4 ms·

OKCupid seeks to block Mozilla Firefox over gay rights

49 points by teh_klev 13y ago

apsec112 13y ago
I am a big supporter of gay rights (and am myself bisexual), but I oppose this sort of thing, for reasons explained very well by the venerable Scott Alexander: "Constitutional freedom-of-speech is a necessary but not sufficient condition to have a “marketplace of ideas” and avoid de facto censorship. But people also have to understand that the correct response to “idea I disagree with” is “counterargument”, not “find some way to punish or financially ruin the person who expresses it.” If you respond with counterargument, then there’s a debate and eventually the people with better ideas win (as is very clearly happening right now with gay marriage). If there’s a norm of trying to punish the people with opposing views, then it doesn’t really matter whether you’re doing it with threats of political oppression, of financial ruin, or of social ostracism, the end result is the same – the group with the most money and popularity wins, any disagreeing ideas never get expressed. Atheists may one day be the group with the most money and popularity, but that day isn’t today and right now it’s neither moral nor in our self-interest to encourage using greater resources to steamroll opponents. It’s certainly not in gay people’s self-interest either. Why shouldn’t companies owned by Christians fire all gay people on the grounds that they are promoting sin? Right now it’s because we have a mutual truce in which we agree businesses should employ people based on their skills and merit rather than to reward their political allies and punish their political opponents. Once you undermine that, gay people are in a pretty precarious position. So I would turn your own hypothetical scenario in Part 2 of your post back on you. Suppose Robertson had indeed, been a gay rights supporter – or a gay person! – who said on national news he thought everyone should stand up for gay rights. But his company was going for the fundie demographic and decided to fire him for his statement. Would you be so quick to attack everyone who was disappointed in this action, so eager to stand up for the right of companies to fire anyone they disagree with?" http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/28/a-comment-i-posted-on-what-would-jt-do/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/28/a-comment-i-posted-on-w...
- stormbrew 13y ago
  There are two problems with this: - Everyone's voice (when it comes to money) is not equal. CEOs and corporations defacto have a greater voice in the public sphere than other people. The primary way for average people to counteract this is through controlling where, what, and who they spend their money on. By painting this as unethical you remove the voice of everyone who can't spend $1000 on a political campaign, which is usually a group that aligns with groups that are disproportionately harmed by policies like Prop8. It is not my responsibility to support a bigot with my money (or eyes that turn into money) in the name of some higher ideal of clean discourse the other side doesn't even play by. - No argument of moral equivalence can survive that rests on one side having real and practical harm done to it and the other none at all. No one's rights are infringed by gay marriage existing and many many people's rights are infringed by prop8. It's inherently oppressive to say that those people harmed by it should sit idly by and wait for the people picking up their hand, smacking it into their face, and saying "why are you hitting yourself?" to have a change of heart when there are no consequences for their public effort to harm them. One side gets to hit, the other side has no right to hit back? That's wrong. And on a somewhat tangent, I have not seen anyone call for him to be fired. Him being an employee of Mozilla is not a problem. Even being a founder or the creator of javascript. Being a CEO is not the same as being an employee, though, and carries with it a connection to the ethical core of a business. This has far more to do with him being appointed than with his political views directly.
  - apsec112 13y ago
    Right now, the United States is about evenly divided between people who support and oppose gay marriage. If everyone on the gay-marriage side "refuses to support bigots", and everyone on the anti-gay-marriage side "refuses to support sinners", then we wind up with two totally separate economies and social groups that don't talk to each other at all. This is very bad. You really, really don't want to live in a country where Blues can only eat in Blue restaurants and live in Blue apartments and wear Blue clothing, and Greens can only eat in Green restaurants and live in Green apartments and wear Green clothing. See: Northern Ireland, Iraq, Syria... "I am a pro-choice atheist. When I lived in Ireland, one of my friends was a pro-life Christian. I thought she was responsible for the unnecessary suffering of millions of women. She thought I was responsible for killing millions of babies. And yet she invited me over to her house for dinner without poisoning the food. And I ate it, and thanked her, and sent her a nice card, without smashing all her china. Please try not to be insufficiently surprised by this. Every time a Republican and a Democrat break bread together with good will, it is a miracle. It is an equilibrium as beneficial as civilization or liberalism, which developed in the total absence of any central enforcing authority." http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-community-and-civilization/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-co...
xarball 13y ago
I'm actually really offended by this... as a programmer, simply because it's imposing so much on me when I already support their conclusion. I just think okcupid is taking this too far. The Firefox browser is not inherently evil because one man in their organization has less than agreeable political views, especially when it comes down to the work of everyone who has helped with their mission! It's a damned good browser, and shouldn't be dismissed on the grounds of one man's political views alone. I'd sooner boycott okcupid for this suicidal mission of clawing at and destroying everything in the world that's related in the slightest to something that offends them. I will not support them in their gallant wrecklessness! Put simply: You have your own life. Same-sex partners can get married, adopt kids, and live your life the way you want to. But now you want to tell me what to do with mine, and what browser I should use? I don't understand how that makes any sense -- because it sounds like they're just twisting the practical problem in their favor, which doesn't relay the underlying message of letting people live their lives, without being oppressed or told what to do.
- yeppers 13y ago
  What? An intelligent statement? By someone whos a programmer and not a "social media expert" "tech blogger" or "founder"? But... but... we need a brainless politically correct discussion about what white knights in fedora hats are to do. Quick! Lets have a circle jerk about what's more socially acceptable and who's the most inoffensive between us! Oh white knight, where are you? We need you to tell everyone to "calm down" and about how you "understand where we're all coming from" and finish it off with a "people have the right to bla bla bla"
- freyrs3 13y ago
  This recent trend toward intermingling technology with social activism really scares me. Whether it be slapping a code of conduct on every project under the sun or refusing to support a browser because of some loose affiliation with an disagreeable individual, this has really reached an unhealthy level of coupling as of late. Most fields of study or work at least embrace the need to keep the commons apolitical since progress ( as in human progress ) depends on our ability to cooperate, interact, and share work regardless of the issues that divide us. I particularly agree with your choice of words, this mentality is just plain reckless.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
binarymax 13y ago
Huh? Does the BBC do April fools? I can't make this fit in my head as a joke...so I am left pondering how OK Cupid gets by while boycotting JavaScript, if they are so wound up about Mr Eich
- spicyj 13y ago
  Not a joke: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7504296 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7504296
lemonade 13y ago
I think it would be more suitable to not allow any Javascript to be used on the website. As an avid NoScript user that is how I like my sites anyway ;)
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
jedanbik 13y ago
I think it's brilliant. None of my single gay friends out of tech knew about this guy before OKC made the announcement, but now? Now they know. Now they are informed.
- bobzimuta 13y ago
  What will really happen? I'm looking forward to the conversations over coffee. Janette: So Bob, I asked you for coffee because I need to talk to you about something serious. Me: ... Ok?! Janette: What browser do you use? Is it Firefox? Me: Uh, yeah. Why? Janette: Well, the CEO ... ... ... Me: Fack off.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - jedanbik 13y ago
    Food for thought: http://modelviewculture.com/pieces/dissent-unheard-of http://modelviewculture.com/pieces/dissent-unheard-of
neverminder 13y ago
OKCupid decides to help the competition. I hope match.com sends them a cake.
- mcv 13y ago
  It's all the same company anyway.
grey-area 13y ago
People and the things they make are quite different entities. The opinions of the creators of a web browser are unimportant if that web browser has no opinions on gay marriage. This is an interesting debate (should you boycott a thing, because you disagree with the person who made it?), but it is asking the wrong question. It reminds me of Lenin's feelings about Beethoven - how could a bourgeois create such wonderful music! Instead of questioning the framework of thinking which led him there, he claimed to avoid listening to the music in case it made him bourgeois. Many human creations which we value as a culture were by outspoken and sometimes abusive people - Gill Sans, Francis Bacon, Picasso, Lewis Carroll, Wagner, Caravaggio etc. I think their work should stand alone, separate from any other views they might have had, and be judged on its own merits and the messages it contains, not on other messages their authors promulgated or actions they took.
bobzimuta 13y ago
IDGAF. Tools are tools. Should I throw up messages to users on Chrome that Google's CEO feels x or supports y (given any x or y I can find on the first page of search results)? Or maybe I should warn iOS users about Foxconn's treatment of factory laborers. I've written code for the benefit of Reddit and seen its use pop up in a white supremacy subreddit. Do I care? Should I censor or ban its use? No. Congrats okcupid, you've won the prize for worst proselytization attempt.
abhinavk 13y ago
Are they also planning to ban use of JavaScript on their website because you know, Brendan Eich created the language.
- zimpenfish 13y ago
  Presumably that was before he actively donated to a campaign hoping to deny people basic human rights?
  - k-mcgrady 13y ago
    >> "Presumably that was before he actively donated to a campaign hoping to deny people basic human rights?" I'm 100% for equality but what basic human rights are being denied to homosexuals in America? They are being denied some rights that heterosexuals have but if they are being denied 'basic human rights' I'd really like to know (seriously) as I can't come up with any.
    - zimpenfish 13y ago
      Do you not think it's a basic human right to marry who you want? To get the legal protections of that institution? To be allowed to visit your lifelong partner in hospital, for example?
      - k-mcgrady 13y ago
        >> "Do you not think it's a basic human right to marry who you want?" Not a basic human right, no. Food, water, shelter, those are basic human rights. Marriage is a made up concept. >> "To get the legal protections of that institution? To be allowed to visit your lifelong partner in hospital, for example?" Again I wouldn't classify these as 'basic human rights'. It's disgraceful that people can't avail of these benefits because of their sexuality and that should change. Like I said, I'm 100% against discrimination based on sexuality I'm just objecting to your use of the term 'basic human right'. I think the real issue here isn't that gay people can't get married in some places - it's that anyone who does get married gets benefits that non-married people don't get. For example if a heterosexual couple who had been in a lifelong relationship never got married they would also face the dilemma you presented of not being allowed to visit each other in hospital.
praeivis 13y ago
OKCupid should stop use JS instead.
taylodl 13y ago
The most galling thing is they directed people to use an alternate browser, such as Internet Explorer. I'm sorry - whatever sins Brendan Eich may have committed pale in comparison to the evil Microsoft - THE CORPORATION - has wrought on the world over the course of the past 25 years.
facepalm 13y ago
Even some gay people are against gay marriage. I can think of rational reasons to oppose it without being opposed to homosexuality in general. For example you could view marriage as having the main point of supporting children. I'm not saying I agree with that view, just that perhaps this is an issue where there is no absolute truth, just different priorities. And then the democratic process decides the outcome, but people on the losing side should be respected. I don't know anything about Brendan Eich, it just seems to me that labeling him homophobic is probably rather thoughtless and might be unwarranted.
mrt0mat0 13y ago
No. JUST NO. This is getting out of hand. You want to change the way people think, you do it through public discourse. You want to change the laws, you do it through votes. You lost a vote. Try again next time when you have more support. Don't hate a person and try to ruin their life because you think the world needs to function how you see it. I don't care anymore if I get downvoted. This HAS TO STOP. We HAVE TO STOP THIS. These people are hypocrites and I'm sick of it. I may vote against gay rights laws because they think they can manipulate the system. Sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it. Well, it's the same goddamn thing!

49 points by teh_klev 13y ago

I am a big supporter of gay rights (and am myself bisexual), but I oppose this sort of thing, for reasons explained very well by the venerable Scott Alexander: "Constitutional freedom-of-speech is a necessary but not sufficient condition to have a “marketplace of ideas” and avoid de facto censorship. But people also have to understand that the correct response to “idea I disagree with” is “counterargument”, not “find some way to punish or financially ruin the person who expresses it.” If you respond with counterargument, then there’s a debate and eventually the people with better ideas win (as is very clearly happening right now with gay marriage). If there’s a norm of trying to punish the people with opposing views, then it doesn’t really matter whether you’re doing it with threats of political oppression, of financial ruin, or of social ostracism, the end result is the same – the group with the most money and popularity wins, any disagreeing ideas never get expressed. Atheists may one day be the group with the most money and popularity, but that day isn’t today and right now it’s neither moral nor in our self-interest to encourage using greater resources to steamroll opponents. It’s certainly not in gay people’s self-interest either. Why shouldn’t companies owned by Christians fire all gay people on the grounds that they are promoting sin? Right now it’s because we have a mutual truce in which we agree businesses should employ people based on their skills and merit rather than to reward their political allies and punish their political opponents. Once you undermine that, gay people are in a pretty precarious position. So I would turn your own hypothetical scenario in Part 2 of your post back on you. Suppose Robertson had indeed, been a gay rights supporter – or a gay person! – who said on national news he thought everyone should stand up for gay rights. But his company was going for the fundie demographic and decided to fire him for his statement. Would you be so quick to attack everyone who was disappointed in this action, so eager to stand up for the right of companies to fire anyone they disagree with?" http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/28/a-comment-i-posted-on-what-would-jt-do/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/28/a-comment-i-posted-on-w...

stormbrew 13y ago
There are two problems with this: - Everyone's voice (when it comes to money) is not equal. CEOs and corporations defacto have a greater voice in the public sphere than other people. The primary way for average people to counteract this is through controlling where, what, and who they spend their money on. By painting this as unethical you remove the voice of everyone who can't spend $1000 on a political campaign, which is usually a group that aligns with groups that are disproportionately harmed by policies like Prop8. It is not my responsibility to support a bigot with my money (or eyes that turn into money) in the name of some higher ideal of clean discourse the other side doesn't even play by. - No argument of moral equivalence can survive that rests on one side having real and practical harm done to it and the other none at all. No one's rights are infringed by gay marriage existing and many many people's rights are infringed by prop8. It's inherently oppressive to say that those people harmed by it should sit idly by and wait for the people picking up their hand, smacking it into their face, and saying "why are you hitting yourself?" to have a change of heart when there are no consequences for their public effort to harm them. One side gets to hit, the other side has no right to hit back? That's wrong. And on a somewhat tangent, I have not seen anyone call for him to be fired. Him being an employee of Mozilla is not a problem. Even being a founder or the creator of javascript. Being a CEO is not the same as being an employee, though, and carries with it a connection to the ethical core of a business. This has far more to do with him being appointed than with his political views directly.
- apsec112 13y ago
  Right now, the United States is about evenly divided between people who support and oppose gay marriage. If everyone on the gay-marriage side "refuses to support bigots", and everyone on the anti-gay-marriage side "refuses to support sinners", then we wind up with two totally separate economies and social groups that don't talk to each other at all. This is very bad. You really, really don't want to live in a country where Blues can only eat in Blue restaurants and live in Blue apartments and wear Blue clothing, and Greens can only eat in Green restaurants and live in Green apartments and wear Green clothing. See: Northern Ireland, Iraq, Syria... "I am a pro-choice atheist. When I lived in Ireland, one of my friends was a pro-life Christian. I thought she was responsible for the unnecessary suffering of millions of women. She thought I was responsible for killing millions of babies. And yet she invited me over to her house for dinner without poisoning the food. And I ate it, and thanked her, and sent her a nice card, without smashing all her china. Please try not to be insufficiently surprised by this. Every time a Republican and a Democrat break bread together with good will, it is a miracle. It is an equilibrium as beneficial as civilization or liberalism, which developed in the total absence of any central enforcing authority." http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-community-and-civilization/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-co...

xarball 13y ago

I'm actually really offended by this... as a programmer, simply because it's imposing so much on me when I already support their conclusion. I just think okcupid is taking this too far. The Firefox browser is not inherently evil because one man in their organization has less than agreeable political views, especially when it comes down to the work of everyone who has helped with their mission! It's a damned good browser, and shouldn't be dismissed on the grounds of one man's political views alone. I'd sooner boycott okcupid for this suicidal mission of clawing at and destroying everything in the world that's related in the slightest to something that offends them. I will not support them in their gallant wrecklessness! Put simply: You have your own life. Same-sex partners can get married, adopt kids, and live your life the way you want to. But now you want to tell me what to do with mine, and what browser I should use? I don't understand how that makes any sense -- because it sounds like they're just twisting the practical problem in their favor, which doesn't relay the underlying message of letting people live their lives, without being oppressed or told what to do.

yeppers 13y ago
What? An intelligent statement? By someone whos a programmer and not a "social media expert" "tech blogger" or "founder"? But... but... we need a brainless politically correct discussion about what white knights in fedora hats are to do. Quick! Lets have a circle jerk about what's more socially acceptable and who's the most inoffensive between us! Oh white knight, where are you? We need you to tell everyone to "calm down" and about how you "understand where we're all coming from" and finish it off with a "people have the right to bla bla bla"
freyrs3 13y ago
This recent trend toward intermingling technology with social activism really scares me. Whether it be slapping a code of conduct on every project under the sun or refusing to support a browser because of some loose affiliation with an disagreeable individual, this has really reached an unhealthy level of coupling as of late. Most fields of study or work at least embrace the need to keep the commons apolitical since progress ( as in human progress ) depends on our ability to cooperate, interact, and share work regardless of the issues that divide us. I particularly agree with your choice of words, this mentality is just plain reckless.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

binarymax 13y ago

Huh? Does the BBC do April fools? I can't make this fit in my head as a joke...so I am left pondering how OK Cupid gets by while boycotting JavaScript, if they are so wound up about Mr Eich

spicyj 13y ago
Not a joke: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7504296 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7504296

lemonade 13y ago

I think it would be more suitable to not allow any Javascript to be used on the website. As an avid NoScript user that is how I like my sites anyway ;)

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

jedanbik 13y ago

I think it's brilliant. None of my single gay friends out of tech knew about this guy before OKC made the announcement, but now? Now they know. Now they are informed.

bobzimuta 13y ago
What will really happen? I'm looking forward to the conversations over coffee. Janette: So Bob, I asked you for coffee because I need to talk to you about something serious. Me: ... Ok?! Janette: What browser do you use? Is it Firefox? Me: Uh, yeah. Why? Janette: Well, the CEO ... ... ... Me: Fack off.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- jedanbik 13y ago
  Food for thought: http://modelviewculture.com/pieces/dissent-unheard-of http://modelviewculture.com/pieces/dissent-unheard-of

neverminder 13y ago

OKCupid decides to help the competition. I hope match.com sends them a cake.

mcv 13y ago
It's all the same company anyway.

grey-area 13y ago

People and the things they make are quite different entities. The opinions of the creators of a web browser are unimportant if that web browser has no opinions on gay marriage. This is an interesting debate (should you boycott a thing, because you disagree with the person who made it?), but it is asking the wrong question. It reminds me of Lenin's feelings about Beethoven - how could a bourgeois create such wonderful music! Instead of questioning the framework of thinking which led him there, he claimed to avoid listening to the music in case it made him bourgeois. Many human creations which we value as a culture were by outspoken and sometimes abusive people - Gill Sans, Francis Bacon, Picasso, Lewis Carroll, Wagner, Caravaggio etc. I think their work should stand alone, separate from any other views they might have had, and be judged on its own merits and the messages it contains, not on other messages their authors promulgated or actions they took.

bobzimuta 13y ago

IDGAF. Tools are tools. Should I throw up messages to users on Chrome that Google's CEO feels x or supports y (given any x or y I can find on the first page of search results)? Or maybe I should warn iOS users about Foxconn's treatment of factory laborers. I've written code for the benefit of Reddit and seen its use pop up in a white supremacy subreddit. Do I care? Should I censor or ban its use? No. Congrats okcupid, you've won the prize for worst proselytization attempt.

abhinavk 13y ago

Are they also planning to ban use of JavaScript on their website because you know, Brendan Eich created the language.

zimpenfish 13y ago
Presumably that was before he actively donated to a campaign hoping to deny people basic human rights?
- k-mcgrady 13y ago
  >> "Presumably that was before he actively donated to a campaign hoping to deny people basic human rights?" I'm 100% for equality but what basic human rights are being denied to homosexuals in America? They are being denied some rights that heterosexuals have but if they are being denied 'basic human rights' I'd really like to know (seriously) as I can't come up with any.
  - zimpenfish 13y ago
    Do you not think it's a basic human right to marry who you want? To get the legal protections of that institution? To be allowed to visit your lifelong partner in hospital, for example?
    - k-mcgrady 13y ago
      >> "Do you not think it's a basic human right to marry who you want?" Not a basic human right, no. Food, water, shelter, those are basic human rights. Marriage is a made up concept. >> "To get the legal protections of that institution? To be allowed to visit your lifelong partner in hospital, for example?" Again I wouldn't classify these as 'basic human rights'. It's disgraceful that people can't avail of these benefits because of their sexuality and that should change. Like I said, I'm 100% against discrimination based on sexuality I'm just objecting to your use of the term 'basic human right'. I think the real issue here isn't that gay people can't get married in some places - it's that anyone who does get married gets benefits that non-married people don't get. For example if a heterosexual couple who had been in a lifelong relationship never got married they would also face the dilemma you presented of not being allowed to visit each other in hospital.

praeivis 13y ago

OKCupid should stop use JS instead.

taylodl 13y ago

The most galling thing is they directed people to use an alternate browser, such as Internet Explorer. I'm sorry - whatever sins Brendan Eich may have committed pale in comparison to the evil Microsoft - THE CORPORATION - has wrought on the world over the course of the past 25 years.

facepalm 13y ago

Even some gay people are against gay marriage. I can think of rational reasons to oppose it without being opposed to homosexuality in general. For example you could view marriage as having the main point of supporting children. I'm not saying I agree with that view, just that perhaps this is an issue where there is no absolute truth, just different priorities. And then the democratic process decides the outcome, but people on the losing side should be respected. I don't know anything about Brendan Eich, it just seems to me that labeling him homophobic is probably rather thoughtless and might be unwarranted.

mrt0mat0 13y ago

No. JUST NO. This is getting out of hand. You want to change the way people think, you do it through public discourse. You want to change the laws, you do it through votes. You lost a vote. Try again next time when you have more support. Don't hate a person and try to ruin their life because you think the world needs to function how you see it. I don't care anymore if I get downvoted. This HAS TO STOP. We HAVE TO STOP THIS. These people are hypocrites and I'm sick of it. I may vote against gay rights laws because they think they can manipulate the system. Sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it. Well, it's the same goddamn thing!