6 ms·

When I first heard the news, I was very angry and confused. After reading the Recode[1] writeup, it made a little more sense. The key point was the interviews w

When I first heard the news, I was very angry and confused. After reading the Recode[1] writeup, it made a little more sense. The key point was the interviews where he refused to back down from his opinions or apologize. Some could find that respectable (and ultimately I do), but if you take on the position of CEO you need to be prepared to eat your words. It would have been very easy for him to just apologize and have everyone go back to their business. It's sad that people are so shallow, but that's just the way it is. I'm not upset that he was fired. That said. I have nothing but fury for the people instigating these kinds of senseless whichhunts. The key point here is that Eich has been CTO of Mozilla for years. CTO to CEO, while a big transition, is much smaller distance in executive representation than this controversy calls for. What I suspect is somebody in the Gawkerati saw a news piece on "somebody something new CEO of Mozilla", Googled his name, and dug up one political contribution from 5 years ago to create a controversy out of thin air. This kind of behavior sickens me -- not just the media publications that stir this pot, but the individual people boiling at the seams to crucify everyone with a different opinion. In 2014, people that contribute nothing to society other than digging up controversies have the power to bring down historic figures from pushing the envelope of innovation and opening the Web to allow to allow this very kind of expression. At the end of the day, that is the ultimate irony. The technology that Branden worked his life on gave voice to those who destroyed him. The entire point of the web is to allow this kind of radical expression, and the moment we get it we use it to tear down and villanize the people who make it run. Absolutely disgraceful. If you're glad Eich resigned, I really only have one question for you: What do you hope to gain out of this? Do you think this will push the envelope toward greater acceptance of homosexuality? Is the idea that if we villify ideas enough and those that express them, they will eventually go away? Or does it just, I don't know, feel good? [1]http://recode.net/2014/04/03/mozilla-co-founder-brendan-eich-resigns-as-ceo-and-also-from-foundation-board/ http://recode.net/2014/04/03/mozilla-co-founder-brendan-eich...

jamesaguilar 13y ago
> Is the idea that if we villify [homophobia] enough and those that express them, they will eventually go away? Yes. It's been generally working with racism, sexism, classism, and a bunch of other bad -isms. The needs of oppressed groups outweigh the needs of their oppressors to express their views free of consequences.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  The need of the oppressed groups for revenge after they more or less won? Really? Anyone who thinks like that has none of my support. Good luck with your fight, which could have been ours. Also, there are plenty ways of having "consequences" without outright firing the guy, when from all we know he was doing his job just fine and brought exactly zero of his views about gay marriage into it.
  - devindotcom 13y ago
    Who has won, and in what way? Are you suggesting gay people have "won" in some way other than a few isolated and contested areas where their relationships have, after decades of protest and activism, been acknowledged as legally equivalent to straight people's relationships?
    - PavlovsCat 13y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008) ^ notice how the article is written in the past tense.
  - wonderzombie 13y ago
    It's not about "winning." It's about what kind of world we want to live in. Evidently enough people don't want to live in a world where a bigot is the CEO of an organization that ostensibly espouses freedom and equality. I use the word bigot advisedly. Anything else is sugar-coating the motivations and rationale of the anti-gay-marriage crowd— there is no basis for it which does not rest on a religious argument, in theory or in practice. And you can't actively oppose deny someone else's civil rights and claim it's not personal, or whatever.
    - PavlovsCat 13y ago
      You're still extrapolating mighty much from that one donation, I find it a petty witch hunt. You live in a world where your president is a mass murdering war criminal on your behalf, in your name. You live in a world where Gitmo is a thing. So much for organizations espousing freedom and equality, so much for where your tax money goes. Compared to that, who works for Mozilla isn't really anyone's business -- don't use their products if it means so much to you, but don't think a victory was won here for anything but delusion and self-righteous pettyness.
HaloZero 13y ago
HIs appointment as CTO was in 2005, before the public disclosure of his 2008 support of Prop 8. The CEO is also a significantly larger role as they help dictate the vision of the company vs just the technological points of the company.
jeffgreco 13y ago
Blaming the "Gawkerati" seems ignorant of the overwhelming negative response that erupted pretty quickly on HN.
muyuu 13y ago
All my life I've considered these goons talking about "evil homosexual lobby" and "reactionary liberals" to be basically wacko mad bigots. For the first time I find myself thinking there might be something to that. When you find that your movement excuses means like lynching ("consequences" to your opinions and your freedom of speech) and persecution as long as they help your goals, then maybe your movement has lost the plot. I'm seeing truly scary comments that would have made McCarthyists cringe. In an environment where I'd never have expected them.
- Borogove 13y ago
  That's a really interesting definition of "lynching".
  - muyuu 13y ago
    Hey, you can say and think whatever you want... but be careful of the "consequences". You are free... but be very afraid that we might find that you think the wrong thing. This school of thought is being defended across tech forums. Appalling.
    - devindotcom 13y ago
      Are you saying we shouldn't be careful of the consequences of our words and deeds? edit since i can't respond to myself: and here is an interesting definition of "fascism."
      - muyuu 13y ago
        I'm saying that publicly rallying for the persecution of someone based on a prop donation shouldn't be encouraged or defended in any way. It's pure fascism.
        SolarNet 13y ago
        Oh yea, because having to step down from a company is like going to jail, or hell, not being able to see your dying significant other because you aren't allowed to marry. Yep he was definitely persecuted.
mikeash 13y ago
Regarding your question, I won't say that I'm happy or sad, I've pretty much been following this with great fascination not taking either side. I'm very much against state discrimination against homosexuality, but Eich's "crime" in that respect was fairly minor. On the other hand, firing a CEO because he pressed the wrong button and got a buttload of people angry at him is entirely reasonable. That said, I think this sort of thing does work. It's messy and far from ideal but it does push things in that direction: "Is the idea that if we villify ideas enough and those that express them, they will eventually go away?" In short... yes. Most people never change no matter what you do. The only way to really change things is to influence the next generation, so that they form different ("better") opinions than their parents. Children get a lot of their opinions from their parents, but they also get a lot of their opinions from the society they're in. If you force bigots to retreat from the public eye it does work to reduce bigotry in the very long term. I'm not saying these tactics are a good idea (nor bad, I just make no stand on it at all), but they do work, slowly.
- natural219 13y ago
  I think this topic -- how do we accelerate the decline in bigotry, esp. in regards to homosexuality -- is a hugely valuable topic to discuss. I'm of the opinion that these kind of tactics probably aren't as effective as simply what I suggest: "letting the old people die". It's been shown that young people hugely disproportionatly support gay marriage, and support for Prop 8 is declining by a large percentage every year. I think that when you decide that certain viewpoints or groups are just not allowable at all, all you do is marginalize those groups and push them even further to the extreme. I think you could make a case that Fox News et al would possibly be less extreme if the progressive movement wasn't so vocal about eradicating all potential opposition. Just my two cents. I'd be really interested to hear other's thoughts on this subject, because I think that bigotry is tied to a whole bunch of other related problems that need solving.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    What's driving that change of opinion among the youth, though? These attitudes persisted for generations, and suddenly they're changing. I wouldn't even begin to think about assigning cause versus effect here, but I think it's worth considering that the opinion of the youth is changing because of this sort of action.
rtpg 13y ago
>Do you think this will push the envelope toward greater acceptance of homosexuality? Well at the very least it will make life harder for bigots. Seriously, this isn't about the fact that Eich donated to Prop 8 5 years ago, it's that he seems to still hold this position. He has had ample time to offer an apology( in a sort of "facts change" manner) and the fact that he hasn't makes the case that he still believes in oppressing homosexuals pretty strong. Free speech is not consequence-free speech, and he's still able to say what he wants. But expecting people to ignore who he is when he's representing one of the most symbolic companies in the open source communities is unrealistic. Why would any of us want someone with those social views representing the tech community at large (especially at a time where so many -ism's have shown themselves to be prevalent). If he just wanted to do tech, maybe he should have stayed CTO.
- hexis 13y ago
  That was a well stated defense of intolerance.
  - bronson 13y ago
    Not really. "intolerance of intolerance" isn't quite the same thing as "intolerance".
    - hexis 13y ago
      Tolerance exists precisely for things which you hate. If you reserve tolerance for the unimportant issues, then you are intolerant.
- natural219 13y ago
  I completely agree with you. I think after that interview, this was the correct path. Still, I think we should give people a chance, upon taking a new position, to hold to at least a somewhat clean public record. He made that donation in five years ago. He probably had no idea at the time he would be seeking such a public position. Unlike Dan Cathy, there's no indication he would have brought up his views on his own (he would have likely to consider it a bad idea). Once enough hate had been generated, the interview was inevitable. And once it's out in the open, I mean, I agree, he should have backed down. I'm somewhat proud of him and I respect him more, but if you're a board of directors, you have responsibilities. Overall, I think society benefits from the flexibility of forgiveness. Branden is a prodigal and historic figure -- we should at least give him the chance to continue changing the world.
hugi 13y ago
Someone whose ideology involves actively fighting against other people's personal freedom should not control Mozilla. I'm a little confused by how people fail to see this. Mozilla represents freedom while Brendan represents oppression. His technical abilities have nothing to do with this and he's probably a fine CTO. That's where he should have stayed.
williamcotton 13y ago
This sort of muckraking has gone on for a very long time. It is basically an institution at this point. It has the function of keeping the powerful from attempting to speak down upon the week. It should be a lesson for anyone who speaks out against minorities, the poor, and any other disadvantaged peoples. The published disdain for authority is one of the cornerstones of American democracy. There are public and social responsibilities that come with the type of money, power and prestige that success in business and industry offers. Those who don't agree will soon feel the might of the pen and the full implications of the freedoms that allow us to openly communicate and conduct business. While I respect Mr. Eich and his right to his own personal opinions, he can't expect to attain such publicly visible positions of authority without having his underwear hung out to dry. Our industry could also learn a thing or two about populism. It should learn to embrace it. Young, hot-shots should learn a modicum of decency. Those with their eyes set on great accomplishments should learn the value of respecting those that don't value the same things. In addition, savvy entrepreneurs can use populism to their advantage with great success. It doesn't have to be a hinderance. We're a social creature. It makes complete sense that figureheads have the ability to help or hurt the perceptions of potential customers. Venture capitalism, as expressed in Silicon Valley, has been rather short-sighted and irresponsible as of late. It is not only condoning but also promoting an attitude of arrogance. I blame any member of an older generation that lacks the leadership and guidance that should be an integral part of the types of social change that come about when many millions of dollars are in play. There is a lot of visible excess in our industry right now. I sure as hell can't put too much blame on a bunch of kids who just left the nest. Unfortunately for Mr. Eich his reputation is of further interest to journalists who have been successfully crafting the narrative of a dark side to an entire industry. If our industry doesn't like the unfair side effects of having a disreputable image it should work to change the narrative instead of demonizing and adding fuel the flames of popular discontent. Right now the story is about private shuttle busses, evictions, sexism, ageism, and yes, homophobic CEOs, along with a slew of other forms of imbalances in perceived difference. What are we going to do about it?

jamesaguilar 13y ago

> Is the idea that if we villify [homophobia] enough and those that express them, they will eventually go away? Yes. It's been generally working with racism, sexism, classism, and a bunch of other bad -isms. The needs of oppressed groups outweigh the needs of their oppressors to express their views free of consequences.

PavlovsCat 13y ago
The need of the oppressed groups for revenge after they more or less won? Really? Anyone who thinks like that has none of my support. Good luck with your fight, which could have been ours. Also, there are plenty ways of having "consequences" without outright firing the guy, when from all we know he was doing his job just fine and brought exactly zero of his views about gay marriage into it.
- devindotcom 13y ago
  Who has won, and in what way? Are you suggesting gay people have "won" in some way other than a few isolated and contested areas where their relationships have, after decades of protest and activism, been acknowledged as legally equivalent to straight people's relationships?
  - PavlovsCat 13y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008) ^ notice how the article is written in the past tense.
- wonderzombie 13y ago
  It's not about "winning." It's about what kind of world we want to live in. Evidently enough people don't want to live in a world where a bigot is the CEO of an organization that ostensibly espouses freedom and equality. I use the word bigot advisedly. Anything else is sugar-coating the motivations and rationale of the anti-gay-marriage crowd— there is no basis for it which does not rest on a religious argument, in theory or in practice. And you can't actively oppose deny someone else's civil rights and claim it's not personal, or whatever.
  - PavlovsCat 13y ago
    You're still extrapolating mighty much from that one donation, I find it a petty witch hunt. You live in a world where your president is a mass murdering war criminal on your behalf, in your name. You live in a world where Gitmo is a thing. So much for organizations espousing freedom and equality, so much for where your tax money goes. Compared to that, who works for Mozilla isn't really anyone's business -- don't use their products if it means so much to you, but don't think a victory was won here for anything but delusion and self-righteous pettyness.

HaloZero 13y ago

HIs appointment as CTO was in 2005, before the public disclosure of his 2008 support of Prop 8. The CEO is also a significantly larger role as they help dictate the vision of the company vs just the technological points of the company.

jeffgreco 13y ago

Blaming the "Gawkerati" seems ignorant of the overwhelming negative response that erupted pretty quickly on HN.

muyuu 13y ago

All my life I've considered these goons talking about "evil homosexual lobby" and "reactionary liberals" to be basically wacko mad bigots. For the first time I find myself thinking there might be something to that. When you find that your movement excuses means like lynching ("consequences" to your opinions and your freedom of speech) and persecution as long as they help your goals, then maybe your movement has lost the plot. I'm seeing truly scary comments that would have made McCarthyists cringe. In an environment where I'd never have expected them.

Borogove 13y ago
That's a really interesting definition of "lynching".
- muyuu 13y ago
  Hey, you can say and think whatever you want... but be careful of the "consequences". You are free... but be very afraid that we might find that you think the wrong thing. This school of thought is being defended across tech forums. Appalling.
  - devindotcom 13y ago
    Are you saying we shouldn't be careful of the consequences of our words and deeds? edit since i can't respond to myself: and here is an interesting definition of "fascism."
    - muyuu 13y ago
      I'm saying that publicly rallying for the persecution of someone based on a prop donation shouldn't be encouraged or defended in any way. It's pure fascism.
      - SolarNet 13y ago
        Oh yea, because having to step down from a company is like going to jail, or hell, not being able to see your dying significant other because you aren't allowed to marry. Yep he was definitely persecuted.

mikeash 13y ago

Regarding your question, I won't say that I'm happy or sad, I've pretty much been following this with great fascination not taking either side. I'm very much against state discrimination against homosexuality, but Eich's "crime" in that respect was fairly minor. On the other hand, firing a CEO because he pressed the wrong button and got a buttload of people angry at him is entirely reasonable. That said, I think this sort of thing does work. It's messy and far from ideal but it does push things in that direction: "Is the idea that if we villify ideas enough and those that express them, they will eventually go away?" In short... yes. Most people never change no matter what you do. The only way to really change things is to influence the next generation, so that they form different ("better") opinions than their parents. Children get a lot of their opinions from their parents, but they also get a lot of their opinions from the society they're in. If you force bigots to retreat from the public eye it does work to reduce bigotry in the very long term. I'm not saying these tactics are a good idea (nor bad, I just make no stand on it at all), but they do work, slowly.

natural219 13y ago
I think this topic -- how do we accelerate the decline in bigotry, esp. in regards to homosexuality -- is a hugely valuable topic to discuss. I'm of the opinion that these kind of tactics probably aren't as effective as simply what I suggest: "letting the old people die". It's been shown that young people hugely disproportionatly support gay marriage, and support for Prop 8 is declining by a large percentage every year. I think that when you decide that certain viewpoints or groups are just not allowable at all, all you do is marginalize those groups and push them even further to the extreme. I think you could make a case that Fox News et al would possibly be less extreme if the progressive movement wasn't so vocal about eradicating all potential opposition. Just my two cents. I'd be really interested to hear other's thoughts on this subject, because I think that bigotry is tied to a whole bunch of other related problems that need solving.
- mikeash 13y ago
  What's driving that change of opinion among the youth, though? These attitudes persisted for generations, and suddenly they're changing. I wouldn't even begin to think about assigning cause versus effect here, but I think it's worth considering that the opinion of the youth is changing because of this sort of action.

rtpg 13y ago

>Do you think this will push the envelope toward greater acceptance of homosexuality? Well at the very least it will make life harder for bigots. Seriously, this isn't about the fact that Eich donated to Prop 8 5 years ago, it's that he seems to still hold this position. He has had ample time to offer an apology( in a sort of "facts change" manner) and the fact that he hasn't makes the case that he still believes in oppressing homosexuals pretty strong. Free speech is not consequence-free speech, and he's still able to say what he wants. But expecting people to ignore who he is when he's representing one of the most symbolic companies in the open source communities is unrealistic. Why would any of us want someone with those social views representing the tech community at large (especially at a time where so many -ism's have shown themselves to be prevalent). If he just wanted to do tech, maybe he should have stayed CTO.

hexis 13y ago
That was a well stated defense of intolerance.
- bronson 13y ago
  Not really. "intolerance of intolerance" isn't quite the same thing as "intolerance".
  - hexis 13y ago
    Tolerance exists precisely for things which you hate. If you reserve tolerance for the unimportant issues, then you are intolerant.
natural219 13y ago
I completely agree with you. I think after that interview, this was the correct path. Still, I think we should give people a chance, upon taking a new position, to hold to at least a somewhat clean public record. He made that donation in five years ago. He probably had no idea at the time he would be seeking such a public position. Unlike Dan Cathy, there's no indication he would have brought up his views on his own (he would have likely to consider it a bad idea). Once enough hate had been generated, the interview was inevitable. And once it's out in the open, I mean, I agree, he should have backed down. I'm somewhat proud of him and I respect him more, but if you're a board of directors, you have responsibilities. Overall, I think society benefits from the flexibility of forgiveness. Branden is a prodigal and historic figure -- we should at least give him the chance to continue changing the world.

hugi 13y ago

Someone whose ideology involves actively fighting against other people's personal freedom should not control Mozilla. I'm a little confused by how people fail to see this. Mozilla represents freedom while Brendan represents oppression. His technical abilities have nothing to do with this and he's probably a fine CTO. That's where he should have stayed.

williamcotton 13y ago

This sort of muckraking has gone on for a very long time. It is basically an institution at this point. It has the function of keeping the powerful from attempting to speak down upon the week. It should be a lesson for anyone who speaks out against minorities, the poor, and any other disadvantaged peoples. The published disdain for authority is one of the cornerstones of American democracy. There are public and social responsibilities that come with the type of money, power and prestige that success in business and industry offers. Those who don't agree will soon feel the might of the pen and the full implications of the freedoms that allow us to openly communicate and conduct business. While I respect Mr. Eich and his right to his own personal opinions, he can't expect to attain such publicly visible positions of authority without having his underwear hung out to dry. Our industry could also learn a thing or two about populism. It should learn to embrace it. Young, hot-shots should learn a modicum of decency. Those with their eyes set on great accomplishments should learn the value of respecting those that don't value the same things. In addition, savvy entrepreneurs can use populism to their advantage with great success. It doesn't have to be a hinderance. We're a social creature. It makes complete sense that figureheads have the ability to help or hurt the perceptions of potential customers. Venture capitalism, as expressed in Silicon Valley, has been rather short-sighted and irresponsible as of late. It is not only condoning but also promoting an attitude of arrogance. I blame any member of an older generation that lacks the leadership and guidance that should be an integral part of the types of social change that come about when many millions of dollars are in play. There is a lot of visible excess in our industry right now. I sure as hell can't put too much blame on a bunch of kids who just left the nest. Unfortunately for Mr. Eich his reputation is of further interest to journalists who have been successfully crafting the narrative of a dark side to an entire industry. If our industry doesn't like the unfair side effects of having a disreputable image it should work to change the narrative instead of demonizing and adding fuel the flames of popular discontent. Right now the story is about private shuttle busses, evictions, sexism, ageism, and yes, homophobic CEOs, along with a slew of other forms of imbalances in perceived difference. What are we going to do about it?