7 ms·

So here's the part about this that deeply disturbs me. It's reasonable to assume at this point that Mozilla's next CEO will have their political opinions thoro

So here's the part about this that deeply disturbs me. It's reasonable to assume at this point that Mozilla's next CEO will have their political opinions thoroughly vetted, overtly or covertly. In fact, it's reasonable to assume this will become a higher priority at all tech companies. Who wants to be the next Mozilla, after all? You pretty much have to do this now. And that's an awful place for us to be. It's going to go too far, because these things always do. Once you make something a corporate risk, corporations go too far in reducing it. So we're going to get the blandest, most milquetoast candidates possible. And it's going to hurt people on all sides of the political spectrum. It's also going to make people with ambitions of CEOhood hold back from any political support of anything, liberal or conservative or whatever. There's a definite chilling effect at work here. An internet mob has forced out a major company's CEO over a political issue. Yes, for many it's more than just politics. But that's not my point. My point is that it's also a political issue, and that's the lesson that's corporations are going to take here. They aren't going to limit it to issues some people see as human rights issues, they're going to apply it to all political issues, because overcompensating is what large corporations do. It's worrying, and ultimately a step in the wrong direction.

untog 13y ago
It's reasonable to assume at this point that Mozilla's next CEO will have their political opinions thoroughly vetted, overtly or covertly. You say political, I say moral. And you're talking as if this hasn't happened for a long time already. If a company discovered their CEO was racist they'd fire them immediately - if not for their own moral reasons then because they're opening themselves up to a volley of lawsuits. You can bet that CEOs of any decent sized company are vetted.
- mpyne 13y ago
  > You say political, I say moral. Do people no longer have the political right to disagree about what falls under the precept of morality though? How immoral can a corporate officer be before they become ineligible for the position? I mean, you mentioned racist CEOs, but what about CEOs who oppose affirmative action without actually changing their corporate policies regarding it? You ask one person and you'll hear that banning affirmative action is racist, ask another person and they'll tell you it's just enforcing fairness throughout. Were that it was so easy to simply reduce things in a tidy bundle by slotting them in the "morals" bucket...
  - MetaCosm 13y ago
    The trick is public perception of it. Once the public considers an issue no longer political, and rapidly coalesces behind a point of view... if you are on the wrong side of the point of view, expect to suffer repercussions. I would put forth that this issue has passed out of "political issue" because of its obvious trajectory.
speeder 13y ago
I am one that is considering joining politics, beside my startup. But at the same time, I am very worried that if I do, I will get into more problems than anything. In face since I joined a startup as tech-cofounder, I have been much more muted in stating my views, because I know lots of people won't understand them at all and will just be upset.
vertex-four 13y ago
The thing is, all this is decidedly not against anybody's rights. He has a right to say and do what he wants, anybody has a right to speak out against him and organise a boycott, and any employer has a right to ensure that a new hire will not negatively affect their image. Nobody's actually forcing anybody to do anything - nobody's treading on each other's rights, and everybody is acting as suits them. So the question is... what do we do? Do we suggest that speaking out against people who do things we don't like is wrong? Do we suggest that refusing to associate with people who we feel are attacking us is wrong?
danielharan 13y ago
Right. Bigots will have to stay in the closet now. Sounds terrible.
- muyuu 13y ago
  "Everybody who doesn't agree with me is a bigot and should be persecuted and ostracised." Who's the bigot? I didn't expect I'd meet McCarthyism so close and personal.
  - scintill76 13y ago
    I think this is a good nutshell. Apparently it's not bigotry if you're hating people for not agreeing with the liberal cause du jour. What would be an OK middle ground? Maybe this isn't a good case, because one man's "making Eich pay for his offensive beliefs" is another man's "keeping the Mozilla image palatable".
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
Domenic_S 13y ago
> It's also going to make people with ambitions of CEOhood hold back from any political support of anything, liberal or conservative or whatever. I strongly doubt it; liberal viewpoints are as welcome as always. An internet mob has forced out a major company's CEO over his politically conservative opinion. Unless the company in question is conservative as it's basis (eg, a church, the boy scouts), you don't see people ousted over liberal viewpoints. If you find your mouse cursor hovering over the downvote button, first find an example of a CxO internet mobbed because of their liberal stands.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
zorpner 13y ago
Corporations already extensively vet their executive appointments for their politics, personal life, and appearance. Sometimes specifically and overtly, and sometimes via social systems within the company. To think otherwise is the height of naivety. I'm fine with adding "publicly opposes same-sex marriage" to the already long list of disqualifications for leading an organization, particularly one like Mozilla. I've found that a good check on arguments involving same-sex marriage is to see if the same argument could be swapped out for interracial marriage (i.e. in this case, would people find it as upsetting if someone was unable to become the CEO of a progressive, civil-rights-focused organization because they supported anti-miscegenation laws).
- waterlesscloud 13y ago
  This is a watershed event. Blood has been drawn in this battle, which changes the entire nature of the battlefield. Future political vetting will not be the same as past vetting, it will be more intense. That's a simple fact that this point.
tomg 13y ago
It's important in the context of your comment to remember that Mozilla Corporation is owned by the Mozilla Foundation, a 501(c)(3) with a political mission of extending an open internet. The Mozilla Foundation accepts donations and in turn provides grants to many political (or quasi political) causes, including: - Creative Commons - Free Software Foundation - Open Video Alliance - Personal Democracy Forum - Public Knowledge - Software Freedom Conservancy Mozilla is not a normal company. It is a politically-motivated, donation-accepting non-profit. IMO, it is completely in line for them to ask the CEO to step down for their political opinions. References: http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/about/ http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/about/ http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/ http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/ http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/grants/ http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/grants/
- bzbarsky 13y ago
  While all the facts you mention are true, you may want to read http://incisive.nu/2014/thinking-about-mozilla/ http://incisive.nu/2014/thinking-about-mozilla/ for a different take on the conclusions to be reached from those facts. In particular, the paragraph starting "Several of my colleagues have called for Brendan’s resignation. I have not done so, despite my strong feelings on the issue ..."
MetaCosm 13y ago
TL;DR: It isn't really a political issue anymore, it has become just intolerance and homophobia. I think this issue has crossed a threshold. 61% of young Republican leaning Americans (18-29) support marriage equality. The issue has an obvious trajectory and end point, which means it has shifted in public perception from a "political issue" to simple intolerance, like racism or sexism. There are still organizations in the US that consider "race purity" a political issue, but the vast majority of the country just considers it intolerance and hate. Just a short time ago (1986) 1/3 of Americans considered interracial relationships "unacceptable"... today, 1/3 of Americans have a family member in an interracial relationship, and the vast majority consider it fine. It doesn't take long for something to shift from a political issue to a non-issue -- and if you are on the wrong side of history, you will called out. My point being, I consider this no different than ensuring your CEO didn't donate to the KKK or any other hate group. Technically donating to the KKK is political speech, and you have every right to do it -- but you don't have a "right" to be CEO of Mozilla in spite of it.
- waterlesscloud 13y ago
  This isn't about this particular issue, it's about the wider corporate response to it.
  - MetaCosm 13y ago
    I don't think it is, I think it is about this specific issue. This issue isn't considered "political issue" anymore (by many), it is a moral issue. A hate issue. Akin to racism, sexism, etc. He was unlucky enough to be on the wrong side of rapidly shifting public perception and got burned by it.
    - waterlesscloud 13y ago
      I know for a fact my comment was about the wider corporate response. I wrote it. :-)
robotresearcher 13y ago
If the guy believes that God needs gays to be treated differently from straights, and acts on that belief, how can he be trusted to make decisions about company personnel, or indeed any decision on anything? It's OK to hold people accountable for their daft beliefs.
- muyuu 13y ago
  That's your speculation and not fact. The only known fact is that he donated $1000 for Prop 8. From being for prop 8 the most we can conclude is that he wants the definition of marriage to remain "between a man and a woman" legally. I'm an atheist and I see that one can be for or against prop 8 for sociopolitical reasons. Depends on what does one appreciate or understand as marriage. I can also imagine that many conservatives, atheist or not, would be for Prop 8 if that was ever voted in my state.
  - robotresearcher 13y ago
    Yes I'm speculating on the motivation. Whatever the reason, he wants something stupid, harmful, unfair and illiberal in my opinion so his judgement is in doubt.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
cmelbye 13y ago
This really annoys me. Civil rights aren't political issues! If you had a brother, or a best friend, or a coworker who was LGBT, whether or not they're treated the same as you are (assuming you are heterosexual) by our society should not be considered a political issue. It's fundamentally an issue of morals, and I think it's exceedingly appropriate to vet the morals of a CEO candidate.

untog 13y ago

It's reasonable to assume at this point that Mozilla's next CEO will have their political opinions thoroughly vetted, overtly or covertly. You say political, I say moral. And you're talking as if this hasn't happened for a long time already. If a company discovered their CEO was racist they'd fire them immediately - if not for their own moral reasons then because they're opening themselves up to a volley of lawsuits. You can bet that CEOs of any decent sized company are vetted.

mpyne 13y ago
> You say political, I say moral. Do people no longer have the political right to disagree about what falls under the precept of morality though? How immoral can a corporate officer be before they become ineligible for the position? I mean, you mentioned racist CEOs, but what about CEOs who oppose affirmative action without actually changing their corporate policies regarding it? You ask one person and you'll hear that banning affirmative action is racist, ask another person and they'll tell you it's just enforcing fairness throughout. Were that it was so easy to simply reduce things in a tidy bundle by slotting them in the "morals" bucket...
- MetaCosm 13y ago
  The trick is public perception of it. Once the public considers an issue no longer political, and rapidly coalesces behind a point of view... if you are on the wrong side of the point of view, expect to suffer repercussions. I would put forth that this issue has passed out of "political issue" because of its obvious trajectory.

speeder 13y ago

I am one that is considering joining politics, beside my startup. But at the same time, I am very worried that if I do, I will get into more problems than anything. In face since I joined a startup as tech-cofounder, I have been much more muted in stating my views, because I know lots of people won't understand them at all and will just be upset.

vertex-four 13y ago

The thing is, all this is decidedly not against anybody's rights. He has a right to say and do what he wants, anybody has a right to speak out against him and organise a boycott, and any employer has a right to ensure that a new hire will not negatively affect their image. Nobody's actually forcing anybody to do anything - nobody's treading on each other's rights, and everybody is acting as suits them. So the question is... what do we do? Do we suggest that speaking out against people who do things we don't like is wrong? Do we suggest that refusing to associate with people who we feel are attacking us is wrong?

danielharan 13y ago

Right. Bigots will have to stay in the closet now. Sounds terrible.

muyuu 13y ago
"Everybody who doesn't agree with me is a bigot and should be persecuted and ostracised." Who's the bigot? I didn't expect I'd meet McCarthyism so close and personal.
- scintill76 13y ago
  I think this is a good nutshell. Apparently it's not bigotry if you're hating people for not agreeing with the liberal cause du jour. What would be an OK middle ground? Maybe this isn't a good case, because one man's "making Eich pay for his offensive beliefs" is another man's "keeping the Mozilla image palatable".
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

Domenic_S 13y ago

> It's also going to make people with ambitions of CEOhood hold back from any political support of anything, liberal or conservative or whatever. I strongly doubt it; liberal viewpoints are as welcome as always. An internet mob has forced out a major company's CEO over his politically conservative opinion. Unless the company in question is conservative as it's basis (eg, a church, the boy scouts), you don't see people ousted over liberal viewpoints. If you find your mouse cursor hovering over the downvote button, first find an example of a CxO internet mobbed because of their liberal stands.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

zorpner 13y ago

Corporations already extensively vet their executive appointments for their politics, personal life, and appearance. Sometimes specifically and overtly, and sometimes via social systems within the company. To think otherwise is the height of naivety. I'm fine with adding "publicly opposes same-sex marriage" to the already long list of disqualifications for leading an organization, particularly one like Mozilla. I've found that a good check on arguments involving same-sex marriage is to see if the same argument could be swapped out for interracial marriage (i.e. in this case, would people find it as upsetting if someone was unable to become the CEO of a progressive, civil-rights-focused organization because they supported anti-miscegenation laws).

waterlesscloud 13y ago
This is a watershed event. Blood has been drawn in this battle, which changes the entire nature of the battlefield. Future political vetting will not be the same as past vetting, it will be more intense. That's a simple fact that this point.

tomg 13y ago

It's important in the context of your comment to remember that Mozilla Corporation is owned by the Mozilla Foundation, a 501(c)(3) with a political mission of extending an open internet. The Mozilla Foundation accepts donations and in turn provides grants to many political (or quasi political) causes, including: - Creative Commons - Free Software Foundation - Open Video Alliance - Personal Democracy Forum - Public Knowledge - Software Freedom Conservancy Mozilla is not a normal company. It is a politically-motivated, donation-accepting non-profit. IMO, it is completely in line for them to ask the CEO to step down for their political opinions. References: http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/about/ http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/about/ http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/ http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/ http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/grants/ http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/grants/

bzbarsky 13y ago
While all the facts you mention are true, you may want to read http://incisive.nu/2014/thinking-about-mozilla/ http://incisive.nu/2014/thinking-about-mozilla/ for a different take on the conclusions to be reached from those facts. In particular, the paragraph starting "Several of my colleagues have called for Brendan’s resignation. I have not done so, despite my strong feelings on the issue ..."

MetaCosm 13y ago

TL;DR: It isn't really a political issue anymore, it has become just intolerance and homophobia. I think this issue has crossed a threshold. 61% of young Republican leaning Americans (18-29) support marriage equality. The issue has an obvious trajectory and end point, which means it has shifted in public perception from a "political issue" to simple intolerance, like racism or sexism. There are still organizations in the US that consider "race purity" a political issue, but the vast majority of the country just considers it intolerance and hate. Just a short time ago (1986) 1/3 of Americans considered interracial relationships "unacceptable"... today, 1/3 of Americans have a family member in an interracial relationship, and the vast majority consider it fine. It doesn't take long for something to shift from a political issue to a non-issue -- and if you are on the wrong side of history, you will called out. My point being, I consider this no different than ensuring your CEO didn't donate to the KKK or any other hate group. Technically donating to the KKK is political speech, and you have every right to do it -- but you don't have a "right" to be CEO of Mozilla in spite of it.

waterlesscloud 13y ago
This isn't about this particular issue, it's about the wider corporate response to it.
- MetaCosm 13y ago
  I don't think it is, I think it is about this specific issue. This issue isn't considered "political issue" anymore (by many), it is a moral issue. A hate issue. Akin to racism, sexism, etc. He was unlucky enough to be on the wrong side of rapidly shifting public perception and got burned by it.
  - waterlesscloud 13y ago
    I know for a fact my comment was about the wider corporate response. I wrote it. :-)

robotresearcher 13y ago

If the guy believes that God needs gays to be treated differently from straights, and acts on that belief, how can he be trusted to make decisions about company personnel, or indeed any decision on anything? It's OK to hold people accountable for their daft beliefs.

muyuu 13y ago
That's your speculation and not fact. The only known fact is that he donated $1000 for Prop 8. From being for prop 8 the most we can conclude is that he wants the definition of marriage to remain "between a man and a woman" legally. I'm an atheist and I see that one can be for or against prop 8 for sociopolitical reasons. Depends on what does one appreciate or understand as marriage. I can also imagine that many conservatives, atheist or not, would be for Prop 8 if that was ever voted in my state.
- robotresearcher 13y ago
  Yes I'm speculating on the motivation. Whatever the reason, he wants something stupid, harmful, unfair and illiberal in my opinion so his judgement is in doubt.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

cmelbye 13y ago

This really annoys me. Civil rights aren't political issues! If you had a brother, or a best friend, or a coworker who was LGBT, whether or not they're treated the same as you are (assuming you are heterosexual) by our society should not be considered a political issue. It's fundamentally an issue of morals, and I think it's exceedingly appropriate to vet the morals of a CEO candidate.