. I did not boycott Google's products, what he did or didn't believe personally did not and does not impact the decisions I make on what software I run. It should not impact yours.
jebblue 13y ago
Linus Torvalds describes himself as an atheist. I advocate as hard today for Linux as I did 20 years ago. I do not let Linus's personal beliefs impact the decision on what software I run. It should not impact yours.
- Borogove 13y ago
  What legal rights has Linus Torvalds tried to take away from minorities?
cjfont 13y ago
Is this not a slap in the face of everyone else who has contributed to the Mozilla Foundation that is not in any way associated with Eich or his views? Seems that for some, a response of some kind is needed regardless of how irrational it may be.
smithzvk 13y ago
I guess my question is, does using Firefox mean that you support Mozilla, much less the opinions of Mozilla's CEO? If I switch to IceWeasel, do I still support it? Is using Gecko the sin here? When did I sign on for supporting these beliefs. My wife and I don't eat at Chik-fil-a anymore due to their beliefs, but the financial support is clear there. Here I pick and chose from the things that Mozilla creates that I endorse and I never installed the bigot extension on Firefox. This person probably deserves the ridicule, maybe he needs to step down, maybe we should all switch to IceWeasel to really show them (by the way, that would be a much more positive route to take as opposed to putting all our eggs in the webkit basket), but one of the nice things about Free Software is that you can have a reprehensible person in charge of it and there is something that you can do about it besides simply not using it. I guess that is why this statement feels weird. It seems akin to finding out that the inventor of the hammer, all those millennia ago, had slaves, so you decide that from now on you are going to use screws and that you will try to get other people to turn their backs on hammers as well.
qq66 13y ago
Someone should inform OKCupid of William Shockley's views on eugenics.
s0me0ne 13y ago
How is Mozilla responsible for this? This guy wasn't even CEO when he made the donation in 2008 (as far as I know). So to abandon Firefox which is not his creation alone seems foolish. If anything abandoning JavaScript would make more sense since that is what he created, not Mozilla or Firefox.
exodust 13y ago
This is a major bullshit move by okcupid. I've cancelled my account with them and sent them feedback explaining why it's NOT ok to urge people not to use certain free, open source software. It's not the "web browser's" fault that somebody at Mozilla has a different opinion about gay marriage than somebody at okcupid. And on the subject of marriage, people need to remember that "marriage" is man-made, there is no absolute right to an artificial made-up tradition. The focus and fight should be about legal equality, and recognition of same-sex couples for things like superannuation, health, taxation, and other areas where married couples have benefits and laws based on their married status. You might argue that "marriage" is the sum of all those laws and rights, plus love, but it's not. Marriage is not the sum of anything, it's just marriage, and if people think it should remain a traditional man woman, bride groom thing, then that is a completely justified argument. Fight for equality, not for entry into the "marriage club". I'm not married and don't care either way, but those who do shouldn't be waging war against internet browsers.

205 points by thu 13y ago

To those of you that support this, did any of you boycott Obama pre-2012 because he was against gay marriage?

thu 13y ago

Edit: this link works for everyone (it is provided in another submission): http://www.okcupid.com/home?mozilla_message=1 http://www.okcupid.com/home?mozilla_message=1 Edit 2: the Internet Exploder typo is theirs. Here is the text (for those who don't use Firefox): Hello there, Mozilla Firefox user. Pardon this interruption of your OkCupid experience. Mozilla’s new CEO, Brendan Eich, is an opponent of equal rights for gay couples. We would therefore prefer that our users not use Mozilla software to access OkCupid. Politics is normally not the business of a website, and we all know there’s a lot more wrong with the world than misguided CEOs. So you might wonder why we’re asserting ourselves today. This is why: we’ve devoted the last ten years to bringing people—all people—together. If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly 8% of the relationships we’ve worked so hard to bring about would be illegal. Equality for gay relationships is personally important to many of us here at OkCupid. But it’s professionally important to the entire company. OkCupid is for creating love. Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure. If you want to keep using Firefox, the link at the bottom will take you through to the site. However, we urge you to consider different software for accessing OkCupid: [3 buttons:] Google Chrome Internet Exploder Opera Thank you, OkCupid

steve19 13y ago
"Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly 8% of the relationships we’ve worked so hard to bring about would be illegal" I don't know much about Eich, but I don't think he was working to make same-sex relationships illegal (like Uganda or nigeria). it does okcupid no credit to infer that he does (using weasel words like "people like Mr eich".) saying "eich wanted to prevent 8% of our customers from enjoying the fulfillment that marriage can bring to a relationship" would be much more honest.
- mkr-hn 13y ago
  Marriage is a possibility for a relationship if you're straight. To deny that for gay people is to deny them the full legal potential of their relationship. edit: added legal before potential
  - oneeyedpigeon 13y ago
    Please rephrase that. Whilst I entirely agree with your sentiment about equality, your implication that those of us in a loving relationship who choose not to marry aren't realising the 'full potential of our relationship' is pretty hurtful. It's precisely this kind of attitude that makes me so reluctant to get married myself.
    - oneeyedpigeon 13y ago
      edit: thanks for your edit. And I'm still bitter about that, but that's a whole other argument ;)
  - fennecfoxen 13y ago
    What you get down is really a question about what marriage is about. Is marriage about giving government benefits (property transfer benefits, tax treatment changes, certain treatment under health insurance regulations, adoption miscellaneous other things) to two people who like each other a lot? Or is it about giving government benefits to people who might found a family with children and things (notwithstanding the fact that not every heterosexual couple actually does or plans to do this?) That's the real question here. This issue isn't about hate and dehumanization -- I mean, there's way too much hate and dehumanization, certainly, but not enough to drive electoral victories we've seen. The question is just an extension of the social upheaval of the sexual revolution of the 1960s. The real remarkable thing is that it's been simmering for so long without coming to the forefront yet. Probably many people thought that it was substantially settled, on account of this quiet, but it looks more like the two camps just quietly went their separate ways. This is also why religious groups outside of Westboro mostly talk about focusing on the family and the social problems associated with single-parent households and divorce. (If you are not a member of these groups or do not have friends and family who are members of these groups, you are probably unaware of what this advocacy looks like. See also: the entire public policy of the Catholic church on this matter.) FYI: This is how you can have an eminently nice person with nothing but respect for the intrinsic human rights and dignity of homosexuals, but who still votes for Prop 8 or Amendment 1 or a similar measure. And you know what? What goes on between two people in private of their bedroom is nobody's business. What benefits the government makes available to people, through spending the public purse or giving people tax breaks or mandating certain sorts of treatment... that kind of is peoples' business. It's a public-policy question, and structuring public policy one way or another impacts society in several ways - including, in some jurisdictions, making your ability to operate as a business contingent on you performing some services that you might not want to perform (cf. New Mexico photography etc etc). (Postscript. No particular stance for or against Proposition 8, or for or against Amendment 1, or any other public policy recommendation, is hereby endorsed. The following ideas are hereby endorsed: Gay people are human beings and deserve a substantially identical set of human rights and dignity as any other human being is entitled to receive. People who treat them otherwise may be some sort or another of monster. The extent to which these rights overlap with public policy in the matter of issuing marriages is controversial. Voters who support Amendment 1 or Prop 8, electorally or fiscally, are not monsters for doing so. Pluralism is good and it would be great if we all had some way to get along. Maybe we can start with more understanding.) (Post-postscript. Added adoption to the list of misc. benefits as it is of special relevance as a way for a married gay couple to raise children.)
MichaelDickens 13y ago
> Edit: this link works for everyone (it is provided in another submission): http://www.okcupid.com/home?mozilla_message=1 http://www.okcupid.com/home?mozilla_message=1 That message doesn't work for me. I think you have to be logged in.
- Omni5cience 13y ago
  Try http://www.okcupid.com/?mozilla_message=1 http://www.okcupid.com/?mozilla_message=1
  - MichaelDickens 13y ago
    This link works for me. Thanks!
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
waterlesscloud 13y ago
"Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure." Well that kind of bellicose chest-thumping should certainly win people over to the cause.
vacri 13y ago
OkCupid is for creating love. Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure. There is an irony that an entity that declares it is for creating love is going around declaring enemies, and wishing them failure. This clearly undermines their own message, and shows them to be of a similar us vs them hateship. There are Sides to be taken, and you don't want to be on the wrong one. What they should have said is "we are disappointed, and would like to see Eich publicly change his opinion and make some form of recompense; we would like Eich to join us in our view"... instead of "FUCK THAT GUY". Remember the people that picketed Fred Phelps' funeral with the sign "Sorry for your loss"? That is how you fight hate, not with more hate.
- tunesmith 13y ago
  That's not really irony. It's generally okay to have a self-referential asterisk in rules like; Tolerance, except for intolerance. Free will, except where it impedes that of another. Peace & good will, except where you're about to punch me in the face. Etc. When people argue inconsistency in those cases, it's usually sophistry. That's not to defend okcupid's tactics in this case. I'm just saying that it's not really an example of hypocrisy.
  - vacri 13y ago
    It's definitely an example of hypocrisy. To put it in prison terms, OKC is pursuing punishment rather than rehabilitation. If you're really about bringing people together and love, then you should be promoting trying to change peoples' minds to make them more inclusive, not blocking them altogether. Being hateful back at them simply reinforces their beliefs, and gives them a martyrdom story to pass on to like-minded people: "they say they're for love, but declared me an enemy and wished me failure". Making enemies of demographic groups divides people, pretty much by definition.
    - Borogove 13y ago
      Our most brilliant scientists have recently discovered that the word "love" has multiple overlapping definitions. Strange but true.

mankyd 13y ago

Provided link doesn't work for me. Use just https://www.okcupid.com/ https://www.okcupid.com/, and it must be visited in Firefox.

Omni5cience 13y ago

The home one only works if you're signed in. This works for everyone http://www.okcupid.com/?mozilla_message=1 http://www.okcupid.com/?mozilla_message=1

general_failure 13y ago
Not anymore
- davidgerard 13y ago
  Worked for me on Chromium just now.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

honksillet 13y ago

This is petulant and abrasive. Eich's personal politic's is only tangentially related to OkCupid business and not at all related to Mozilla's business. Also it should be obvious that Eich != Mozilla. It is very off-putting to have a company bludgeon it's user with the personal politics of it's runners.

fingerprinter 13y ago
Politics aside, this is brilliant from OKC's perspective. No effort, they show their users, many of whom are gay, they care. And, here we are talking about OKC on HN. Going to be the same in many other sites, social portals.
toomuchtodo 13y ago
The takeaway is that businesses and non-profits don't operate in a vacuum, and there are real consequences for having a bigot as the head of your operation. I find it highly disingenuous to call supporting equal rights "petulant and abrasive".
- mkr-hn 13y ago
  I don't think honksillet said supporting equal rights is petulant and abrasive.
  - toomuchtodo 13y ago
    My interpretation of what honksillet said was that OKCupid asking users not to use Firefox is petulant and abrasive. If I am incorrect, I'll retract my statement [honksillet: reply to me if this is the case]. OKCupid's business revolves around personal relationships. Some of those relationships are same sex relationships. To OKC, this issue is important to them. Let's not confuse meaningful concern with rhetoric. How is this any different then when same sex couples boycotted businesses in California where the owner donated to Prop 8 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)]?

mkr-hn 13y ago

Each of the non-Firefox browsers falls short of my needs in its own way. Firefox is more than one bigot at the top. And people will be watching him like a hawk for bad behavior, so I doubt it'll be an issue.

davidgerard 13y ago
The point is it's people outside Mozilla, not just the techie insiders. See also, from the other side of the world: http://gaynewsnetwork.com.au/news/victoria/vac-gmhc-to-boycott-mozilla-13422.html http://gaynewsnetwork.com.au/news/victoria/vac-gmhc-to-boyco... That's a significant gay charity issuing a press release to say they're boycotting.

ancarda 13y ago

I really think Eich is going to have to step down at some point. The backlash hasn't calmed down and Mozilla is going to risk losing more users over this. At some point you have to ask if it's really worth it. Does Eich bring more value to Mozilla that countless developers and users that are boycotting the software?

zobzu 13y ago
actually stepping down might be worse than not, at this point. besides, people complaining about it are quite dumb: eich has been a major player in firefox since the birth of firefox. so basically, nothing has changed - him being ceo or not. If anything, this is triggered by people who want to hurt firefox, in any possible way. This includes but isn't limited to, competitors (Google Chrome, IE, etc.), disgruntled volunteers (refused checkings, you didn't fix my bug, etc), disgruntled employees (you don't work well you're fired, etc), people gaining from any advertising (okcupid, news, etc)
- davidgerard 13y ago
  Yes, it must be astroturf, not anyone sincerely pissed off on principle. Well done.
- omni 13y ago
  "besides, people complaining about it are quite dumb: eich has been a major player in firefox since the birth of firefox. so basically, nothing has changed - him being ceo or not." Except he's CEO now. The leader of the company. The public face that the company puts forward. The person that all the other employees are supposed to look up to. Other than that, nothing's changed.
  - vacri 13y ago
    Previously he was CTO of the same tech company - not exactly a minor CxO position with few people looking to him.
  - agapos 13y ago

namuol 13y ago

They might as well disable Javascript for all their users, while they're at it.

jrs99 13y ago
I would not doubt for a second that new browsers without javascript, but using other languages, will start popping up in the future simply because of this.
- justinreeves 13y ago
  If something is to replace Javascript, it's going to be because of the language, not Brendan Eich.
  - jrs99 13y ago
    I disagree. I think people can replace JavaScript simply because of Brendan Eich. I can see it happening easily.
    - smokinjoe 13y ago
      How? I'm actually really curious how it could be done easily.
      - jrs99 13y ago
        i didn't mean it would be done easily. I meant that I could easily see it happening. It would definitely be hard. I actually love JavaScript. But I could easily imagine someone who has something against Brendan Eich start their own browser without javascript. And I can imagine it becoming viral, too.
        MichaelGG 13y ago
        The JVM, the CLR, Flash, NaCL -- all of these already exist with browser implementations yet are having traction issues. On top of that, it is unlikely Eich controls JS to the same level as FF, so it'd be a mostly pointless gesture. It'd be like finding out John McCarthy was a vile person, and abandoning all LISP-like languages.

sssbc 13y ago

Hmm, maybe Firefox should blacklist OKcupid. Turnabout is fair...

arjie 13y ago
In the browser? It'll be suicide. It doesn't matter what else a browser does. If it blacklists sites for political reasons, users will flee.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

diydsp 13y ago

OK, so are they going to make a shitstorm out of this single issue, or apply principles equally? IOW: Are we (they) going to dig up ALL of the CEOs of all the products they use and find out who else donated money to anti-gay-marriage organizations and boycott all of them? Here's a partial list: http://www.phillymag.com/news/2012/08/01/boycott-chick-fil-a-more-companies/ http://www.phillymag.com/news/2012/08/01/boycott-chick-fil-a...

davidgerard 13y ago
It's a dot-org, so people expect them to have principles. No-one would expect Larry Ellison to be other than a shitweasel, but they expect Mozilla to have actual principles. If you sincerely don't understand this, it is possible that you do not understand the Internet customer base sufficiently.
stormbrew 13y ago
No one should ever do anything for social justice reasons unless they solve every problem in the history of mankind as well!
- davidgerard 13y ago
  http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as remains a perennial bad argument.
MrZongle2 13y ago
Well, if you're going to do it right, there should be Congressional hearings on the matter, where private citizens are asked if they are or ever have been a member or supporter of an organization that is against same-sex marriage. After all, isn't that where all this is heading?

itg 13y ago

Will OKCupid also stop using javascript?

davidgerard 13y ago
There is no easy swap-in replacement.
- Zikes 13y ago
  It's good to know we can set aside our moral values when convenience is at stake.
  - whyenot 13y ago
    The point is to make a statement and educate users. Not cut off your nose to spite your face.
    - Zikes 13y ago
      Yes! Let's destroy a man in the name of equality and social justice! Let's educate everyone about our high and mighty (selectively applied) morals at any cost! It'll be totally worth it for that sweet, sweet sense of smugness we'll feel when we look in the mirror.
      - whyenot 13y ago
        I donated both money and time to Mozilla in the pre-Google days when they were really struggling. I'm also gay and a resident of California. When proposition 8 passed it really hurt. Finding out that an organization I've supported now has chosen a leader who explicitly acted to take away my rights, that really hurts too. It's a betrayal. I would hope that you can understand why or at least have the empathy not to belittle those who do feel strongly about it.
    - notdonspaulding 13y ago
      Or in this case, to have your users cut of their collective noses to spite their collective faces.

Todd 13y ago

Why doesn't OkCupid take a bolder stance and remove all JavaScript from their site? Brendan invented it. I guess that wouldn't be convenient. Better to ask users to inconvenience themselves. This really isn't fair to all of the people who have worked so hard to make Firefox what it is today.

MichaelDickens 13y ago
> This really isn't fair to all of the people who have worked so hard to make Firefox what it is today. Do you mean it's not fair because it hurts these people, even though they haven't done anything objectionable?
vinceguidry 13y ago
> Brendan invented it. You're just giving people more of a reason to hate him.
badman_ting 13y ago
I agree with the last sentence, but the first is a bit silly.
- lawl 13y ago
  So boycotting something thousands of developers have worked on (including add-ons) because you don't like something the new CEO of a company did once that has nothing to do with the product you're boycotting is not silly. But boycotting something that same person invented is. I don't see the logic here. Really.
davidgerard 13y ago
Because there is no trivially replaceable substitute for JavaScript in the site construction, as there is for the browser.
- Zikes 13y ago
  So you're saying that even someone who once made a morally wrong decision can still be competent enough to produce a technology that could serve to become a foundational component to the web as we know it?

dangayle 13y ago

This is ridiculous. If we started boycotting every company based on our disagreements with their CEOs beliefs, we'd have to eventually boycott everyone.

randywaterhouse 13y ago

Without stated context I of course jumped on this link like "oh jeez what's Mozilla done, broken some click-to-flirt functionality on OkCupid"!? But alas, it is not a technical reason. Nor even a product oriented one. It is a political statement regarding the head of the nonprofit Mozilla Foundation. So he made a mistake. Once. Maybe many times. That's his personal dealings, and while one may dislike Eich personally for this, and one may be inclined to not vote for Eich in, say, a public election, I find it absurd to protest a product that has but a tenuous connection to the man. Firefox is, has been, and probably will be for a long time into the future (we hope) a product of many hardworking people, perhaps the least of which is the CEO, so far removed from the product we all know and (some) love. The speed, the engineering... Has nothing to do with Eich. He drives the overall vision of the foundation, naturally, as CEOs do. Does his personal preference/mistake mean he's going to destroy Firefox? No. Does it even mean he will destroy Mozilla with his personal viewpoint on social issues? Probably not. Does it mean he a "bad" guy? Well, on the whole one is inclined to say no, although it will and is argued he has a character flaw, this may be true. The philosophy of dropping one of the most widely use browsers (outside of corporate environments) simply due to one man's one-time view... Seem absurd. (I've tried my best to avoid putting my own opinion on his viewpoint in here, but perhaps he's made a mistake or two in the past. Given the amount of criticism recently, this much is clear, now.)

spicyj 13y ago

Mozilla released a blog post on Saturday clearly stating: > Mozilla supports equality for all, including marriage equality for LGBT couples. https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/03/29/mozilla-supports-lgbt-equality/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/03/29/mozilla-supports-lg... There's no evidence that Brendan Eich will bring any of his political views to the workplace; this continued backlash feels unwarranted.

davidgerard 13y ago
They released it too late. If they had ANY clue, they'd have thought of this ahead of time. e.g. Brendan donates $2k or $5k to a gay charity requiring a public record (as the Prop 8 donation did) three months ago, someone notices two months ago, he can then stay as gnomic as he likes. Something like that. But, y’know, literally nobody in the upper echelons of Mozilla thought of this. That neither Eich or the board thought of this ahead of the time does, actually, suggest they're not up to the job. This is SIMPLE STUFF.
- intslack 13y ago
  >That neither Eich or the board thought of this ahead of the time does, actually, suggest they're not up to the job. This is SIMPLE STUFF. Evidence suggests that they've been spending months fighting a battle pertaining to picking an insider as CEO, which ultimately caused three members to resign from the Moz Co. board. Which explains why they were so unprepared for anything else. e: Bogus theory by Ars and WSJ, Mozilla issued a statement that the shake-up of board members was planned well in advance amongst themselves for various reasons.
  - Osmose 13y ago
    Two of the three resignations were planned beforehand and were not related to the CEO choice (see the update at the bottom of http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/03/three-mozilla-board-members-including-two-former-ceos-step-down/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/03/three-mozilla-board-...).

Zikes 13y ago

We'll forgive Fred Phelps, but apparently the hate for Javascript just runs too deep.

davidgerard 13y ago
Fortunately, we have an answer for that: http://newstechnica.com/2014/03/27/mozilla-announces-javascript-for-heterosexuals/ http://newstechnica.com/2014/03/27/mozilla-announces-javascr... It solves the equality operator problem by not having any.

kephra 13y ago

Dear Gays, we hate Mozilla, so please use a browser that spies on you like Google Chrome, or deinstall your Linux and switch to Windows Explorer, or install a browser that has problems with 80% of the other webpages.

slurry 13y ago
I think it's a shame that this comment has been downvoted to hell, because it's actually quite illuminating: the satire in it, such as it is, revolves around the assumption that FOSS politics is equal to or greater in urgency than any other kind of politics. Human rights violation? GPL violation! Same category. The reason I think it's so valuable is that a version of it probably informed the board's decision to appoint Eich despite the already controversial Prop 8 donation. "Sure, there's this $1000 he gave and that's terrible, but look at all the great FOSS code he's contributed! The controversy can't last long, we're Mozilla, we're the good guys. Everybody knows that." Lots of people out there do not think like this. Lots of people care about social justice and see no problem using IE.
- anonbanker 13y ago
  Apparently, the people that care about social justice give zero care toward security or the four essential freedoms of software.

zobzu 13y ago

oh look , at okcupid we just found out a way to use the current news as advertising! i think such stuff despises more than eich's support for prop 8.

eropple 13y ago
You have a history of general reprehensibility on this site, so I probably shouldn't bother to give you the attention you crave. Because we all know that your beef isn't with them doing this, but with people not tolerating hatred of gays. And women, but, you know, one at a time. That said, I want to stand up for a couple of my friends who work at OKCupid. They're excellent people and I don't believe the culture at OKC would be okay with using this as a vector for advertising. I'm confident they believe what they're saying and I wish more companies would take a stand against the bigots you like.
- zobzu 13y ago
  history wah? half my friends are gay. Many are women. One is my best friend. I think that using the excuse of being a minority to enforce ridicule arguments is stupid - that's different. Accusing people at random seems just as wrong. -- In fact, this is an interesting point. I noticed that any "negative" comment towards reactions to this story generates very strong reactions from some people (including death messages). This doesn't happen with other topics. What makes you entitled to think this is ok? (this is an honest question)

stephanerangaya 13y ago

Here's the full text: Hello there, Mozilla Firefox user. Pardon this interruption of your OkCupid experience. Mozilla’s new CEO, Brendan Eich, is an opponent of equal rights for gay couples. We would therefore prefer that our users not use Mozilla software to access OkCupid. Politics is normally not the business of a website, and we all know there’s a lot more wrong with the world than misguided CEOs. So you might wonder why we’re asserting ourselves today. This is why: we’ve devoted the last ten years to bringing people—all people—together. If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly 8% of the relationships we’ve worked so hard to bring about would be illegal. Equality for gay relationships is personally important to many of us here at OkCupid. But it’s professionally important to the entire company. OkCupid is for creating love. Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure. If you want to keep using Firefox, the link at the bottom will take you through to the site. However, we urge you to consider different software for accessing OkCupid: Google Chrome / Internet Exploder / Opera / Safari Thank you, OkCupid Background on Mr. Eich and Mozilla In 2008, Mr. Eich supported the passage of California’s Prop 8, a statewide initiative to ban gay marriage, with a $1000 donation. Granted, his contribution is now six years in the past, and people can change. But Mr. Eich’s boilerplate statements in the time since make it seem like he has the same views now as he did then. Mozilla recently promoted him to CEO, hence the issue only now coming to our attention. His donation was known to Mozilla at the time of his promotion, and, furthermore, CEOs are rewarded based on their company’s performance. The CEO is the visionary for a company and its products. We are sad to think that any OkCupid page loads would even indirectly contribute towards the success of an individual who supported Prop 8—and who for all we know would support it again. We wish Mozilla’s institutional commitment to freedom and openness were better reflected by their choice of leadership. Continue to OkCupid

trhway 13y ago

>Google Chrome Internet Exploder Opera yep, there is no good working browser around that i can trust. Chrome is just like the "Exploder" only from another, new generation, MS. edit: i fully support the equal rights (among others the right to file joint return with object of your sexual desire) and kind of surprised to learn that a supposedly smart techie would actively support the opposite. I'm surprised at Mozilla too - would they hire an open segregationist or a anti-women-election-right proponent?

soperj 13y ago
Chromium then?
- aye 13y ago
  Also, surf (http://surf.suckless.org http://surf.suckless.org), or Midori, or Iceweasel, or Uzbl, or Jumanji... :)
  - Havvy 13y ago
    Iceweasel is Firefox with the branding changed. It's otherwise identical.

cpeterso 13y ago

This article's assertion that "half of Mozilla's six-person board resigned over the Proposition 8 donation" is incorrect. If you follow the link to The Verge's own article about the Mozilla board, that article has been amended with Mozilla's response: http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/28/5559284/half-of-mozillas-board-reportedly-resign-over-new-ceo-choice http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/28/5559284/half-of-mozillas-b...

dang 13y ago

We don't need more than one story about this on the front page, so I'm killing the others. Commenters: To state the obvious, this is an inflammatory topic. If you post a comment, make sure that it is a thoughtful one. Readers: If you see a comment that is not thoughtful, please downvote it. Most comments in this thread so far have not been, so you have your work cut out for you. In extreme cases, flag the comment. To flag a comment, click on "link" to go to the item page, then look for the "flag" link at the top. As a calibration hint, I haven't seen any comments in this thread that deserve flagging. But I can't read them all. As I hope everyone knows by now, we're experimenting with ways to solve the problem of toxic comments on Hacker News. I believe that the community has to solve this problem, rather than us imposing a solution. Consider this our appeal to all fair-minded readers to pitch in.

lawl 13y ago
I think submitting a separate story would be better so it gets proper attention and can be discussed without derailing this submission. Hmm, yeah I guess I just accused the mods of derailing.
- dang 13y ago
  I'm afraid you may have missed my point. I was deliberately intervening in this submission, because the thread sucked. Edit: it might be a bit better now. All: Unthoughtful comments should be downvoted. Have at it. Edit: I've mollified my wording slightly. Please downvote judiciously.
  - lawl 13y ago
    Sorry. I wasn't talking about this. I was talking about the invitation to pitch in how to solve the general problem of hateful comments. Which I think shouldn't be discussed here, because it's not only a problem of this specific submission. Sorry if I misunderstood this invitation.
    - dang 13y ago
      We're entering a period of experimentation where things will be in flux for a while. For now, as one experiment, I'm adding moderation comments to specific posts. I won't keep doing it, because it's tiring and tedious to write (and no doubt to read). But I want to send a clear signal to the community that we're engaged, and also address the low-handing fruit of transparency concerns, if that makes sense.

mavdi 13y ago

This has just reached a new level of silliness.

wtbob 13y ago

Utterly stupid. Gives me an excuse to close my OkCupid account though.

ossreality 13y ago
OOOOOH YOU SHOWED THEM1

lexcorvus 13y ago

This from a company that lists only "female" and "male" as gender options—fifty-four fewer than Facebook. Who's insufficiently inclusive now?

ancarda 13y ago
Facebook only has male or female on the signup page and you also can only change gender to male or female in the settings: http://imgur.com/OcnmwkB http://imgur.com/OcnmwkB
- ossreality 13y ago
  That hasn't been true for ages. It's an auto-fill/auto-complete combo box now. I can literally put whatever I want in there like "Cis Male". I don't have strong opinions about what OkCupid is doing here, but it's a bit absurd that they aren't more progressive on the gender frotn.
aray 13y ago
NB: this only happens in english. In any other localization there aren't these options. I <3 that facebook has done this, but realize that it's only for a fraction of its user base, not the entire site.

gojomo 13y ago

And if this doesn't work, eventually when you try to message a Catholic, Mormon, Muslim, or other religiously-observant person from a denomination whose leaders publicly disapprove of homosexuality, you'll see a message from OKCupid like: Religion isn't normally the business of a website. But you've expressed an interest in dating someone whose religion denies equal rights to gay people. Sure, this person may seem OK, and may even have their own opinions, but the leaders of their religion spread hatred, and it pains us to send even a single quantum of relationship happiness towards people who still affiliate with that religion. If you still want to date them, you can click the link below, but wouldn't you really rather date the following matches, who we've determined from their public and private questionnaire answers better reflect OKCupid's approved religious and political values? Seriously, I would have expected a dating website to have a deeper respect for the often-arbitrary reasons individual beliefs deviate from the norms of their family, employer, or community.

pvnick 13y ago
This is not about what's right. It's about attention, meaning user growth and ad revenue. OkCupid's leadership does not actually care about Eich's appointment.
- munificent 13y ago
  Like most dichotomies, this one is false. It is more probably true that OkCupid cares about both attention and the underlying social issue.
dmazin 13y ago
The problem is not that Eich's beliefs are a deviation from a norm (whether they are or not is irrelevant). His beliefs are hateful. The reason for this particular message is because it is part of a greater campaign to show Mozilla that users and producers on the internet are not in support of Eich's appointment.
- Diamons 13y ago
  America - everyone can have their own opinion unless it disagrees with the majority.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

waterlesscloud 13y ago

I look forward to a full public review of the politics of OkCupid executives and investors. Actually, I'm sure someone is going to do exactly this now. Now that Pandora's Box has been opened, it's not going to shut very easily. It's going to get bloody.

ignostic 13y ago

I disagree with the comments saying the CEO's personal beliefs are irrelevant. I believe OKC's message is both relevant and appropriate. I'll grant that the "8% of relationships... would be illegal" argument is a little weak, but the CEO IS paid by Mozilla. In the past he has donated to anti-gay-marriage causes, and may continue to do so in the future enabled by Mozilla's money. Firefox users help Mozilla make money. The browser is the medium for the site and the user. The user, in accessing sites like OKC, allows Mozilla to give some money to the CEO who in turn could give it to a cause many see as encouraging bigotry. Websites like OKC are an essential (even if indirect) part of Mozilla's revenue model. Brendan Eich has a right to free speech, and so does OKCupid. We also have a right to responsible consumerism. In a true free market, responsible consumption helps us ensure companies are using their profits in a way we believe is ethical. Personally I'm glad OKC is helping to send the message that supporting discrimination based on sexual orientation isn't acceptable to many of us in today's society.

adamors 13y ago
> but the CEO IS paid by Mozilla. In the past he has donated to anti-gay-marriage causes, and may continue to do so in the future enabled by Mozilla's money. Going by this logic, we should be vetting every person who works at a company whose product we use, because they may have contributed to some cause we don't agree with.
- ignostic 13y ago
  Yes, and I wish we could. But given the size of companies and products available, we obviously have to do the best we can. It makes sense to start with the company itself and its top leader.
  - adamors 13y ago
    But it's not possible. Every company is lead by scumbags, your only choice is which scumbag's product you buy. This entire situation reminds me of this scene from 30 Rock: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zm3TepXcD8A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zm3TepXcD8A

pubman 13y ago

I find it interesting that match.com which owns okcupid works fine in firefox. So it seems they are making a statement with the smaller site that wont cost them nearly as much in traffic. I could be wrong but that is my 5sec observation.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

pvnick 13y ago

Eich has made it clear, both through promises as well as actions, that he is not going to force his beliefs on Mozilla. Does OkCupid seriously wish harm upon an organization that employs hundreds of innocent individuals, most of whom likely hold different beliefs than Eich? An organization that works for the open web everyday and defends our privacy against actual harmful actions by criminal organizations? Intentionally trying to bring down Mozilla's browser market share means they have less negotiating power with the search engine providers that make up the majority of their revenue. Talk about forcing your beliefs on others. OkCupid is shamelessly exploiting this situation for attention.

ignostic 13y ago
> "Talk about forcing your beliefs on others." What? How does OKC's use of free speech amount to "forcing" their beliefs on others? > "OkCupid is shamelessly exploiting this situation for attention." Care to back that up? Do you have the information necessary to say OKC is exploiting the situation for attention? Do you know their beliefs? Their intentions? Do you know their motivations and what they hope to accomplish? Do you actually know anything about anyone involved in what OKC did? If not, I suggest you stop making claims of fact where you are wholly ignorant of the truth.
- agapos 13y ago
  This is my first time hearing about OKC, and I already saw at least six references to this act of theirs on HNews alone, until one of the mods (or their local counterparts) deleted those. What you make out of this information is up to you.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

Glyptodon 13y ago

I wonder if Firefox users are more likely to use adblock.

sveme 13y ago

This actually made me remove my (dormant, but still) account on okcupid. I am absolutely a proponent of equal rights and I absolutely disagree with Brendan Eich's actions. Still I continue using Firefox and Thunderbird (and Javascript) as Mozilla remains the last really influential supporter of an open web. The efforts of the many Mozilla developers outweigh the hateful beliefs of one Eich. Why then remove my okcupid account? I feel pushed, I feel that they tried to create a bad conscience, I feel emotionally manipulated. That's not how a business should treat me.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

kfcm 13y ago

Clicked on link and got this: OkCupid needs JavaScript to function, but you have it disabled. Check your browser settings.

septerr 13y ago

When I read the title of this post, I first thought 'Oh okCupid's website breaks in FF and instead of fixing the site, they are asking their users to switch to another browser'. Then the comments here completely threw me off. Took some digging to figure out what the real issue was. The okcupid link in the title (at least on mobile) just goes to their login page, no message about ditching FF there.

tempestn 13y ago
Can you save others that digging by saying what the real issue was? Edit: Here, this explains it: http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/31/okcupid-offers-firefox-visitors-links-to-alternate-browsers-to-protest-new-mozilla-ceo/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/31/okcupid-offers-firefox-visi...

tasty_freeze 13y ago

Let's pick a different hot button issue. Say Eich contributed to a pro or anti gun control measure. Hell, as far as I know, he has. How many of you, who are as intensely interested in gun control/rights as people are over gay/anti-gay marriage rights, would be demanding that he step down? And if you say you would, there are hundreds of corporations actually in that position (either for or against) with whom you are probably doing business.

MichaelGG 13y ago
Reducing it to a "hot button issue" is invalid. As far as human rights goes, there's no rational way to arrive at same-sex marriages not being allowed, if heterosex marriages are. Whereas in the US, gun ownership is enshrined in the constitution, so even if gun ownership was a major net negative, it'd still be an issue. Just like in some countries, complete bank secrecy is a constitutional issue, so even giving the local IRS-equivalent, while demonstrably a net positive for society, becomes a "hot button" issue. Probably the closest modern issue is being against euthanasia/suicide. It's obviously cruel to force people to suffer, and safety issues aside, it's obvious someone should be able to terminate their life in face of insurmountable suffering. Yet people will object to that on all sorts of grounds.
- pbhjpbhj 13y ago
  >there's no rational way to arrive at same-sex marriages not being allowed, if heterosex marriages are // There are plenty of rational ways to do that. I'm guessing you'd primarily disagree with the axioms on which they're founded. How about "state recognition of marriage is primarily about supporting the family unit as the nucleus of society - as same-sex union can't create children, long-term partnerships engendering opposite-sex union are to be promoted in order create a general impetus towards stable home environments for child rearing and raising". That seems rational; disregarding verity do you disagree it's rational? If you argue against this definition then to my mind you come to define a new relationship, let's call it civil-union. In civil-union there seems no logical reason to exclude same-family, or multiple-person unions. I can't see how you can say "the definition of marriage as the union of a man and woman [who're not closely related]" is wrong because it limits marriage to a particular historical/tradition form and then come up with a new definition to foist on people that excludes groups (families, polyamorous, etc.) for arbitrary reasons that don't even have the support of history or tradition [or theology]. >Probably the closest modern issue is [...] // So are you saying if a CEO of a company believed euthanasia to be wrong you'd stop using that companies products?

Justsignedup 13y ago

Isn't the whole point of america that PEOPLE DISAGREE? If you have an opinion, you are entitled to it. Your personal feelings on gay marriage should not mean that you are to be barred from getting a job where gay people also work. If, however, you go on record as the CEO of a company saying the company does not support gay marriage, then this is a different discussion. So basically he is being ostracized all over for having an opinion. This is mob rule. I like it not.

albedoa 13y ago
You are entitled to an opinion. You are not entitled to protection from the consequences of acting on that opinion. This is not an issue of "personal feelings".

stevekinney 13y ago

I would be more impressed if they boycotted JavaScript.

agapos 13y ago

Kinda adorable how people keep arguing back and forth, but fail to take notes on how the actual Moz employees act or think on it. And most of them think he is entitled to his beliefs and acts, and he should not be banished for it, even if they do not agree with him. Please, try to learn this approach, pro-gay activists. http://bholley.wordpress.com/2014/03/31/on-brendan-eich-and-the-thought-police/ http://bholley.wordpress.com/2014/03/31/on-brendan-eich-and-... https://staktrace.com/spout/entry.php?id=823 https://staktrace.com/spout/entry.php?id=823 http://christianheilmann.com/2014/03/31/on-hating/ http://christianheilmann.com/2014/03/31/on-hating/ http://www.twobraids.com/2014/03/the-mozilla-ceo.html http://www.twobraids.com/2014/03/the-mozilla-ceo.html http://patrickfinch.com/2014/03/31/the-most-important-decisions-we-make/ http://patrickfinch.com/2014/03/31/the-most-important-decisi... https://ozten.com/psto/2014/03/28/pick-your-battles/ https://ozten.com/psto/2014/03/28/pick-your-battles/

nnethercote 13y ago
Also: http://subfictional.com/2014/03/24/on-brendan-eich-as-ceo-of-mozilla/ http://subfictional.com/2014/03/24/on-brendan-eich-as-ceo-of...

azth 13y ago

Let's drag down the internet experience based on what a single person did. What retards.

igl 13y ago

Javascript and now this! Why shouldn't you say something? Religion enjoys way too much freedom. A lot of people here give these discriminators a free pass for no rational reason. Horrible.

vise890 13y ago

Am I the only one here who thinks that maybe a petition asking Mozilla to pressure Eich to step down may be a better solution to this? I seems that all the years of contributions and sacrifices by the community to build a great product, fight for a better internet and all that mozilla has stood for could be very rapidly undone if we continue portraying it as a homophobic institution. All of this good, from so many people, undone for the views of one man. Say we are successful with this, Firefox goes out of the picture. Mozilla is dead. Would that be something to aspire for? I'm creeped out by the state of the internet as it is already, mozilla seems like the last company that truly cares. Who would fight for keeping the internet open then? Google? Let's direct the criticism to the man for his beliefs, lets let know mozilla that their choice is not cool and we won't accept it. Let's not bring the whole thing down with it please.

exodust 13y ago
Even better, let's not criticise someone for their beliefs about marriage. "Marriage" is not a person, or natural thing. If people think it should be limited then so be it. Legal rights on the other hand, that's another matter. The problem is that people lump marriage and legal rights in the same boat, then don't hesitate to unleash hell on anyone who thinks marriage should remain traditional and.. "YOU"RE ANTI-GAY"... wait, what? I just think marriage is between a man and... "YOU'RE HOMOPHOBIC". I'm sick of it. A lot of people are sick of hearing about gay marriage. Sure, let's recognise civil unions and the rights there, but leave marriage out of it.

hetman 13y ago

Eich's reponse to the concerns: https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/

Osiris 13y ago

Are people suggesting that holding a personal opinion that is contrary to another person's opinion disqualifies that person from having a job? I haven't seen any suggestions that he has attempted to discriminate, or implement discriminatory policies, against any individuals at Mozilla or otherwise. I voted for Amendment 64 in Colorado to legalize canabis. Should that disqualify me from working because maybe means I get high too much (though I don't use)? The argument against him is that he's discriminating, but now we have a case where OkCupid is literally and actively discriminating against users based on their choice of browser. Other people have actively threatened him. Those actions are, from my perspective, completely hypocritical: "We don't like people that discriminate, so we're going to discriminate against people that we don't agree with."

Borogove 13y ago
For the record, you can still use OKC with Firefox; you just get a lecture when you do it. Is it okay to discriminate against Nazis, or is that hypocritical?
- Osiris 13y ago
  That depends. Have they actually killed people or just talked about it?
  - Borogove 13y ago
    Seriously? That's your dividing line? Incidentally, you mentioned threats to Eich above; I haven't personally seen any but I don't support threats of violence to him. I don't even have particularly strong feelings one way or the other about boycotting Mozilla. Mostly we're having a conversation here. I do feel it's perfectly reasonable to point fingers of shame towards Eich for his donations and weaseling, and at Mozilla for elevating Eich.

jebblue 13y ago

Eric Schmidt is a progressive. I did not boycott Google's products, what he did or didn't believe personally did not and does not impact the decisions I make on what software I run. It should not impact yours.

jebblue 13y ago

Linus Torvalds describes himself as an atheist. I advocate as hard today for Linux as I did 20 years ago. I do not let Linus's personal beliefs impact the decision on what software I run. It should not impact yours.

Borogove 13y ago
What legal rights has Linus Torvalds tried to take away from minorities?

cjfont 13y ago

Is this not a slap in the face of everyone else who has contributed to the Mozilla Foundation that is not in any way associated with Eich or his views? Seems that for some, a response of some kind is needed regardless of how irrational it may be.

smithzvk 13y ago

I guess my question is, does using Firefox mean that you support Mozilla, much less the opinions of Mozilla's CEO? If I switch to IceWeasel, do I still support it? Is using Gecko the sin here? When did I sign on for supporting these beliefs. My wife and I don't eat at Chik-fil-a anymore due to their beliefs, but the financial support is clear there. Here I pick and chose from the things that Mozilla creates that I endorse and I never installed the bigot extension on Firefox. This person probably deserves the ridicule, maybe he needs to step down, maybe we should all switch to IceWeasel to really show them (by the way, that would be a much more positive route to take as opposed to putting all our eggs in the webkit basket), but one of the nice things about Free Software is that you can have a reprehensible person in charge of it and there is something that you can do about it besides simply not using it. I guess that is why this statement feels weird. It seems akin to finding out that the inventor of the hammer, all those millennia ago, had slaves, so you decide that from now on you are going to use screws and that you will try to get other people to turn their backs on hammers as well.

qq66 13y ago

Someone should inform OKCupid of William Shockley's views on eugenics.

s0me0ne 13y ago

How is Mozilla responsible for this? This guy wasn't even CEO when he made the donation in 2008 (as far as I know). So to abandon Firefox which is not his creation alone seems foolish. If anything abandoning JavaScript would make more sense since that is what he created, not Mozilla or Firefox.

exodust 13y ago

This is a major bullshit move by okcupid. I've cancelled my account with them and sent them feedback explaining why it's NOT ok to urge people not to use certain free, open source software. It's not the "web browser's" fault that somebody at Mozilla has a different opinion about gay marriage than somebody at okcupid. And on the subject of marriage, people need to remember that "marriage" is man-made, there is no absolute right to an artificial made-up tradition. The focus and fight should be about legal equality, and recognition of same-sex couples for things like superannuation, health, taxation, and other areas where married couples have benefits and laws based on their married status. You might argue that "marriage" is the sum of all those laws and rights, plus love, but it's not. Marriage is not the sum of anything, it's just marriage, and if people think it should remain a traditional man woman, bride groom thing, then that is a completely justified argument. Fight for equality, not for entry into the "marriage club". I'm not married and don't care either way, but those who do shouldn't be waging war against internet browsers.