9 ms·

Mozilla CEO: Gay-marriage firestorm could hurt Firefox

47 points by caiobegotti 13y ago

nashashmi 13y ago
It really hurts to know that a person is being ostracized for having political views. I think the pro-gay crowd has gone too far when they try to push an individual to support "their" stance, or punish them if they don't. We should be living in world of balance with supporters on both sides, not one in which there is fear for expressing or having expressed belief.
- argumentum 13y ago
  Would you not agree that the "pro-gay" crowd has the right to express their beliefs about who should be in charge of a product they use? I don't know much about this situation, or Mr. Eich, however, as far as I can tell, that's free speech too.
  - aimhb 13y ago
    And they do. They aren't being silenced.
    - Lerc 13y ago
      And neither is Eich. Freedom of expression does not indemnify people from how people react to your expression.
- nollidge 13y ago
  > It really hurts to know that a person is being ostracized for having political views. Are you also Super Concerned about LGBT folks being ostracized by oppressive policies? This isn't some abstract fucking debate to them. > We should be living in world of balance Fuck that. We should be living in a world of justice.
- breadbox 13y ago
  You can see it as punishing an individual. But for others, it's more an issue of not supporting someone who is trying to make their lives miserable.
- MichaelGG 13y ago
  >We should be living in world of balance with supporters on both sides, No, we should not. We should live in a world with correct ideas, full stop. Some ideas are stupid, like racism, creationism, or flat-earth models, and don't deserve "balance". What you call "pro-gay" is actually a human rights issue. Certainly everyone would be all over him if he was promoting racism, right? Or donating to groups to track down and execute people that have committed apostasy? Certainly Stormfront shouldn't be ostracized for having "political views". Where do you draw the line? Is disliking gay people to the extent of wanting to deny them rights less important than Mozilla's goals? Edit: I don't mean to imply that people shouldn't be able to hold incorrect (untrue) beliefs - free speech and thought should be strongly defended. But beliefs are obviously invalid and it should be fair to judge and dismiss people stating untrue things. We don't leap to someone's defense when they say the Earth is flat, why should we defend "two sides" for human rights depending on sexual preference?
  - vezzy-fnord 13y ago
    Is disliking gay people to the extent of wanting to deny them rights less important than Mozilla's goals? I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion that Eich is an overt homophobe. His intentions are still unclear.
    - beedogs 13y ago
      He donated money to prevent gay marriage. It's not really much of a stretch to conclude he's a homophobe. His intentions are pretty transparently obvious.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - joelrunyon 13y ago
- momerath 13y ago
  I agree with you in the short term, and disagree in the ideal/long-term. I think we can replace this pachinko machine of representative democracy, not with some one or two dimensional direct-democracy, but with the kind of thing that cypherpunks have been thinking about for decades. But in the short-term, the current zeitgeist, which I _rejoice_ in, as an ex-mormon 'queer' person (so queer I can't categorize myself), I am stricken by the thought that Mozilla may be suffocated by people I would like to hold hands with.
- uvTwitch 13y ago
  It is great that people are being ostracized for having primitive, hateful beliefs, and society is making it known that demented opinions such as this will not be tolerated, and that a carrier of such beliefs taints everything they are associated with.
- ubernostrum 13y ago
  If the "pro-gay crowd" were pushing to deny Brendan's basic human rights on the basis of who he is, you might have a case. Brendan supported Proposition 8, which had but one purpose: to deny to a certain group of people a right which is recognized in the US as fundamental. If you're unable to see the difference between disliking someone else's marriage, and campaigning to have their marriage annulled by law, perhaps you should examine that more closely.
tinalumfoil 13y ago
It's ridiculous that people can't join causes because of their political beliefs. So the community is saying we don't want people standing up for free software if they are also against gay marriage. Should we go all-out liberal and say representatives of our cause must be pro-abortion, pro-pot, pro-gun control, pro-socialized healthcare? Hell, the conservatives can do the same thing too! We'll make sure there's only 2 political parties you can vote for and if you like some ideas from one and some from the other, too bad! All your opinions must be grouped together, and the whole world should be divided into 2 opposite ends. Or we can live in a world where we respect everyone's beliefs. We can allow them to join both liberal and conservative causes, because we're not 2 political parties fighting but individual humans all trying to make the world a better place? It's amazing the mentality with politics these days, where people have to risk their life just for standing up for themselves.
- nollidge 13y ago
  > Or we can live in a world where we respect everyone's beliefs. Why? Some beliefs are stupid and/or harmful. Why should I respect bad ideas?
  - artacus 13y ago
    Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. Gilbert K. Chesterton
    - dang 13y ago
      Chesterton was talented, but he was glib. Tolerance is one of the most difficult virtues and we need a lot more of it on Hacker News.
  - Pacabel 13y ago
    I don't think he necessarily meant that you need to respect the beliefs themselves, especially if you don't agree with them. Rather, I think it's more about everyone respecting the ability of everyone else to hold their own set of beliefs, even if you disagree with theirs, and even if they may disagree with yours. In this particular incident we've seen a lot of hypocrisy. We've seen a lot of people calling for "tolerance" and "equality", yet to them that means merely that their viewpoint must be the only one that can be held or expressed. It ends up being a very quaint, twisted interpretation of tolerance and equality.
alecdbrooks 13y ago
>A world without Firefox and without Firefox OS and without our approach to putting the user at the center of cloud services instead of having users get pulled into walled gardens -- I think that would be a pretty dark world. What Eich fails to see that for many people, we are only just moving away from the "dark world" where gay marriage is illegal. I appreciate his work for Mozilla, but it's double-think to advocate "inclusivity" while promoting narrow views of marriage.
- ctdonath 13y ago
  "Gay marriage" has nothing to do with OSS web browsers. 'tis a dark world where people cannot work toward common goals when their views on completely unrelated subjects differ.
  - breadbox 13y ago
    If the owner of my neighborhood coffee shop had gone on record as supporting SOPA/PIPA/et al, I would be strongly inclined to stop going to that coffeeshop and giving them any of my money. I would also tell my friends about the situation so that they might also take similar actions if they felt so inclined. I can tell you that, in the context of this hypothetical situation, any arguments that my actions are uncalled-for because "coffee has nothing to do with the Internet" would not have much impact on me.
    - parennoob 13y ago
      What if it was a co-operative store selling coffee and only the main manager was supporting SOPA? That's more like how the Firefox situation is. These boycotts will inevitably hurt Mozilla employees as a whole, both gay and straight -- way more than they will hurt Eich personally.
      - vacri 13y ago
        A store that was also actively engaged in Fair Trade coffee, unlike its major competitors.
peteforde 13y ago
It says a lot when you have to point to Indonesian homophobes to support your position.
- vacri 13y ago
  The article mentions Indonesia because that's where some publicly-acknowledged contributors are. Your comment mentions Indonesia like it's a backwater to be looked down on. Would your comment have been different if the other homophobes were local to Eich? In defence of homosexual marriage, you seem happy to promote racism.
- parennoob 13y ago
  Probably falling into the trap of combating snark with snark here, but it says a lot about you that you are pointing to people in Indonesia who don't believe in gay marriage as some kind of loony, fringe, obscure group whose name is not even worth invoking in a debate. Tolerance means trying to accept a wide range of people and beliefs. And gay marriage, unfortunately, is against that of a lot of people. Whether we try to get them fired, or, in the Gandhian way, try to use love to get across our message peacefully, says a lot about our tolerance in the first place. [Edit: Also, now imagine if a bunch of people of Indonesian extraction started a "Stop Pete XXXXX from hosting Y event because he is racist!" (where "X", "Y" is stuff mentioned in your profile/username) petition. How would you feel then? I think the same feelings, only to a far greater extent, are the ones going through Eich's mind. It's hard to put yourself in the mindset of someone you instinctively dislike, but try it.]
  - dang 13y ago
    Probably falling into the trap of combating snark with snark here, but it says a lot about you Yes. Please don't combat snark with snark on HN. It never helps, only provokes.
    - parennoob 13y ago
      Sorry, duly noted; and I also apologize to 'peteforde for said snark above.
jballanc 13y ago
I've often found that when an issue divides a group that would otherwise cooperate willingly, the problem is that the two sides are battling over the wrong issue. In this case, the CEO-ship of Brendan Eich has been continually rehashed as an issue of freedom of thought/opinion/speech vs bigotry and exclusion...but that's not the real issue. The real issue is money as speech. I'd wager that most of those against Eich's position would not begrudge anyone freedom of opinion, or private speech, or even public speech so long as such opinions or speech did not elevate to action. On the other hand had Eich fired a LGBT staffer based on their sexual orientation, not only would he be in the wrong legally, but I think even those carrying the banner of free speech in this case would agree that his promotion was wrong. So the real question is: by donating money to the Proposition 8 cause, was Eich exercising his right to free speech? or was he taking a discriminatory action? Of course, you may note this is exactly the same issue in question with the Citizen's United decision. I think this larger question, is money speech or action, will be one of the most important questions of our time...
- nthj 13y ago
  > So the real question is: by donating money to the Proposition 8 cause, was Eich exercising his right to free speech? or was he taking a discriminatory action? As I learned in High School Debate Club, most un-winnable, never-ending arguments are actually disagreements over definitions.
  - joelrunyon 13y ago
    > never-ending arguments are actually disagreements over definitions. If we actually had these debates, I wonder how many people would realize that their actual viewpoints aren't that far off of each other after all.
    - throwaway344 13y ago
      Yeah, in most competitive debate events, sides are predetermined, thus each competitor has the incentive to continue to argue ad infinitum about the most basic points, for instance as I debated much over the last several months, what exactly the word "substantially" means. Due to that, the competitor's real views are irrelevant.
beedogs 13y ago
> Though Eich refuses to discuss his own beliefs explicitly or say whether they've changed, he disagreed with the assertion that being opposed to gay-marriage rights is equivalent to being sexist or racist, and he said political and religious speech is still protected. Really? Really?? This guy's a CEO and yet he can't figure out why he's so dreadfully wrong on this one? Doesn't bode well for the future of Mozilla.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- TD-Linux 13y ago
  http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1303282&view=received&session=2007 http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx... Note I haven't managed to find Eich's name yet. He may have donated to some other cause, but this was the most publicized list in 2009.
dmazin 13y ago
This article reads a bit like a shill piece. "It's pretty clear that people have latched onto this issue as a way to express their own political beliefs." seems too loaded in Eich's favor to be part of a respectable interview question.
TD-Linux 13y ago
What do you guys want out of this? Do you want Eich to step down from CEO to CTO? Quit Mozilla entirely (and never get employment at any other company you use?) Issue a statement publicly renouncing his views? Would it be better if he publicly lied about his views? Are we promoting an environment where you have to announce all the "correct" political positions to gain employment?
- vishaldpatel 13y ago
  I guess this depends on how important the issue is. In this case, it seems to be an issue which is fairly important to a lot of people - that of civil liberties.
  - joelrunyon 13y ago
    Wouldn't the most "pro-civil-liberties" position be to have the government not be involved in a private arrangement between two citizens - regardless of gender?
- joe_the_user 13y ago
  What do you guys want out of this? Do you want Eich to step down from CEO to CTO? That would be a fine solution, really. Is the argument that CEO is a position unlike other positions that hard to grasp? The CEO is the "face" of a company and not just a worker.
  - Pacabel 13y ago
    It's kind of absurd to see this sort of contradictory reasoning. I think there'd be outrage if it was suggested that some employee of some company should be fired just because he chose to spend his own time and/or money supporting a pro-gay cause. Yet as we've seen in this case, it's apparently deemed perfectly acceptable by those who'd be outraged in the other case to level the exact same kind of discrimination against somebody who supports an opposite viewpoint. I can't see how such contradictory behavior will help garner support. Fighting discrimination with discrimination is self-defeating.
  - 13y ago
xmonkee 13y ago
Tldr: inclusive, inclusive, inclusive... Unless you are gay and want to be included as an equal citizen.
- joshlegs 13y ago
  I really think that people need to understand the difference in personal and professional life. In fact, the tendency to make the two collide is one of the biggest problems with this whole stinking country. People have personal lives, and they have professional lives, and others really don't need to go about trying to confuse the two.
  - xmonkee 13y ago
    Paying money to influence policy that oppresses a group of people isn't your "personal" fucking life. It's personal only if it doesn't affect other people. I really really respect this dude, he's straight up legend. And no, I don't think he should quit as CEO of Moz, that's totally unrelated to his politics, if that was your point. But I do think it's really annoying when bigotry is supported in the name of inclusiveness. You think it's okay to ruin someone's happiness with your megabucks, yet you talk about inclusiveness? Get the fuck out. This interview is bullshit.
dogmatix 13y ago
He's not wrong, he's just an arsehole.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- ossreality 13y ago
  Sorry to hear "we" aren't fighting "our" battle the way you'd like us to. No, no I'm not sorry.
- joelrunyon 13y ago
  Having known quite a few people on both sides, I'm struck at how poor both sides are at the communication, understanding & articulation of their beliefs despite being good individuals on either side. It's that whole communication thing...
- intslack 13y ago
  It also tires me that the all of the opposite side is being labelled as "homophobic bigots," just look at the extremism in this very thread with comparisons of Eich to the KKK. Growing up, my deeply religious immediate and extended family was surprised by my turning out to be the black swan secularist. As you alluded to I find that, as usual, ignorance breeds these misunderstandings. Having many personal discussions with many the deeply religious, I can honestly say that the majority do have empathy for those who are being discriminated against, abused, disowned, lynched and executed because of their expression of gender identity. This isn't a hate issue. This is an ignorance issue. Instead of shaming those like Eich, who (assumedly) take issue with their idea of the institution of marriage being trampled (which is reinforced by herd mentality), we should all try and engage personally to make them understand. Does that mean we should respect their beliefs? No, but we should strive for dialogue.
steven2012 13y ago
Eich is going to destroy Mozilla over his own ego of wanting to be CEO, when anyone worth their CEO-salt knows that there is no chance in hell that they can effectively lead with this much controversy hanging over their head.
- Pacabel 13y ago
  Realistically, if anything is going to "destroy" Mozilla, it'll probably have much more to do with their software offerings than with this particular incident. I'm talking about things like Firefox trying to imitate Chrome at the expense of usability. Or the abandonment of Thunderbird. Or resources wasted on a failed effort like Persona, or wasted on software like Firefox OS that's inherently inferior to its many well-established competitors. Mozilla's influence is directly related to the number of people using its software products. I see far more of its existing users moving away from its software due to usability problems or a lack of maintenance than I see moving due to purely political anger directed toward Eich.
- camus2 13y ago
  it's feels like they are desperate at Mozilla corp... not sure they are going to last long... and this has damage Mozilla and Firefox brand permanently.
deadlysyntax 13y ago
I was humoured to read that people have boycotted Mozilla, guarantee they don't boycott javascript, which he invented.
- dsil 13y ago
  There's no point to doing that. He can't step down or be removed as the inventor of javascript, but he could step down or be removed as CEO of Mozilla.
  - deadlysyntax 13y ago
    No point and too inconvenient.
lawnchair_larry 13y ago
Unfortunately for Eich and his supporters, he's now in the awkward position of having to convince everyone that they should tolerate his intolerance. It's going to take one hell of a silver tongue to do that with your foot wedged firmly in your mouth.
- joelrunyon 13y ago
  It's ironic that people are intolerant of intolerance. I get the 'tit for tat' argument, but if you're trying to get rid of an oppressive opinion by being oppressive, you're not really getting anywhere. You can't really "force" anyone to believe anything. If you have to "make" someone believe something by force, then it doesn't seem like your argument is strong enough to stand on your own (a statement that's applicable to both sides of this debate).
klepra 13y ago
So ... javascript is created by homophobe :(
joelrunyon 13y ago
> Eich: Two things. One is -- without getting into my personal beliefs, which I separate from my Mozilla work -- when people learned of the donation, they felt pain. I saw that in friends' eyes, [friends] who are LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered]. I saw that in 2012. I am sorry for causing that pain. To everyone yelling about bigotry & discrimination, if you actually read the article & those words, those don't sound like the words of a bigot to me.
- Udo 13y ago
  I think the idea that religious extremists are always assholes is convenient but unrealistic. Most of the time, most of them are just normal people, even pleasant ones. I'm not sure phrasing it as being a bigot or not is helpful, and neither is the money/speech categorization. Not knowing Mr Eich personally, I'd give him the benefit of doubt. I believe him when he says that he has LGBT friends, and that they were hurt by his actions, and that maybe he was sorry for causing that pain. It must be deeply uncomfortable to believe in something that compels a person to hurt their friends. It's not his religious views per se that got him into hot water, it's the willingness to use legislation to deny a group of people equal rights which still stands as an unethical act. Speaking as someone who both admires Eich as a technologist but was disappointed by the message Mozilla was conveying by his appointment as CEO, I really don't care that much if he's a religious fanatic. It's not only his right to believe these things, it also doesn't really matter. His achievements can very well stand on their own, and likewise acknowledging the achievements of a person does not imply endorsing all of their beliefs. Beyond the initial ethics violation, Mr Eich has done nothing wrong that I can see. The fault lies solely with the Mozilla board for appointing him to a position that consists of little else but projecting the public image of the foundation.
  - joelrunyon 13y ago
    I just wanted to say I appreciated a well thought out & reasoned comment in a discussion filled with people yelling "bigot", "homophobe" at a person they don't know personally. There's often several lenses to see things through. People are complicated, messy things.
- 13y ago
bakhy 13y ago
i dislike this spin here. boycotting a company, asking for resignations, these are common methods of protest. yet, when LGBT people do the same, we are being "exclusive"? we must accept any kind of views of Mozilla's CEO, otherwise its openness is lost and Firefox will fail? that's just silly. personally, i'm most tired of this argument, that it's important for "freedom" to let people discriminate me in peace. that i should not complain about being discriminated, lest i ruin the freedom of society. i love Firefox, and I'm still using it. never got this close to reconsidering that decision before.

47 points by caiobegotti 13y ago

It really hurts to know that a person is being ostracized for having political views. I think the pro-gay crowd has gone too far when they try to push an individual to support "their" stance, or punish them if they don't. We should be living in world of balance with supporters on both sides, not one in which there is fear for expressing or having expressed belief.

argumentum 13y ago
Would you not agree that the "pro-gay" crowd has the right to express their beliefs about who should be in charge of a product they use? I don't know much about this situation, or Mr. Eich, however, as far as I can tell, that's free speech too.
- aimhb 13y ago
  And they do. They aren't being silenced.
  - Lerc 13y ago
    And neither is Eich. Freedom of expression does not indemnify people from how people react to your expression.
nollidge 13y ago
> It really hurts to know that a person is being ostracized for having political views. Are you also Super Concerned about LGBT folks being ostracized by oppressive policies? This isn't some abstract fucking debate to them. > We should be living in world of balance Fuck that. We should be living in a world of justice.
breadbox 13y ago
You can see it as punishing an individual. But for others, it's more an issue of not supporting someone who is trying to make their lives miserable.
MichaelGG 13y ago
>We should be living in world of balance with supporters on both sides, No, we should not. We should live in a world with correct ideas, full stop. Some ideas are stupid, like racism, creationism, or flat-earth models, and don't deserve "balance". What you call "pro-gay" is actually a human rights issue. Certainly everyone would be all over him if he was promoting racism, right? Or donating to groups to track down and execute people that have committed apostasy? Certainly Stormfront shouldn't be ostracized for having "political views". Where do you draw the line? Is disliking gay people to the extent of wanting to deny them rights less important than Mozilla's goals? Edit: I don't mean to imply that people shouldn't be able to hold incorrect (untrue) beliefs - free speech and thought should be strongly defended. But beliefs are obviously invalid and it should be fair to judge and dismiss people stating untrue things. We don't leap to someone's defense when they say the Earth is flat, why should we defend "two sides" for human rights depending on sexual preference?
- vezzy-fnord 13y ago
  Is disliking gay people to the extent of wanting to deny them rights less important than Mozilla's goals? I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion that Eich is an overt homophobe. His intentions are still unclear.
  - beedogs 13y ago
    He donated money to prevent gay marriage. It's not really much of a stretch to conclude he's a homophobe. His intentions are pretty transparently obvious.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
    - joelrunyon 13y ago
momerath 13y ago
I agree with you in the short term, and disagree in the ideal/long-term. I think we can replace this pachinko machine of representative democracy, not with some one or two dimensional direct-democracy, but with the kind of thing that cypherpunks have been thinking about for decades. But in the short-term, the current zeitgeist, which I _rejoice_ in, as an ex-mormon 'queer' person (so queer I can't categorize myself), I am stricken by the thought that Mozilla may be suffocated by people I would like to hold hands with.
uvTwitch 13y ago
It is great that people are being ostracized for having primitive, hateful beliefs, and society is making it known that demented opinions such as this will not be tolerated, and that a carrier of such beliefs taints everything they are associated with.
ubernostrum 13y ago
If the "pro-gay crowd" were pushing to deny Brendan's basic human rights on the basis of who he is, you might have a case. Brendan supported Proposition 8, which had but one purpose: to deny to a certain group of people a right which is recognized in the US as fundamental. If you're unable to see the difference between disliking someone else's marriage, and campaigning to have their marriage annulled by law, perhaps you should examine that more closely.

tinalumfoil 13y ago

It's ridiculous that people can't join causes because of their political beliefs. So the community is saying we don't want people standing up for free software if they are also against gay marriage. Should we go all-out liberal and say representatives of our cause must be pro-abortion, pro-pot, pro-gun control, pro-socialized healthcare? Hell, the conservatives can do the same thing too! We'll make sure there's only 2 political parties you can vote for and if you like some ideas from one and some from the other, too bad! All your opinions must be grouped together, and the whole world should be divided into 2 opposite ends. Or we can live in a world where we respect everyone's beliefs. We can allow them to join both liberal and conservative causes, because we're not 2 political parties fighting but individual humans all trying to make the world a better place? It's amazing the mentality with politics these days, where people have to risk their life just for standing up for themselves.

nollidge 13y ago
> Or we can live in a world where we respect everyone's beliefs. Why? Some beliefs are stupid and/or harmful. Why should I respect bad ideas?
- artacus 13y ago
  Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. Gilbert K. Chesterton
  - dang 13y ago
    Chesterton was talented, but he was glib. Tolerance is one of the most difficult virtues and we need a lot more of it on Hacker News.
- Pacabel 13y ago
  I don't think he necessarily meant that you need to respect the beliefs themselves, especially if you don't agree with them. Rather, I think it's more about everyone respecting the ability of everyone else to hold their own set of beliefs, even if you disagree with theirs, and even if they may disagree with yours. In this particular incident we've seen a lot of hypocrisy. We've seen a lot of people calling for "tolerance" and "equality", yet to them that means merely that their viewpoint must be the only one that can be held or expressed. It ends up being a very quaint, twisted interpretation of tolerance and equality.

alecdbrooks 13y ago

>A world without Firefox and without Firefox OS and without our approach to putting the user at the center of cloud services instead of having users get pulled into walled gardens -- I think that would be a pretty dark world. What Eich fails to see that for many people, we are only just moving away from the "dark world" where gay marriage is illegal. I appreciate his work for Mozilla, but it's double-think to advocate "inclusivity" while promoting narrow views of marriage.

ctdonath 13y ago
"Gay marriage" has nothing to do with OSS web browsers. 'tis a dark world where people cannot work toward common goals when their views on completely unrelated subjects differ.
- breadbox 13y ago
  If the owner of my neighborhood coffee shop had gone on record as supporting SOPA/PIPA/et al, I would be strongly inclined to stop going to that coffeeshop and giving them any of my money. I would also tell my friends about the situation so that they might also take similar actions if they felt so inclined. I can tell you that, in the context of this hypothetical situation, any arguments that my actions are uncalled-for because "coffee has nothing to do with the Internet" would not have much impact on me.
  - parennoob 13y ago
    What if it was a co-operative store selling coffee and only the main manager was supporting SOPA? That's more like how the Firefox situation is. These boycotts will inevitably hurt Mozilla employees as a whole, both gay and straight -- way more than they will hurt Eich personally.
    - vacri 13y ago
      A store that was also actively engaged in Fair Trade coffee, unlike its major competitors.

peteforde 13y ago

It says a lot when you have to point to Indonesian homophobes to support your position.

vacri 13y ago
The article mentions Indonesia because that's where some publicly-acknowledged contributors are. Your comment mentions Indonesia like it's a backwater to be looked down on. Would your comment have been different if the other homophobes were local to Eich? In defence of homosexual marriage, you seem happy to promote racism.
parennoob 13y ago
Probably falling into the trap of combating snark with snark here, but it says a lot about you that you are pointing to people in Indonesia who don't believe in gay marriage as some kind of loony, fringe, obscure group whose name is not even worth invoking in a debate. Tolerance means trying to accept a wide range of people and beliefs. And gay marriage, unfortunately, is against that of a lot of people. Whether we try to get them fired, or, in the Gandhian way, try to use love to get across our message peacefully, says a lot about our tolerance in the first place. [Edit: Also, now imagine if a bunch of people of Indonesian extraction started a "Stop Pete XXXXX from hosting Y event because he is racist!" (where "X", "Y" is stuff mentioned in your profile/username) petition. How would you feel then? I think the same feelings, only to a far greater extent, are the ones going through Eich's mind. It's hard to put yourself in the mindset of someone you instinctively dislike, but try it.]
- dang 13y ago
  Probably falling into the trap of combating snark with snark here, but it says a lot about you Yes. Please don't combat snark with snark on HN. It never helps, only provokes.
  - parennoob 13y ago
    Sorry, duly noted; and I also apologize to 'peteforde for said snark above.

jballanc 13y ago

I've often found that when an issue divides a group that would otherwise cooperate willingly, the problem is that the two sides are battling over the wrong issue. In this case, the CEO-ship of Brendan Eich has been continually rehashed as an issue of freedom of thought/opinion/speech vs bigotry and exclusion...but that's not the real issue. The real issue is money as speech. I'd wager that most of those against Eich's position would not begrudge anyone freedom of opinion, or private speech, or even public speech so long as such opinions or speech did not elevate to action. On the other hand had Eich fired a LGBT staffer based on their sexual orientation, not only would he be in the wrong legally, but I think even those carrying the banner of free speech in this case would agree that his promotion was wrong. So the real question is: by donating money to the Proposition 8 cause, was Eich exercising his right to free speech? or was he taking a discriminatory action? Of course, you may note this is exactly the same issue in question with the Citizen's United decision. I think this larger question, is money speech or action, will be one of the most important questions of our time...

nthj 13y ago
> So the real question is: by donating money to the Proposition 8 cause, was Eich exercising his right to free speech? or was he taking a discriminatory action? As I learned in High School Debate Club, most un-winnable, never-ending arguments are actually disagreements over definitions.
- joelrunyon 13y ago
  > never-ending arguments are actually disagreements over definitions. If we actually had these debates, I wonder how many people would realize that their actual viewpoints aren't that far off of each other after all.
  - throwaway344 13y ago
    Yeah, in most competitive debate events, sides are predetermined, thus each competitor has the incentive to continue to argue ad infinitum about the most basic points, for instance as I debated much over the last several months, what exactly the word "substantially" means. Due to that, the competitor's real views are irrelevant.

beedogs 13y ago

> Though Eich refuses to discuss his own beliefs explicitly or say whether they've changed, he disagreed with the assertion that being opposed to gay-marriage rights is equivalent to being sexist or racist, and he said political and religious speech is still protected. Really? Really?? This guy's a CEO and yet he can't figure out why he's so dreadfully wrong on this one? Doesn't bode well for the future of Mozilla.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

TD-Linux 13y ago
http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1303282&view=received&session=2007 http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx... Note I haven't managed to find Eich's name yet. He may have donated to some other cause, but this was the most publicized list in 2009.

dmazin 13y ago

This article reads a bit like a shill piece. "It's pretty clear that people have latched onto this issue as a way to express their own political beliefs." seems too loaded in Eich's favor to be part of a respectable interview question.

TD-Linux 13y ago

What do you guys want out of this? Do you want Eich to step down from CEO to CTO? Quit Mozilla entirely (and never get employment at any other company you use?) Issue a statement publicly renouncing his views? Would it be better if he publicly lied about his views? Are we promoting an environment where you have to announce all the "correct" political positions to gain employment?

vishaldpatel 13y ago
I guess this depends on how important the issue is. In this case, it seems to be an issue which is fairly important to a lot of people - that of civil liberties.
- joelrunyon 13y ago
  Wouldn't the most "pro-civil-liberties" position be to have the government not be involved in a private arrangement between two citizens - regardless of gender?
joe_the_user 13y ago
What do you guys want out of this? Do you want Eich to step down from CEO to CTO? That would be a fine solution, really. Is the argument that CEO is a position unlike other positions that hard to grasp? The CEO is the "face" of a company and not just a worker.
- Pacabel 13y ago
  It's kind of absurd to see this sort of contradictory reasoning. I think there'd be outrage if it was suggested that some employee of some company should be fired just because he chose to spend his own time and/or money supporting a pro-gay cause. Yet as we've seen in this case, it's apparently deemed perfectly acceptable by those who'd be outraged in the other case to level the exact same kind of discrimination against somebody who supports an opposite viewpoint. I can't see how such contradictory behavior will help garner support. Fighting discrimination with discrimination is self-defeating.
- 13y ago

xmonkee 13y ago

Tldr: inclusive, inclusive, inclusive... Unless you are gay and want to be included as an equal citizen.

joshlegs 13y ago
I really think that people need to understand the difference in personal and professional life. In fact, the tendency to make the two collide is one of the biggest problems with this whole stinking country. People have personal lives, and they have professional lives, and others really don't need to go about trying to confuse the two.
- xmonkee 13y ago
  Paying money to influence policy that oppresses a group of people isn't your "personal" fucking life. It's personal only if it doesn't affect other people. I really really respect this dude, he's straight up legend. And no, I don't think he should quit as CEO of Moz, that's totally unrelated to his politics, if that was your point. But I do think it's really annoying when bigotry is supported in the name of inclusiveness. You think it's okay to ruin someone's happiness with your megabucks, yet you talk about inclusiveness? Get the fuck out. This interview is bullshit.

dogmatix 13y ago

He's not wrong, he's just an arsehole.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

ossreality 13y ago
Sorry to hear "we" aren't fighting "our" battle the way you'd like us to. No, no I'm not sorry.
joelrunyon 13y ago
Having known quite a few people on both sides, I'm struck at how poor both sides are at the communication, understanding & articulation of their beliefs despite being good individuals on either side. It's that whole communication thing...
intslack 13y ago
It also tires me that the all of the opposite side is being labelled as "homophobic bigots," just look at the extremism in this very thread with comparisons of Eich to the KKK. Growing up, my deeply religious immediate and extended family was surprised by my turning out to be the black swan secularist. As you alluded to I find that, as usual, ignorance breeds these misunderstandings. Having many personal discussions with many the deeply religious, I can honestly say that the majority do have empathy for those who are being discriminated against, abused, disowned, lynched and executed because of their expression of gender identity. This isn't a hate issue. This is an ignorance issue. Instead of shaming those like Eich, who (assumedly) take issue with their idea of the institution of marriage being trampled (which is reinforced by herd mentality), we should all try and engage personally to make them understand. Does that mean we should respect their beliefs? No, but we should strive for dialogue.

steven2012 13y ago

Eich is going to destroy Mozilla over his own ego of wanting to be CEO, when anyone worth their CEO-salt knows that there is no chance in hell that they can effectively lead with this much controversy hanging over their head.

Pacabel 13y ago
Realistically, if anything is going to "destroy" Mozilla, it'll probably have much more to do with their software offerings than with this particular incident. I'm talking about things like Firefox trying to imitate Chrome at the expense of usability. Or the abandonment of Thunderbird. Or resources wasted on a failed effort like Persona, or wasted on software like Firefox OS that's inherently inferior to its many well-established competitors. Mozilla's influence is directly related to the number of people using its software products. I see far more of its existing users moving away from its software due to usability problems or a lack of maintenance than I see moving due to purely political anger directed toward Eich.
camus2 13y ago
it's feels like they are desperate at Mozilla corp... not sure they are going to last long... and this has damage Mozilla and Firefox brand permanently.

deadlysyntax 13y ago

I was humoured to read that people have boycotted Mozilla, guarantee they don't boycott javascript, which he invented.

dsil 13y ago
There's no point to doing that. He can't step down or be removed as the inventor of javascript, but he could step down or be removed as CEO of Mozilla.
- deadlysyntax 13y ago
  No point and too inconvenient.

lawnchair_larry 13y ago

Unfortunately for Eich and his supporters, he's now in the awkward position of having to convince everyone that they should tolerate his intolerance. It's going to take one hell of a silver tongue to do that with your foot wedged firmly in your mouth.

joelrunyon 13y ago
It's ironic that people are intolerant of intolerance. I get the 'tit for tat' argument, but if you're trying to get rid of an oppressive opinion by being oppressive, you're not really getting anywhere. You can't really "force" anyone to believe anything. If you have to "make" someone believe something by force, then it doesn't seem like your argument is strong enough to stand on your own (a statement that's applicable to both sides of this debate).

klepra 13y ago

So ... javascript is created by homophobe :(

joelrunyon 13y ago

> Eich: Two things. One is -- without getting into my personal beliefs, which I separate from my Mozilla work -- when people learned of the donation, they felt pain. I saw that in friends' eyes, [friends] who are LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered]. I saw that in 2012. I am sorry for causing that pain. To everyone yelling about bigotry & discrimination, if you actually read the article & those words, those don't sound like the words of a bigot to me.

Udo 13y ago
I think the idea that religious extremists are always assholes is convenient but unrealistic. Most of the time, most of them are just normal people, even pleasant ones. I'm not sure phrasing it as being a bigot or not is helpful, and neither is the money/speech categorization. Not knowing Mr Eich personally, I'd give him the benefit of doubt. I believe him when he says that he has LGBT friends, and that they were hurt by his actions, and that maybe he was sorry for causing that pain. It must be deeply uncomfortable to believe in something that compels a person to hurt their friends. It's not his religious views per se that got him into hot water, it's the willingness to use legislation to deny a group of people equal rights which still stands as an unethical act. Speaking as someone who both admires Eich as a technologist but was disappointed by the message Mozilla was conveying by his appointment as CEO, I really don't care that much if he's a religious fanatic. It's not only his right to believe these things, it also doesn't really matter. His achievements can very well stand on their own, and likewise acknowledging the achievements of a person does not imply endorsing all of their beliefs. Beyond the initial ethics violation, Mr Eich has done nothing wrong that I can see. The fault lies solely with the Mozilla board for appointing him to a position that consists of little else but projecting the public image of the foundation.
- joelrunyon 13y ago
  I just wanted to say I appreciated a well thought out & reasoned comment in a discussion filled with people yelling "bigot", "homophobe" at a person they don't know personally. There's often several lenses to see things through. People are complicated, messy things.
13y ago

bakhy 13y ago

i dislike this spin here. boycotting a company, asking for resignations, these are common methods of protest. yet, when LGBT people do the same, we are being "exclusive"? we must accept any kind of views of Mozilla's CEO, otherwise its openness is lost and Firefox will fail? that's just silly. personally, i'm most tired of this argument, that it's important for "freedom" to let people discriminate me in peace. that i should not complain about being discriminated, lest i ruin the freedom of society. i love Firefox, and I'm still using it. never got this close to reconsidering that decision before.