5 ms·

Response to OkCupid's blocking of Firefox users

29 points by sylvinus 13y ago

fvt 13y ago
When private views become public, one should expect to be "judged" by others, especially when this person is explicitly enlisting the company he is working for in such a campaign and is a well-known field activist. AFAICT he _had_ to tell what company he was working for. On that very moment, I'm curious to known what went through his mind. Was there any hesitation? Was he realizing he was bringing Mozilla into this debate? My personal believes is that whether this was deliberate (bringing Mozilla explicitly) or not (being "forced" to list his employer), this was a really bad move you - as a board advisor or investor - will have to deal with and take public actions against.
michaelsbradley 13y ago
Thank you, Sylvain. I don't entirely agree with your line of reasoning but appreciate you're "stepping up" with this blog post.
- sylvinus 13y ago
  Thanks. As a conference organizer who's trying to welcome everyone to his events, it feels a bit risky, but ultimately right. Can you detail what you don't agree on? Happy to have a sane discussion here.
  - michaelsbradley 13y ago
    I meant to imply that, according to my own beliefs and perspectives, I am inclined to judge Eich's actions and position a bit differently than yourself. However, we both agree that its important to "[move on] and talk about the Web", and I also agree with several points you raised as to why that's the case. I also realize that by publishing that blog post, you were potentially opening yourself up to a fair bit of vitriol, and I respect that you were willing to do so anyway.
uvTwitch 13y ago
I hope this results in people boycotting javascript too; that atrocity has long outstayed its' welcome.
angersock 13y ago
The additional damage and injury of OKC's actions here is that they are directly discouraging the use of perhaps one of the last great free and unencumbered browsers based on something that doesn't matter technically--and that a lot of people are going to switch just because of scary and hateful wording and possibly be hurt. Had they blocked Firefox users because of a security hole or layout glitch, that'd be fine--many of us have done the same upon finding somebody hitting our site with IE6 and requesting that they upgrade. Had they blocked Firefox because it was a competing product (as Microsoft has done at times), that'd make sense too, although it's a bit scummy. The problem though is that they've elected to block a particular browser based solely on the third-order actions of an employee of that company exercising their right to free speech. Legally, sure, they can do whatever they want, but we really ought to hold them to the same standard we seem to be holding Eich. Note, for example, that he sent some money into a cause and then the gears of politics ground and spat out what he'd supported--whereas fully 12% of people on OKC (according to their statistics) have been denied service on a whim. Even from a business standpoint, why would you inconvenience 12% of your customers? That's just silly. Because you can get away with it, because you are a gatekeeper of part of their social graph? That's just scummy. This is not how we should be behaving as a community.
- sylvinus 13y ago
  I think it still makes sense for them from a business standpoint because of the all the free publicity this has already given them :(
  - angersock 13y ago
    There's no such thing as bad press, I suppose. :(
- gaadd33 13y ago
  You do know that they haven't denied service to anyone? The bottom of the notice has a link that says "Continue to OkCupid". At worst they've inconvenienced someone the same amount an interstitial does on Forbes or a similar site. Also is donating money considered "free speech"? Is that how Citizens United won their Supreme Court case?
dj-wonk 13y ago
Even if Brendan Eich has private views that I disagree with, I don't see a big problem here, because they are his private views, not those of Mozilla. Furthermore, people have a right to their own opinions, and I don't want corporations digging through contribution records to dig up dirt on who someone gave money to. This seems shameful to me; we're talking about a country that values free speech. "He is listed publicly as having donated to a campaign in support of California's Proposition 8 campaign in 2008, which had sought to ban gay marriage in the western US state." From: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-26830383 http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-26830383 Who knows why Mr. Eich gave this donation. Maybe he changed his mind since then. Maybe not. It should not matter. Correct me if I'm wrong -- and maybe I've naive -- but Mozilla should not be singled out for every action or donation that their CEO has taken. (Yes, I realize CEO's are high visibility people.) I am happy OKCupid is promoting marriage equality, but I don't like this particular way of doing it.
- ForHackernews 13y ago
  Free speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism or the repercussions of that speech. I think Mozilla is a great organization and I don't like the idea of punishing Firefox users for Eich's views. On the other hand, it's 2014 and being against gay marriage is a pretty retrograde position. If he were against interracial marriage, would we even be arguing about this? Would he even have been named CEO?
  - swartzrock 13y ago
    You must have missed the 2008 part, the same year we elected a president who was against gay marriage.
    - ForHackernews 13y ago
      Honestly, I doubt Obama was ever really against gay marriage, he's just a politician who panders to whatever position he thought would get him the most votes. In 2008, the "moderate" position was to support civil unions, while opposing full equality. So that's what Obama did. Now, in 2014, the needle has shifted. Gay marriage has become increasingly mainstream.
im3w1l 13y ago
I for one want a browser created by people who value free speech and privacy rather than by people who severely punish the slightest misstep. The fact that some employees urge him to step down is therefore concerning to me. Will these people support handing over my data when it suits their ideological whims? Will they insert backdoors for that purpose?
- exodust 13y ago
  Exactly. Sounds like certain people at Mozilla drummed up a frenzy of ideology and personal views about something completely unrelated to their business, their customers, and everything about their product. Okcupid did the same. When are people going to understand that opposing gay marriage is not opposing gay people or the rights of gay people? Marriage didn't grow on trees, it's an artificial ceremony that happens to have associated laws and benefits. It also happens to have traditions. Marriage has an old fashioned vibe, it's no wonder so many people want it to remain between men and women. I'm all for extending those laws and benefits to same-sex couples, and will even go to their unofficial weddings. But if most people want marriage to officially remain a man-woman thing, is that so bad? It's about upholding tradition, it's not a big deal. Human rights are not being suppressed here, it's just marriage.

29 points by sylvinus 13y ago

fvt 13y ago

When private views become public, one should expect to be "judged" by others, especially when this person is explicitly enlisting the company he is working for in such a campaign and is a well-known field activist. AFAICT he _had_ to tell what company he was working for. On that very moment, I'm curious to known what went through his mind. Was there any hesitation? Was he realizing he was bringing Mozilla into this debate? My personal believes is that whether this was deliberate (bringing Mozilla explicitly) or not (being "forced" to list his employer), this was a really bad move you - as a board advisor or investor - will have to deal with and take public actions against.

michaelsbradley 13y ago

Thank you, Sylvain. I don't entirely agree with your line of reasoning but appreciate you're "stepping up" with this blog post.

sylvinus 13y ago
Thanks. As a conference organizer who's trying to welcome everyone to his events, it feels a bit risky, but ultimately right. Can you detail what you don't agree on? Happy to have a sane discussion here.
- michaelsbradley 13y ago
  I meant to imply that, according to my own beliefs and perspectives, I am inclined to judge Eich's actions and position a bit differently than yourself. However, we both agree that its important to "[move on] and talk about the Web", and I also agree with several points you raised as to why that's the case. I also realize that by publishing that blog post, you were potentially opening yourself up to a fair bit of vitriol, and I respect that you were willing to do so anyway.

uvTwitch 13y ago

I hope this results in people boycotting javascript too; that atrocity has long outstayed its' welcome.

angersock 13y ago

The additional damage and injury of OKC's actions here is that they are directly discouraging the use of perhaps one of the last great free and unencumbered browsers based on something that doesn't matter technically--and that a lot of people are going to switch just because of scary and hateful wording and possibly be hurt. Had they blocked Firefox users because of a security hole or layout glitch, that'd be fine--many of us have done the same upon finding somebody hitting our site with IE6 and requesting that they upgrade. Had they blocked Firefox because it was a competing product (as Microsoft has done at times), that'd make sense too, although it's a bit scummy. The problem though is that they've elected to block a particular browser based solely on the third-order actions of an employee of that company exercising their right to free speech. Legally, sure, they can do whatever they want, but we really ought to hold them to the same standard we seem to be holding Eich. Note, for example, that he sent some money into a cause and then the gears of politics ground and spat out what he'd supported--whereas fully 12% of people on OKC (according to their statistics) have been denied service on a whim. Even from a business standpoint, why would you inconvenience 12% of your customers? That's just silly. Because you can get away with it, because you are a gatekeeper of part of their social graph? That's just scummy. This is not how we should be behaving as a community.

sylvinus 13y ago
I think it still makes sense for them from a business standpoint because of the all the free publicity this has already given them :(
- angersock 13y ago
  There's no such thing as bad press, I suppose. :(
gaadd33 13y ago
You do know that they haven't denied service to anyone? The bottom of the notice has a link that says "Continue to OkCupid". At worst they've inconvenienced someone the same amount an interstitial does on Forbes or a similar site. Also is donating money considered "free speech"? Is that how Citizens United won their Supreme Court case?

dj-wonk 13y ago

Even if Brendan Eich has private views that I disagree with, I don't see a big problem here, because they are his private views, not those of Mozilla. Furthermore, people have a right to their own opinions, and I don't want corporations digging through contribution records to dig up dirt on who someone gave money to. This seems shameful to me; we're talking about a country that values free speech. "He is listed publicly as having donated to a campaign in support of California's Proposition 8 campaign in 2008, which had sought to ban gay marriage in the western US state." From: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-26830383 http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-26830383 Who knows why Mr. Eich gave this donation. Maybe he changed his mind since then. Maybe not. It should not matter. Correct me if I'm wrong -- and maybe I've naive -- but Mozilla should not be singled out for every action or donation that their CEO has taken. (Yes, I realize CEO's are high visibility people.) I am happy OKCupid is promoting marriage equality, but I don't like this particular way of doing it.

ForHackernews 13y ago
Free speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism or the repercussions of that speech. I think Mozilla is a great organization and I don't like the idea of punishing Firefox users for Eich's views. On the other hand, it's 2014 and being against gay marriage is a pretty retrograde position. If he were against interracial marriage, would we even be arguing about this? Would he even have been named CEO?
- swartzrock 13y ago
  You must have missed the 2008 part, the same year we elected a president who was against gay marriage.
  - ForHackernews 13y ago
    Honestly, I doubt Obama was ever really against gay marriage, he's just a politician who panders to whatever position he thought would get him the most votes. In 2008, the "moderate" position was to support civil unions, while opposing full equality. So that's what Obama did. Now, in 2014, the needle has shifted. Gay marriage has become increasingly mainstream.

im3w1l 13y ago

I for one want a browser created by people who value free speech and privacy rather than by people who severely punish the slightest misstep. The fact that some employees urge him to step down is therefore concerning to me. Will these people support handing over my data when it suits their ideological whims? Will they insert backdoors for that purpose?

exodust 13y ago
Exactly. Sounds like certain people at Mozilla drummed up a frenzy of ideology and personal views about something completely unrelated to their business, their customers, and everything about their product. Okcupid did the same. When are people going to understand that opposing gay marriage is not opposing gay people or the rights of gay people? Marriage didn't grow on trees, it's an artificial ceremony that happens to have associated laws and benefits. It also happens to have traditions. Marriage has an old fashioned vibe, it's no wonder so many people want it to remain between men and women. I'm all for extending those laws and benefits to same-sex couples, and will even go to their unofficial weddings. But if most people want marriage to officially remain a man-woman thing, is that so bad? It's about upholding tradition, it's not a big deal. Human rights are not being suppressed here, it's just marriage.