15 ms·

Mozilla released a blog post on Saturday clearly stating: > Mozilla supports equality for all, including marriage equality for LGBT couples. https://blog.mozi

by 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-...).
    - intslack 13y ago
      Thanks for the clarification, haven't been following this very closely and didn't read Mozilla's statement in response (it wasn't very prompt.)
  - davidgerard 13y ago
    Nevertheless, I'd suggest that being able to walk and chew gum is something a CEO needs.
- jrs99 13y ago
  it's EXTREMELY bizarre that they would not have seriously thought of it. Unless they all share the same opinions as Eich and they feel that being against gay marriage is like being against anchovies on your pizza. Then it would never have hit them that this was a serious problem.
  - davidgerard 13y ago
    I think stupidity is a sufficient explanation. "I'm envisioning the board standing around with glassy stares, 'I have no idea how this could have happened. We totally vetted his geek cred.'" - rone
    - jrs99 13y ago
      But, at the same time, it still had to not bother them sufficiently enough to raise serious questions. To me, it's like watching someone kick a puppy and then considering him for CEO. "hey, how about this guy? He kicked a puppy." "Is there anything about him that we need to be aware of?" "no, not that I know of."
  - pbhjpbhj 13y ago
    Is it right to not employ someone because of their legally held beliefs with regard to sexual behaviour? Is HN [amongst others] calling for all people who disagree with legislation on homosexual relationships being called marriage to forfeit their rights to employment; or perhaps all those that consider homosexual sexual activity to be wrong? That seems like the logical conclusion here. Is this going to be continued with all beliefs - ousting those that disprove of drunkennes or drug taking or polygamy or adultery? Why should a company pry in to an employee's private beliefs and associations in the way you're suggesting?
    - jrs99 13y ago
      This is more of an opinion about what is best for Mozilla's image in the public eye, not about anyone's right to have a job. You can without a doubt hire a murderer as your CEO. It will always be my opinion that you should at least think very hard about doing so before you make the final decision. If you run for president and you're a satan worshipper, then it would be my opinion that you will lose. If you own a cookie company and want to hire a murderer as a CEO, it would simply be my opinion that you may lose sales. If you don't care about my opinion, or don't care about sales, and go ahead and hire a murderer as CEO, then that's perfectly fine. At the end of the day, it's really up to you. But if someone out there wants to organize a boycott because the CEO isn't a vegan, that's also fine.
- Jare 13y ago
  > They released it too late. Calls for boycott are happening AFTER it was released. I think it's the content (or lack thereof) of that letter that makes it ineffective. > 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 So now we prefer lying bigots to honest bigots? That reeks so much of hypocrisy, it is disgusting.
  - davidgerard 13y ago
    I know. But, y'know, "I've tried to take away your rights and I refuse to talk about it, but hey! I promise I won't do it again, baby!" isn't playing out too well in practice.
- agapos 13y ago
  "If they had ANY clue, they'd have thought of this ahead of time." Maybe they were occupied finding a man with the necessary technical and leading capabilities, plus the experience and whatever else I may have forgot?
x0x0 13y ago
I don't think I believe, for better or worse, people are capable of that extremely segmenting their lives. Strong disapproval of someone for his or her lifestyle is inevitably going to creep into your interactions with that person.
- victorhooi 13y ago
  Yes, but Eichs has never said he hates gays - if you can find a single case or interaction where he has, please share it with the community. (Or possibly don't - I personally think this entire stupid affair is being blown our of proportion. What the guy does in his own time is his own damn business. If and only if he somehow lets it bleed into his work, sure, you can do your whole outrage, let's boycott Firefox dance). Look, the guy has a traditional view of marriage - the same view the human race had for thousands of years. Sure, some people want to redefine that, and they're well within rights to do that - nothing wrong with that. However, this silly overbearing PC nonsense is getting old - we already get this faux outrage from the Moral Police every time the gender issue crops up. Look, I get we want girls in tech - diversity helps, and it sucks they're not encouraged more to go into it. Personally, I think this whole marriage thing is overblown. E.g.: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10729717/Brian-Sewell-Why-I-will-never-be-converted-to-gay-marriage.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10729717/Brian-Sewe...
dmazin 13y ago
The issue I, and I think others, have with this appointment is what the appointment implies: in a world where many hateful people hold power, yet another hateful person should hold power (in, of all places, an organization seemingly rooted in progress).
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  But if we discriminate against him purely on the basis of his beliefs (and not his actions on the job), we are no better than he. (If his personal beliefs do pollute his work then do as you will, run the guy out of town on a rail if you must)
  - dmazin 13y ago
    I disagree. There are actions which should be applied to oppressors and not the oppressed. Publicly embarrassing bigots is necessary to show that such beliefs will not be socially accepted; public embarrassment of minority groups is hatred. Just a disclaimer: I fully support discrimination against bigots such as refusal of service.
    - sliverstorm 13y ago
      So it's ok only when done to the people you don't like.
      - zorpner 13y ago
        If you're accusing him of "not liking" bigots, you're probably correct. Why, specifically, is it okay for Eich to fund the oppression of homosexuals and not okay for people to say that they find that upsetting and therefore would prefer not to use or serve products he's associated with? What level would his bigotry have to ascend to before people were no longer obligated to use these products or, at least, not tell anyone they're not using them and why?
        jebblue 13y ago
MatthiasP 13y ago
This political-correctness frenzy is beyond ridiculous. A browser company should not have to give statements about political issues that have absolutely nothing to do with their business. What's next, regular declerations concerning basic income, marijuana legalization and the Crimea?
- hkphooey 13y ago
  Well said. This is mostly faux outrage. Brendan is one man, an easy target to scream and shout at. Notice how nobody is protesting outside mosques and embassies where under Islam, the penalty for simply being gay, let alone getting married, is DEATH.
  - oneeyedpigeon 13y ago
    That's a ridiculous generalisation; the status of homosexuality and Islamic law is far more nuanced than that. Not only is there not a single death penalty for being gay across the entire Muslim world, the legal status of homosexuality differs greatly. Of course, that is not to say that many of those countries don't exhibit abhorrent views, but the same goes for many Christian communities too. I would warrant that a larger proportion of HN's audience feels some kind of connection with the technology world than they do with that of Islam, and it feels more reasonable to clear your own back yard out first before complaining about the state of your neighbour's.
    - honksillet 13y ago
      If you believe what is on wikipedia... http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Homosexuality http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Homosexuality As of 1999 in Iran, more than 4,000 lesbians and gays had been executed since the 1979 Islamic revolution. ... As of 2009, homosexual relationships, acts or behavior are illegal in 36 Islamic countries. 10 impose the death penalty.
    - fleitz 13y ago
      The Qur'an is pretty clear about what the punishment for being an atheist or homosexual is. I'm not saying that Jewish and Christian religious texts don't also contain similar punishments, however, it's quite clear that anyone who believes in all the things the Qur'an says would have to believe that it's acceptable to put atheists and homosexuals to death for no other reason. Similarly in most judeo-christian religions you see similar opposition to homosexuality being treated on an equal footing to heterosexuality, not to mention the rest of the sexual repression commonly found in those religions.
jowiar 13y ago
The problem I've seen (and continue to see) from Eich and Mozilla is that the apology is denial: "I'm not a bad person! See -- I'm doing all of these good things!" Apologies don't work that way. The right apology is something like: "I try to be a good person, but sometimes I don't get it right. 5 years ago, I did something hurtful to many of you. I did it because of ... What I didn't realize then and do realize now is that ... Thank you for helping me, and to those of you who I made the world a worse place for in the past, I'm sorry, and I'll do what I can to make things better in the future." I'm not convinced that Eich believes that he did the wrong thing in 2008 - that as far as I can tell, if he were to wind the clock back, the only reason he wouldn't write that check is the trouble that it's causing him now, and not because he's gained some understanding of things.
macspoofing 13y ago
I don't think it was ever really about that. Mozilla is a great organization, partly because of Brendan's involvement over the years. Still it's perplexing that he feels so strongly about this. He's being criticized from every corner and bringing lots of negative attention to Mozilla and yet and he's sticking to his guns. This isn't going to go away. At best he's going to be seen as the guy who doesn't support gay marriage in a world where this sort of view is becoming more and more untenable.
- victorhooi 13y ago
  Well, wouldn't you respect him less, if he simply changed his views for political expediency? And last time I checked, when Prop8 went through, wasn't he with a majority of Californians...lol. I don't get how the supporters of gay marriage something think (or try to claim) that their view is automatically right, arguments be damned. Marriage has been defined as a man and woman for thousands of years. Yes, that can be changed, and they're well within rights to do so - maybe the human race is changing. But to claim that, we don't need to stinking arguments, and just say, we must be right seems a bit stupid. Surely, if you're going to redefine something that important, you'd want to lead with your arguments, and not, oh, it's just natural we're right, and your position is untenable.
adl 13y ago
Can the CEO of a corporation still function as CEO when he personally doesn't believe on his company policies? Mozilla supports equality for all, including marriage equality for LGBT couples, but his new CEO does not? I'm sorry, but it just does not compute.

by spicyj 13y ago

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-...).
  - intslack 13y ago
    Thanks for the clarification, haven't been following this very closely and didn't read Mozilla's statement in response (it wasn't very prompt.)
- davidgerard 13y ago
  Nevertheless, I'd suggest that being able to walk and chew gum is something a CEO needs.
jrs99 13y ago
it's EXTREMELY bizarre that they would not have seriously thought of it. Unless they all share the same opinions as Eich and they feel that being against gay marriage is like being against anchovies on your pizza. Then it would never have hit them that this was a serious problem.
- davidgerard 13y ago
  I think stupidity is a sufficient explanation. "I'm envisioning the board standing around with glassy stares, 'I have no idea how this could have happened. We totally vetted his geek cred.'" - rone
  - jrs99 13y ago
    But, at the same time, it still had to not bother them sufficiently enough to raise serious questions. To me, it's like watching someone kick a puppy and then considering him for CEO. "hey, how about this guy? He kicked a puppy." "Is there anything about him that we need to be aware of?" "no, not that I know of."
- pbhjpbhj 13y ago
  Is it right to not employ someone because of their legally held beliefs with regard to sexual behaviour? Is HN [amongst others] calling for all people who disagree with legislation on homosexual relationships being called marriage to forfeit their rights to employment; or perhaps all those that consider homosexual sexual activity to be wrong? That seems like the logical conclusion here. Is this going to be continued with all beliefs - ousting those that disprove of drunkennes or drug taking or polygamy or adultery? Why should a company pry in to an employee's private beliefs and associations in the way you're suggesting?
  - jrs99 13y ago
    This is more of an opinion about what is best for Mozilla's image in the public eye, not about anyone's right to have a job. You can without a doubt hire a murderer as your CEO. It will always be my opinion that you should at least think very hard about doing so before you make the final decision. If you run for president and you're a satan worshipper, then it would be my opinion that you will lose. If you own a cookie company and want to hire a murderer as a CEO, it would simply be my opinion that you may lose sales. If you don't care about my opinion, or don't care about sales, and go ahead and hire a murderer as CEO, then that's perfectly fine. At the end of the day, it's really up to you. But if someone out there wants to organize a boycott because the CEO isn't a vegan, that's also fine.
Jare 13y ago
> They released it too late. Calls for boycott are happening AFTER it was released. I think it's the content (or lack thereof) of that letter that makes it ineffective. > 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 So now we prefer lying bigots to honest bigots? That reeks so much of hypocrisy, it is disgusting.
- davidgerard 13y ago
  I know. But, y'know, "I've tried to take away your rights and I refuse to talk about it, but hey! I promise I won't do it again, baby!" isn't playing out too well in practice.
agapos 13y ago
"If they had ANY clue, they'd have thought of this ahead of time." Maybe they were occupied finding a man with the necessary technical and leading capabilities, plus the experience and whatever else I may have forgot?

x0x0 13y ago

I don't think I believe, for better or worse, people are capable of that extremely segmenting their lives. Strong disapproval of someone for his or her lifestyle is inevitably going to creep into your interactions with that person.

victorhooi 13y ago
Yes, but Eichs has never said he hates gays - if you can find a single case or interaction where he has, please share it with the community. (Or possibly don't - I personally think this entire stupid affair is being blown our of proportion. What the guy does in his own time is his own damn business. If and only if he somehow lets it bleed into his work, sure, you can do your whole outrage, let's boycott Firefox dance). Look, the guy has a traditional view of marriage - the same view the human race had for thousands of years. Sure, some people want to redefine that, and they're well within rights to do that - nothing wrong with that. However, this silly overbearing PC nonsense is getting old - we already get this faux outrage from the Moral Police every time the gender issue crops up. Look, I get we want girls in tech - diversity helps, and it sucks they're not encouraged more to go into it. Personally, I think this whole marriage thing is overblown. E.g.: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10729717/Brian-Sewell-Why-I-will-never-be-converted-to-gay-marriage.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10729717/Brian-Sewe...

dmazin 13y ago

The issue I, and I think others, have with this appointment is what the appointment implies: in a world where many hateful people hold power, yet another hateful person should hold power (in, of all places, an organization seemingly rooted in progress).

sliverstorm 13y ago
But if we discriminate against him purely on the basis of his beliefs (and not his actions on the job), we are no better than he. (If his personal beliefs do pollute his work then do as you will, run the guy out of town on a rail if you must)
- dmazin 13y ago
  I disagree. There are actions which should be applied to oppressors and not the oppressed. Publicly embarrassing bigots is necessary to show that such beliefs will not be socially accepted; public embarrassment of minority groups is hatred. Just a disclaimer: I fully support discrimination against bigots such as refusal of service.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    So it's ok only when done to the people you don't like.
    - zorpner 13y ago
      If you're accusing him of "not liking" bigots, you're probably correct. Why, specifically, is it okay for Eich to fund the oppression of homosexuals and not okay for people to say that they find that upsetting and therefore would prefer not to use or serve products he's associated with? What level would his bigotry have to ascend to before people were no longer obligated to use these products or, at least, not tell anyone they're not using them and why?
      - jebblue 13y ago

MatthiasP 13y ago

This political-correctness frenzy is beyond ridiculous. A browser company should not have to give statements about political issues that have absolutely nothing to do with their business. What's next, regular declerations concerning basic income, marijuana legalization and the Crimea?

hkphooey 13y ago
Well said. This is mostly faux outrage. Brendan is one man, an easy target to scream and shout at. Notice how nobody is protesting outside mosques and embassies where under Islam, the penalty for simply being gay, let alone getting married, is DEATH.
- oneeyedpigeon 13y ago
  That's a ridiculous generalisation; the status of homosexuality and Islamic law is far more nuanced than that. Not only is there not a single death penalty for being gay across the entire Muslim world, the legal status of homosexuality differs greatly. Of course, that is not to say that many of those countries don't exhibit abhorrent views, but the same goes for many Christian communities too. I would warrant that a larger proportion of HN's audience feels some kind of connection with the technology world than they do with that of Islam, and it feels more reasonable to clear your own back yard out first before complaining about the state of your neighbour's.
  - honksillet 13y ago
    If you believe what is on wikipedia... http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Homosexuality http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Homosexuality As of 1999 in Iran, more than 4,000 lesbians and gays had been executed since the 1979 Islamic revolution. ... As of 2009, homosexual relationships, acts or behavior are illegal in 36 Islamic countries. 10 impose the death penalty.
  - fleitz 13y ago
    The Qur'an is pretty clear about what the punishment for being an atheist or homosexual is. I'm not saying that Jewish and Christian religious texts don't also contain similar punishments, however, it's quite clear that anyone who believes in all the things the Qur'an says would have to believe that it's acceptable to put atheists and homosexuals to death for no other reason. Similarly in most judeo-christian religions you see similar opposition to homosexuality being treated on an equal footing to heterosexuality, not to mention the rest of the sexual repression commonly found in those religions.

jowiar 13y ago

The problem I've seen (and continue to see) from Eich and Mozilla is that the apology is denial: "I'm not a bad person! See -- I'm doing all of these good things!" Apologies don't work that way. The right apology is something like: "I try to be a good person, but sometimes I don't get it right. 5 years ago, I did something hurtful to many of you. I did it because of ... What I didn't realize then and do realize now is that ... Thank you for helping me, and to those of you who I made the world a worse place for in the past, I'm sorry, and I'll do what I can to make things better in the future." I'm not convinced that Eich believes that he did the wrong thing in 2008 - that as far as I can tell, if he were to wind the clock back, the only reason he wouldn't write that check is the trouble that it's causing him now, and not because he's gained some understanding of things.

macspoofing 13y ago

I don't think it was ever really about that. Mozilla is a great organization, partly because of Brendan's involvement over the years. Still it's perplexing that he feels so strongly about this. He's being criticized from every corner and bringing lots of negative attention to Mozilla and yet and he's sticking to his guns. This isn't going to go away. At best he's going to be seen as the guy who doesn't support gay marriage in a world where this sort of view is becoming more and more untenable.

victorhooi 13y ago
Well, wouldn't you respect him less, if he simply changed his views for political expediency? And last time I checked, when Prop8 went through, wasn't he with a majority of Californians...lol. I don't get how the supporters of gay marriage something think (or try to claim) that their view is automatically right, arguments be damned. Marriage has been defined as a man and woman for thousands of years. Yes, that can be changed, and they're well within rights to do so - maybe the human race is changing. But to claim that, we don't need to stinking arguments, and just say, we must be right seems a bit stupid. Surely, if you're going to redefine something that important, you'd want to lead with your arguments, and not, oh, it's just natural we're right, and your position is untenable.

adl 13y ago

Can the CEO of a corporation still function as CEO when he personally doesn't believe on his company policies? Mozilla supports equality for all, including marriage equality for LGBT couples, but his new CEO does not? I'm sorry, but it just does not compute.