8 ms·

Mozilla CEO Eich says gay-marriage firestorm could hurt Firefox

35 points by bpierre 13y ago

puppetmaster3 13y ago
it is ridiculous when employees have an ax to grind at work, for example their politics or sexuality. at work, focus on work.
- dalanmiller 13y ago
  It's not ridiculous at all. Where we spend our time and energy matters. I cannot imagine the frustration I would feel being gay and working at Mozilla knowing that the new CEO donated money to block the opportunity for me to be married to my longtime partner. I just don't think that it would be possible to continue work like nothing was wrong after that.
  - Shivetya 13y ago
    Just keep raising that bar, soon it will be that they cannot donate to a certain political party, attend a church you don't like, eat at an establishment you don't like, and on and on and on. All because you want to feel offended. Fine feel offended and suck it up. If it has an effect on your work based on what other do legally in their free time its your problem not theirs. This world isn't about having everything we want.
    - dalanmiller 13y ago
      I get your rationale, and where this conversation goes towards infinity but I don't think most people take it to that extent although that is always the 'fearful' rebuttal. I don't want to feel offended, but it just seems like it would be hard to promote a "culture of inclusiveness" as the CEO given prior actions.
    - dalke 13y ago
      "Soon"? All of those have long been sufficient criteria for some, and there's no "raising the bar" going on. Some people will chose an establishment just because the owner is, or isn't, member of a specific church. An LGBT organization is unlikely to hire someone who walks in to the interview carrying a Chik-Fil-A lunch, or support another LGBT organization whose leader does the same. Here's a case of boycotting a store chain because the owners (not the corporation) supported a politician: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Joaquin-Castro-to-boycott-Buc-ee-s-after-owners-5307143.php http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Joaquin-Castr... People express their offense and outrage all the time, about all sorts of issues. Sometimes it gets traction. Most times it doesn't. The bar moves around, certainly, but that doesn't mean it ratchets higher. Few now call for boycotts of communist owned organizations and black-lists of communists like they did during the red scares.
  - alandarev 13y ago
    That is a good and valid point. Interestingly, the opposite might hold as well - gay opposition would not work for a gay CEO. Wouldn't it be better if political opinions like that stayed private, so that people can work with each other?
    - dalanmiller 13y ago
      Ideally, probably. But as humans I don't believe we can always leave 100% of us at the door, and it seems unrealistic to switch from one human to another just because our physical space changes.
    - Drakim 13y ago
      People who are opposed to homosexuality and gay marriage can simply not be homosexual and not get a gay marriage. They can literally throw their hands up in the air and say "I don't want any part of this topic" and go on with their life, ignoring it. Just like how somebody who isn't for interracial marriage can simply marry a person of their own race, or somebody who isn't for marriage at all can simply not get married. Gay people don't have that luxury, because the issue being discussed concerns their actual personal rights. Wether it's gay marriage, adoption or anti-soddomy laws, it's things that affect them no matter if they want to be part of the debate or not. They cannot throw up their arms and go on with their life, because they can now not get married, not adopt children, and so on. It's easy to say that they should keep their private life out of politics, but politics has forced their private life into the spotlight.
  - puppetmaster3 13y ago
    Help me for real with that logic in this example: Should straights be upset working for Apple?
- puppetmaster3 13y ago
  just fyi, I got -4 down votes by the moderators for this opinion. congrats to HN moderators.
  - dang 13y ago
    First, please re-read what the HN guidelines say about not complaining when you're downvoted. Second, you are mistaken. Your comments' negative scores are because users, not moderators, downvoted you. Moderators don't have special downvoting powers.
joelrunyon 13y ago
Previous HN discussion (8 hours ago) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7512869 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7512869
TausAmmer 13y ago
So, one group(person) is attacking another group(person) based on beliefs. What is the difference?
- don_draper 13y ago
  Some would call him a bigot, not just someone with a different opinion. Marriage can be a great thing and he wants to deny that to some people.
  - 001sky 13y ago
    Full Definition of BIGOT : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance People need to check themselves in the mirror with their use of language. Voting in a lawful election and supporting lawful candidates or ballot issues does not in any way resemble the definition of a Bigot. However, the hate going on here...based on such flimsy evidence...actually looks a lot closer to meeting the threshold test. It is obstinant and intolerant and disproportionate. Cue the Irony.
    - don_draper 13y ago
      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot "a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)" He refuses to accept gay people as equals. He things gay marriage is an abomination to his religion. That's hateful if you ask me.
      - 001sky 13y ago
        That link actually reads: big·ot noun \ˈbi-gət\ : a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group) Full Definition of BIGOT : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
seth1010 13y ago
I'm still not sure why he feels so strongly about being inclusive of his employees when he felt it necessary to help fund a bill that would do the exact opposite to millions of people in California (including his employees). There is no grey scale here. Either you think that people (regardless of their sexual orientation) are equal, or you don't. You don't get to pick who to assign rights to based on if they work for your company or not. At this point, every time I see him say "everyone at mozilla is treated fairly" it's obvious that he just doesn't want to commit career suicide while also remaining a bigot.
- 001sky 13y ago
  There is no grey scale here. Please take this garbage elsewhere. People are not bigots because they disagree with your special interest politics.
  - mavdi 13y ago
    Gay marriage is more of a rights issue than pure politics.
  - bergie 13y ago
    There have been several succesfull cases of "special interest politics" in civil rights before. Abolition of serfdom and slavery, anti-segregation, universal suffrage to name a few. Many of those were considered to be against the "natural order of things" too. Are you sure you want to take the side you seem to be taking?
  - jawngee 13y ago
    Equal rights and protections for all under the law are not special interest politics, unless you are working under the guise that homosexuality is something someone chooses. But, I assume, you aren't that dumb.
    - 001sky 13y ago
      Marriage is a special interest class (A). The debate is whether or not to expand special interest class (A) to include other special interst classes (Z) (ie, make it larger A'=A+Z). Merely voting to include yourself in the privledge class does not make you some sort of prophet of truth and justice.
sjwright 13y ago
"If you had the opportunity to donate to a Proposition 8 cause today, would you do so?" "I hadn't thought about that. It seems that's a dead issue. I don't want to answer hypotheticals." I think that response speaks for itself. While I don't feel comfortable lynching someone based on contextually irrelevant beliefs, most of us see gay rights as an issue principally comparable to issues of slavery and suffrage. It's the denying of rights to "other people" for dubious reasons. Hypothetically, if the CEO of another tech company was revealed to have political interests in slavery, would we feel the need to tip-toe so carefully?
- pfortuny 13y ago
  "Most of us" may be a bit of an overstatement, despite what the polls say (because the polls did not ask whether people saw it as comparable to slavery and suffrage). It may seem I am cherry-picking your words, but as you are taking a stance based on his words, I think we are entitled to do the same with yours.
  - sjwright 13y ago
    I meant "most of us" within the context of a reasonably intelligent tech community like Hacker News. I accept that this is an assumption, but I stand by it.
    - pfortuny 13y ago
      Yep, I meant 'most of us' within the same context, an intelligent tech community like Hacker News and I stand by it as well. Hence? In the era of big data I am forced to say that you really need to back that assumption.
      - sjwright 13y ago
        I don't have any objective data. It is an inference gleaned from the balance of reactions towards the issue. I admit it is plausible that many people holding the opposing view may choose to remain silent, however I contend that speaks to their ability to defend their stance intellectually. (The most compelling argument I've heard against gay marriage is "Eew." Colour me unimpressed.)
kolme 13y ago
Could? I think it's already hurting it, at least to a small extent. Some users are already boycotting and some web pages (okcupid?) are displaying a message to Firefox users. I think Eich could be a great CEO (I like engineers as CEO's), but maybe Mozilla should listen to the community and set an example of how FLOSS companies should function in the 21st century. A community poll would be really interesting to see.
- mavdi 13y ago
  Who qualifies as community? I think a Mozilla vote is the better options. It's up to them how they want to be seen by the world.
mavdi 13y ago
Eich seems like a lovely chap, I didn't really know about his donation. That sadly qualifies him as a homophobe, once thing is disagreeing with gay marriage, another is actively donating the cause to ban it. On the other hand, I find some of the reaction silly. OKCupid for instance. Firefox is the work of hundreds of people, taking a brush and striking them all off isn't right. What best is that this is left to Mozilla, let them handle this.
- mercurial 13y ago
  > That sadly qualifies him as a homophobe, once thing is disagreeing with gay marriage, another is actively donating the cause to ban it. All the difference is in how much you value your money. I'm not sure if it makes him a homophobe, really, or somebody taking his interpretation of religious texts (assuming that's the reason) too seriously. That said, the current witch hunt leaves me uncomfortable.
  - iSnow 13y ago
    >All the difference is in how much you value your money No, the difference is in holding an opinion vs. using the existing power that money confers to deny equal rights to a group of people.
    - mercurial 13y ago
      I'm talking in terms of personal investment from the point of view of the donor, not in terms of practical effects.
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  I find some of the reaction silly. The point of social and moral suasion is to make clear to people that certain actions are not accepted or tolerated by the community, and that holding to them will hurt you. In the case of OKCupid, I strongly suspect that their preferred outcome would be for Eich to be replaced with someone qualified for the position who doesn't go out of their way to extend personal resources to those who support quashing the rights of others. Not to bury the Firefox browser. Extending the message to those who use Firefox is one way to do this.
einhverfr 13y ago
Inclusiveness is an interesting question. Does it include the solid majorities in nations where getting married and having kids not only go together but are how one prepares for retirement? In such countries, same-sex marriage is not an issue and can't be raised until other things change. The relationship between sexuality, marriage, and reproduction is different, and I reject the "human rights" argument which says basically we must push everyone on the planet to accept modern American cultural structures regarding sexuality. So I wonder. What does inclusiveness even mean when it comes to a global effort like most open source software is today? How does the scale affect it? Certainly Eich's donation is non-inclusive relative to the US, but it is more inclusive globally than Google's efforts to push their agenda globally. And how can one have inclusiveness when political dissent is punished?
- nostromo 13y ago
  This argument, "to be inclusive, you must be inclusive of those who are not inclusive" is tired. Rejecting bigotry does not make one a bigot. To your main point, yes, homophobia is a global norm. So is racism. So is sexism. That doesn't make them ok in Silicon Valley.
  - einhverfr 13y ago
    > That doesn't make them ok in Silicon Valley. Yes, which is why I think that Eich was wrong, because this was a California initiative. But it is still less offensive than the racist white-mans-burden approach Google is taking with this issue globally, assuming he resided in California (if, OTOH, he resided in Washington State or anywhere else, it would be similarly bad). I would also totally take issue with the idea that homophobia is the norm and this is why SSM is not recognized in most countries. The fact is that marriage, reproduction, sexuality, and retirement are tied together differently in most countries than they are in the US today, and consequently I don't think that modern American definitions of homophobia are very relevant in most of the world. To hold the idea that everyone should strive to have kids they can retire with to be homophobic stretches the definition beyond the breaking point, but that's the basis in almost all of the world. As social security declines as a retirement option, maybe it will come back in the US, but it isn't where we are now. Similarly in much of the world, abortion is not seen as a human right for similar reasons. Where sexuality, reproduction, marriage, and retirement are closely bound, many of these issues are very, very different, and this is why treating divisive issues as human rights is very, very wrong.
ronaldx 13y ago
So Eich recognises that "Mozilla is under a threat. We don't know how big" and yet is "confident I am the best person for the job right now". If that threat is real and (wholly or partly) stems from this controversy, Eich as CEO could be the thing that kills Mozilla. I'd say, based on his own words, he's not the best person for the job right now.
- rafe33 13y ago
  Just curious. What about when he was CTO? I agree his beliefs and actions are gross, but why were their no calls for him to resign sooner?
  - ronaldx 13y ago
    Since you ask me: a CEO is the public representative of the company. It's also their job to shape the company's directions and values.
    - sanxiyn 13y ago
      Eich doesn't seem interested in shaping Mozilla's value to be anti-LGBT. I am an atheist, but I am okay with theistic CEOs as long as they don't try to shape the company's value to be theistic. I do have a problem if CEO wants company-wide religious ceremony.
      - hamax 13y ago
        What about a theistic CEO who would found a campaign against atheistic marriage?
        sanxiyn 13y ago
        What about a theistic colleague who would fund a campaign against atheistic marriage? (More appropriate analogy would be someone who would fund the goal of establishing a national religion.) Will I refuse to work with such colleagues? If the position is to be against someone-who-would-fund-blah as a CEO, but okay as a colleague, this doesn't seem to help depriving the campaign blah from being funded (as long as someone didn't plan to increase donation from increased remuneration as a CEO). If the position is to be against someone-who-would-fund-blah both as a CEO and a colleague, I am not sure I support that position. The main point being, while setting company-wide policy is greatly helped by being CEO, funding campaigns is less so.
iSnow 13y ago
>he disagreed with the assertion that being opposed to gay-marriage rights is equivalent to being sexist or racist Well of course, no one ever proudly confesses to being a bigot, homophobe, sexist or racist. "No, supporting Apartheid does not make me racist, I don't hate blacks, some of my best friends are black. I just believe blacks and whites better live in different quarters" Mozilla just got a lot less appealing.
eik3_de 13y ago
I wish I hadn't read the article. He implicitly confirms his 2008 view. He says being against inclusiveness actually is inclusiveness. He says he's the best Mozilla CEO. He says that much of Mozilla comes from Indonesia, where LGBT discrimination[1] seems to be much more accepted. I can't help but associate Firefox with Mozilla and Mozilla with it's head, Mr. Eich. I wish I could only see the great people that stand behind Mozilla, but atm when I look at the Firefox logo, I see the homophobe :( [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Indonesia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Indonesia
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
dredmorbius 13y ago
While we're at it, there's good old Vic Gundotra at Google. He wrote in 2005 What about the people in the company who DON”T believe this is a human rights issue? What about those people who believe homosexuality is a moral/social issue? Should Ballmer just say these people are wrong? That “Microsoft the corporation” has decided to take a stance on this social issue?.... Should a CEO pick sides on an issue that is so divisive? Does being "inclusive" and "diverse" suddenly stop when it involves views that are different than the ones we hold?.... I argue this is just exactly the same wrong you accuse the religious leader of. You claim the preacher went beyond his walls. Well since when did a CEO have the right to go well beyond his walls?.... Social change should be initiated, and decided, outside the scope of corporations. http://web.archive.org/web/20051119214319/http://vicgundotra.com/RespondingToScoble.aspx http://web.archive.org/web/20051119214319/http://vicgundotra...
throwwwawwway 13y ago
Whether Eich stays or goes, every person who values their career will hesitate in future to donate to, or publicly support, anti-LGBT causes. I don't know if that is an intentional goal of his public pillorying, but it will certainly be its most effective outcome.
acjohnson55 13y ago
In the grand scheme of things, our evidence that Brendan Eich is a raging homophobe comes down to one 6 year old donation of $1000. Not a pattern of actions at work, but one political action. I support gay marriage today, but a decade ago, I didn't. I'm a bit ashamed to admit that. It took a lot of time and a lot of incremental phases for me to come around from someone who was openly opposed, to someone who tolerated, and finally fairly recently to someone who actively supports gay relationships and marriage. I'm still working on trying to bring my parents around to my point of view. They espouse viewpoints I frankly find offensive today and I can nearly guarantee that in the past they've donated more than $1000 to organizations that oppose gay marriage. But I by no means think they're "bad people". Eich is of my parents' generation, and I believe that empathy will eventually win most of them over, not ultimatums. To me, Mozilla has become an unfair target of convenience. A lot of people are understandably still upset about Prop 8 and similar movements. But I think people have chosen to open fire at Mozilla simply because it's a lot harder to try to engage marriage equality opponents directly as people in a public way. Clearly, it has worked to put the issue out in front, but I don't think it's fair or ultimately productive. What's the endgame here? We can let the siege continue against Mozilla, one of the few major players who really stands behind the user. Maybe Eich will step down, and who knows what happens to Mozilla. Maybe we'll get an insincere change of heart. But that's just a victory for mob intimidation. I suppose maybe just maybe we'll get a sincere reversal from Eich. He certainly seems sensitive to the pain he's caused. But even if this happens, I don't know that the end would justify the means.
- sanxiyn 13y ago
  I must correct you as a matter of fact. "We're talking about a total of roughly $10,000 of donations over a period of 19 years, between 1991 and 2010. The man isn't being vilified over one donation." http://tim.dreamwidth.org/1845008.html http://tim.dreamwidth.org/1845008.html
  - DanielStraight 13y ago
    You are deliberately taking that quote out of context to make a stronger point. Eich gave money multiple times to particular candidates. Those candidates may be opposed to homosexual marriage, but that in no way implies that Eich's donation was for the purpose of blocking homosexual marriage. Eich could have liked them for other reasons and not even known, or cared about, their stance on marriage.
aashishkoirala 13y ago
The article says he "invented JavaScript." Anyone know if this is accurate?
- davidgerard 13y ago
  If only there were a popular and wide-ranging Internet-based encyclopedia available ...
jmomo 13y ago
This interview is absolutely damning. Eich repeatedly uses the Mozilla Foundation as a shield to protect himself, saying that Mozilla is being threatened, when it is he who is the cause of these actions against Mozilla. He is showing that he has no qualms about using the foundation to protect himself. There is no longer a question that the man is a homophobe who believes in using state power to enforce religious persecution on a specific minority group. He says, "This group of people can't do this religious thing because it offends me, and the state must prevent them from doing it." And, he voted for it with his wallet, and affirmed that vote with this interview. Marriage is a religious institution. My personal opinion is that the state has no business being involved in marriage, including for reasons of taxes and other special privileges. There are good historical reasons for these laws, but they are no longer valid and we will need to change them, and can do so without harm to any particular group (except for those who want to enforce their own beliefs upon others, which is sadly common.) CEO is a very particular position. It's the moral and character leadership role of a company, and having a homophobe in this position is a serious problem. For me, an intolerable problem.

35 points by bpierre 13y ago

it is ridiculous when employees have an ax to grind at work, for example their politics or sexuality. at work, focus on work.

dalanmiller 13y ago
It's not ridiculous at all. Where we spend our time and energy matters. I cannot imagine the frustration I would feel being gay and working at Mozilla knowing that the new CEO donated money to block the opportunity for me to be married to my longtime partner. I just don't think that it would be possible to continue work like nothing was wrong after that.
- Shivetya 13y ago
  Just keep raising that bar, soon it will be that they cannot donate to a certain political party, attend a church you don't like, eat at an establishment you don't like, and on and on and on. All because you want to feel offended. Fine feel offended and suck it up. If it has an effect on your work based on what other do legally in their free time its your problem not theirs. This world isn't about having everything we want.
  - dalanmiller 13y ago
    I get your rationale, and where this conversation goes towards infinity but I don't think most people take it to that extent although that is always the 'fearful' rebuttal. I don't want to feel offended, but it just seems like it would be hard to promote a "culture of inclusiveness" as the CEO given prior actions.
  - dalke 13y ago
    "Soon"? All of those have long been sufficient criteria for some, and there's no "raising the bar" going on. Some people will chose an establishment just because the owner is, or isn't, member of a specific church. An LGBT organization is unlikely to hire someone who walks in to the interview carrying a Chik-Fil-A lunch, or support another LGBT organization whose leader does the same. Here's a case of boycotting a store chain because the owners (not the corporation) supported a politician: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Joaquin-Castro-to-boycott-Buc-ee-s-after-owners-5307143.php http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Joaquin-Castr... People express their offense and outrage all the time, about all sorts of issues. Sometimes it gets traction. Most times it doesn't. The bar moves around, certainly, but that doesn't mean it ratchets higher. Few now call for boycotts of communist owned organizations and black-lists of communists like they did during the red scares.
- alandarev 13y ago
  That is a good and valid point. Interestingly, the opposite might hold as well - gay opposition would not work for a gay CEO. Wouldn't it be better if political opinions like that stayed private, so that people can work with each other?
  - dalanmiller 13y ago
    Ideally, probably. But as humans I don't believe we can always leave 100% of us at the door, and it seems unrealistic to switch from one human to another just because our physical space changes.
  - Drakim 13y ago
    People who are opposed to homosexuality and gay marriage can simply not be homosexual and not get a gay marriage. They can literally throw their hands up in the air and say "I don't want any part of this topic" and go on with their life, ignoring it. Just like how somebody who isn't for interracial marriage can simply marry a person of their own race, or somebody who isn't for marriage at all can simply not get married. Gay people don't have that luxury, because the issue being discussed concerns their actual personal rights. Wether it's gay marriage, adoption or anti-soddomy laws, it's things that affect them no matter if they want to be part of the debate or not. They cannot throw up their arms and go on with their life, because they can now not get married, not adopt children, and so on. It's easy to say that they should keep their private life out of politics, but politics has forced their private life into the spotlight.
- puppetmaster3 13y ago
  Help me for real with that logic in this example: Should straights be upset working for Apple?
puppetmaster3 13y ago
just fyi, I got -4 down votes by the moderators for this opinion. congrats to HN moderators.
- dang 13y ago
  First, please re-read what the HN guidelines say about not complaining when you're downvoted. Second, you are mistaken. Your comments' negative scores are because users, not moderators, downvoted you. Moderators don't have special downvoting powers.

joelrunyon 13y ago

Previous HN discussion (8 hours ago) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7512869 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7512869

TausAmmer 13y ago

So, one group(person) is attacking another group(person) based on beliefs. What is the difference?

don_draper 13y ago
Some would call him a bigot, not just someone with a different opinion. Marriage can be a great thing and he wants to deny that to some people.
- 001sky 13y ago
  Full Definition of BIGOT : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance People need to check themselves in the mirror with their use of language. Voting in a lawful election and supporting lawful candidates or ballot issues does not in any way resemble the definition of a Bigot. However, the hate going on here...based on such flimsy evidence...actually looks a lot closer to meeting the threshold test. It is obstinant and intolerant and disproportionate. Cue the Irony.
  - don_draper 13y ago
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot "a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)" He refuses to accept gay people as equals. He things gay marriage is an abomination to his religion. That's hateful if you ask me.
    - 001sky 13y ago
      That link actually reads: big·ot noun \ˈbi-gət\ : a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group) Full Definition of BIGOT : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

seth1010 13y ago

I'm still not sure why he feels so strongly about being inclusive of his employees when he felt it necessary to help fund a bill that would do the exact opposite to millions of people in California (including his employees). There is no grey scale here. Either you think that people (regardless of their sexual orientation) are equal, or you don't. You don't get to pick who to assign rights to based on if they work for your company or not. At this point, every time I see him say "everyone at mozilla is treated fairly" it's obvious that he just doesn't want to commit career suicide while also remaining a bigot.

001sky 13y ago
There is no grey scale here. Please take this garbage elsewhere. People are not bigots because they disagree with your special interest politics.
- mavdi 13y ago
  Gay marriage is more of a rights issue than pure politics.
- bergie 13y ago
  There have been several succesfull cases of "special interest politics" in civil rights before. Abolition of serfdom and slavery, anti-segregation, universal suffrage to name a few. Many of those were considered to be against the "natural order of things" too. Are you sure you want to take the side you seem to be taking?
- jawngee 13y ago
  Equal rights and protections for all under the law are not special interest politics, unless you are working under the guise that homosexuality is something someone chooses. But, I assume, you aren't that dumb.
  - 001sky 13y ago
    Marriage is a special interest class (A). The debate is whether or not to expand special interest class (A) to include other special interst classes (Z) (ie, make it larger A'=A+Z). Merely voting to include yourself in the privledge class does not make you some sort of prophet of truth and justice.

sjwright 13y ago

"If you had the opportunity to donate to a Proposition 8 cause today, would you do so?" "I hadn't thought about that. It seems that's a dead issue. I don't want to answer hypotheticals." I think that response speaks for itself. While I don't feel comfortable lynching someone based on contextually irrelevant beliefs, most of us see gay rights as an issue principally comparable to issues of slavery and suffrage. It's the denying of rights to "other people" for dubious reasons. Hypothetically, if the CEO of another tech company was revealed to have political interests in slavery, would we feel the need to tip-toe so carefully?

pfortuny 13y ago
"Most of us" may be a bit of an overstatement, despite what the polls say (because the polls did not ask whether people saw it as comparable to slavery and suffrage). It may seem I am cherry-picking your words, but as you are taking a stance based on his words, I think we are entitled to do the same with yours.
- sjwright 13y ago
  I meant "most of us" within the context of a reasonably intelligent tech community like Hacker News. I accept that this is an assumption, but I stand by it.
  - pfortuny 13y ago
    Yep, I meant 'most of us' within the same context, an intelligent tech community like Hacker News and I stand by it as well. Hence? In the era of big data I am forced to say that you really need to back that assumption.
    - sjwright 13y ago
      I don't have any objective data. It is an inference gleaned from the balance of reactions towards the issue. I admit it is plausible that many people holding the opposing view may choose to remain silent, however I contend that speaks to their ability to defend their stance intellectually. (The most compelling argument I've heard against gay marriage is "Eew." Colour me unimpressed.)

kolme 13y ago

Could? I think it's already hurting it, at least to a small extent. Some users are already boycotting and some web pages (okcupid?) are displaying a message to Firefox users. I think Eich could be a great CEO (I like engineers as CEO's), but maybe Mozilla should listen to the community and set an example of how FLOSS companies should function in the 21st century. A community poll would be really interesting to see.

mavdi 13y ago
Who qualifies as community? I think a Mozilla vote is the better options. It's up to them how they want to be seen by the world.

mavdi 13y ago

Eich seems like a lovely chap, I didn't really know about his donation. That sadly qualifies him as a homophobe, once thing is disagreeing with gay marriage, another is actively donating the cause to ban it. On the other hand, I find some of the reaction silly. OKCupid for instance. Firefox is the work of hundreds of people, taking a brush and striking them all off isn't right. What best is that this is left to Mozilla, let them handle this.

mercurial 13y ago
> That sadly qualifies him as a homophobe, once thing is disagreeing with gay marriage, another is actively donating the cause to ban it. All the difference is in how much you value your money. I'm not sure if it makes him a homophobe, really, or somebody taking his interpretation of religious texts (assuming that's the reason) too seriously. That said, the current witch hunt leaves me uncomfortable.
- iSnow 13y ago
  >All the difference is in how much you value your money No, the difference is in holding an opinion vs. using the existing power that money confers to deny equal rights to a group of people.
  - mercurial 13y ago
    I'm talking in terms of personal investment from the point of view of the donor, not in terms of practical effects.
dredmorbius 13y ago
I find some of the reaction silly. The point of social and moral suasion is to make clear to people that certain actions are not accepted or tolerated by the community, and that holding to them will hurt you. In the case of OKCupid, I strongly suspect that their preferred outcome would be for Eich to be replaced with someone qualified for the position who doesn't go out of their way to extend personal resources to those who support quashing the rights of others. Not to bury the Firefox browser. Extending the message to those who use Firefox is one way to do this.

einhverfr 13y ago

Inclusiveness is an interesting question. Does it include the solid majorities in nations where getting married and having kids not only go together but are how one prepares for retirement? In such countries, same-sex marriage is not an issue and can't be raised until other things change. The relationship between sexuality, marriage, and reproduction is different, and I reject the "human rights" argument which says basically we must push everyone on the planet to accept modern American cultural structures regarding sexuality. So I wonder. What does inclusiveness even mean when it comes to a global effort like most open source software is today? How does the scale affect it? Certainly Eich's donation is non-inclusive relative to the US, but it is more inclusive globally than Google's efforts to push their agenda globally. And how can one have inclusiveness when political dissent is punished?

nostromo 13y ago
This argument, "to be inclusive, you must be inclusive of those who are not inclusive" is tired. Rejecting bigotry does not make one a bigot. To your main point, yes, homophobia is a global norm. So is racism. So is sexism. That doesn't make them ok in Silicon Valley.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  > That doesn't make them ok in Silicon Valley. Yes, which is why I think that Eich was wrong, because this was a California initiative. But it is still less offensive than the racist white-mans-burden approach Google is taking with this issue globally, assuming he resided in California (if, OTOH, he resided in Washington State or anywhere else, it would be similarly bad). I would also totally take issue with the idea that homophobia is the norm and this is why SSM is not recognized in most countries. The fact is that marriage, reproduction, sexuality, and retirement are tied together differently in most countries than they are in the US today, and consequently I don't think that modern American definitions of homophobia are very relevant in most of the world. To hold the idea that everyone should strive to have kids they can retire with to be homophobic stretches the definition beyond the breaking point, but that's the basis in almost all of the world. As social security declines as a retirement option, maybe it will come back in the US, but it isn't where we are now. Similarly in much of the world, abortion is not seen as a human right for similar reasons. Where sexuality, reproduction, marriage, and retirement are closely bound, many of these issues are very, very different, and this is why treating divisive issues as human rights is very, very wrong.

ronaldx 13y ago

So Eich recognises that "Mozilla is under a threat. We don't know how big" and yet is "confident I am the best person for the job right now". If that threat is real and (wholly or partly) stems from this controversy, Eich as CEO could be the thing that kills Mozilla. I'd say, based on his own words, he's not the best person for the job right now.

rafe33 13y ago
Just curious. What about when he was CTO? I agree his beliefs and actions are gross, but why were their no calls for him to resign sooner?
- ronaldx 13y ago
  Since you ask me: a CEO is the public representative of the company. It's also their job to shape the company's directions and values.
  - sanxiyn 13y ago
    Eich doesn't seem interested in shaping Mozilla's value to be anti-LGBT. I am an atheist, but I am okay with theistic CEOs as long as they don't try to shape the company's value to be theistic. I do have a problem if CEO wants company-wide religious ceremony.
    - hamax 13y ago
      What about a theistic CEO who would found a campaign against atheistic marriage?
      - sanxiyn 13y ago
        What about a theistic colleague who would fund a campaign against atheistic marriage? (More appropriate analogy would be someone who would fund the goal of establishing a national religion.) Will I refuse to work with such colleagues? If the position is to be against someone-who-would-fund-blah as a CEO, but okay as a colleague, this doesn't seem to help depriving the campaign blah from being funded (as long as someone didn't plan to increase donation from increased remuneration as a CEO). If the position is to be against someone-who-would-fund-blah both as a CEO and a colleague, I am not sure I support that position. The main point being, while setting company-wide policy is greatly helped by being CEO, funding campaigns is less so.

iSnow 13y ago

>he disagreed with the assertion that being opposed to gay-marriage rights is equivalent to being sexist or racist Well of course, no one ever proudly confesses to being a bigot, homophobe, sexist or racist. "No, supporting Apartheid does not make me racist, I don't hate blacks, some of my best friends are black. I just believe blacks and whites better live in different quarters" Mozilla just got a lot less appealing.

eik3_de 13y ago

I wish I hadn't read the article. He implicitly confirms his 2008 view. He says being against inclusiveness actually is inclusiveness. He says he's the best Mozilla CEO. He says that much of Mozilla comes from Indonesia, where LGBT discrimination[1] seems to be much more accepted. I can't help but associate Firefox with Mozilla and Mozilla with it's head, Mr. Eich. I wish I could only see the great people that stand behind Mozilla, but atm when I look at the Firefox logo, I see the homophobe :( [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Indonesia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Indonesia

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

dredmorbius 13y ago

While we're at it, there's good old Vic Gundotra at Google. He wrote in 2005 What about the people in the company who DON”T believe this is a human rights issue? What about those people who believe homosexuality is a moral/social issue? Should Ballmer just say these people are wrong? That “Microsoft the corporation” has decided to take a stance on this social issue?.... Should a CEO pick sides on an issue that is so divisive? Does being "inclusive" and "diverse" suddenly stop when it involves views that are different than the ones we hold?.... I argue this is just exactly the same wrong you accuse the religious leader of. You claim the preacher went beyond his walls. Well since when did a CEO have the right to go well beyond his walls?.... Social change should be initiated, and decided, outside the scope of corporations. http://web.archive.org/web/20051119214319/http://vicgundotra.com/RespondingToScoble.aspx http://web.archive.org/web/20051119214319/http://vicgundotra...

throwwwawwway 13y ago

Whether Eich stays or goes, every person who values their career will hesitate in future to donate to, or publicly support, anti-LGBT causes. I don't know if that is an intentional goal of his public pillorying, but it will certainly be its most effective outcome.

acjohnson55 13y ago

In the grand scheme of things, our evidence that Brendan Eich is a raging homophobe comes down to one 6 year old donation of $1000. Not a pattern of actions at work, but one political action. I support gay marriage today, but a decade ago, I didn't. I'm a bit ashamed to admit that. It took a lot of time and a lot of incremental phases for me to come around from someone who was openly opposed, to someone who tolerated, and finally fairly recently to someone who actively supports gay relationships and marriage. I'm still working on trying to bring my parents around to my point of view. They espouse viewpoints I frankly find offensive today and I can nearly guarantee that in the past they've donated more than $1000 to organizations that oppose gay marriage. But I by no means think they're "bad people". Eich is of my parents' generation, and I believe that empathy will eventually win most of them over, not ultimatums. To me, Mozilla has become an unfair target of convenience. A lot of people are understandably still upset about Prop 8 and similar movements. But I think people have chosen to open fire at Mozilla simply because it's a lot harder to try to engage marriage equality opponents directly as people in a public way. Clearly, it has worked to put the issue out in front, but I don't think it's fair or ultimately productive. What's the endgame here? We can let the siege continue against Mozilla, one of the few major players who really stands behind the user. Maybe Eich will step down, and who knows what happens to Mozilla. Maybe we'll get an insincere change of heart. But that's just a victory for mob intimidation. I suppose maybe just maybe we'll get a sincere reversal from Eich. He certainly seems sensitive to the pain he's caused. But even if this happens, I don't know that the end would justify the means.

sanxiyn 13y ago
I must correct you as a matter of fact. "We're talking about a total of roughly $10,000 of donations over a period of 19 years, between 1991 and 2010. The man isn't being vilified over one donation." http://tim.dreamwidth.org/1845008.html http://tim.dreamwidth.org/1845008.html
- DanielStraight 13y ago
  You are deliberately taking that quote out of context to make a stronger point. Eich gave money multiple times to particular candidates. Those candidates may be opposed to homosexual marriage, but that in no way implies that Eich's donation was for the purpose of blocking homosexual marriage. Eich could have liked them for other reasons and not even known, or cared about, their stance on marriage.

aashishkoirala 13y ago

The article says he "invented JavaScript." Anyone know if this is accurate?

davidgerard 13y ago
If only there were a popular and wide-ranging Internet-based encyclopedia available ...

jmomo 13y ago

This interview is absolutely damning. Eich repeatedly uses the Mozilla Foundation as a shield to protect himself, saying that Mozilla is being threatened, when it is he who is the cause of these actions against Mozilla. He is showing that he has no qualms about using the foundation to protect himself. There is no longer a question that the man is a homophobe who believes in using state power to enforce religious persecution on a specific minority group. He says, "This group of people can't do this religious thing because it offends me, and the state must prevent them from doing it." And, he voted for it with his wallet, and affirmed that vote with this interview. Marriage is a religious institution. My personal opinion is that the state has no business being involved in marriage, including for reasons of taxes and other special privileges. There are good historical reasons for these laws, but they are no longer valid and we will need to change them, and can do so without harm to any particular group (except for those who want to enforce their own beliefs upon others, which is sadly common.) CEO is a very particular position. It's the moral and character leadership role of a company, and having a homophobe in this position is a serious problem. For me, an intolerable problem.