6 ms·

This is just sad. Gay marriage has literally nothing to do with Mozilla's work or mission, and there has not been any evidence that Eich was using his position

This is just sad. Gay marriage has literally nothing to do with Mozilla's work or mission, and there has not been any evidence that Eich was using his position at Mozilla to advance some kind of anti-gay agenda. This is basically the definition of thoughtcrime -- Eich did nothing wrong other than to have an opinion and donate a bit of his own money to a cause he supports. It was not all that long ago that taking a pro-gay-rights position might have led to this kind of retaliation. If you are one of the people who rallied against Mozilla, just remember that political winds can shift and that in a few decades you might be the one receiving this treatment.

benched 13y ago
Today, I learned just how trivial people believe gay rights are. I'm actually surprised by it. That's much sadder to me.
- fennecfoxen 13y ago
  Today I learned that some people believe gay rights are so important that they think anyone who disagrees with the preferred, tendentious public-policy perspective on gay rights IS A MONSTER incapable of treating people like human beings and destructive to an organization. Also, pluralism is dead.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    ... as if yelling back at him was going to make the thread any better. Only the flag button on the story can save us now.
    - stcredzero 13y ago
      Flag button? Make it a flag pin!
- freyrs3 13y ago
  Most people are probably very much in favor of marriage equality, they just draw a different line than you about the role that personal opinions should play in an pluralistic workplace. Let's not conflate the two views here, there's been enough discussion around this to recognize that there are at least nuanced arguments on both sides that defy this binary classification.
- tptacek 13y ago
  See, this comment is why we need to do a better job of keeping stories like this off the front page. There's nothing in the comment you replied to that indicates any cavalierness about "gay rights", and yet, there it is: the nasty comment accusing another HN user of bad faith. Right on cue.
  - waterlesscloud 13y ago
    Normally I'd agree that stories with a high political divisiveness content should be kept off the front page. But this is a story about one of the most prominent people in tech and one of the most prominent companies in tech. In addition, it has ramifications for everyone who wants to run or own a company. So it very much belongs on the front page of HN. The fact that a lot of the comments will be inflammatory is predictable, if sad, but that's no reason to try to sweep it under the rug. A different approach is needed for stories like this one that are otherwise perfect fits for top-of-HN material.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      There's a story about Eich already on the front page. All the new story does is create new opportunities for ungroomed nasty threads.
  - enko 13y ago
    > There's nothing in the comment you replied to that indicates any cavalierness about "gay rights" You missed the point. The GP's comment, by dismissing gay right's relevance to mozilla, implicitly treated the matter in a "cavalier" manner. Let's do a little find/replace to prove the point. Eich donated $1000 to the KKK. The GP notes that lynching niggers has nothing to do with the day to day operations of Mozilla, so what's the big deal. The parent is dismayed by how trivial black person's rights are considered by HN. What's your comment, tptacek?
    - tptacek 13y ago
      You don't even know if you disagree with this person about marriage equality, but here we are talking about the KKK.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- jswinghammer 13y ago
  Today you learned that how? Are you unaware that there is a large portion of the population that think that gay marriage should not be recognized by the state?
- ploxiln 13y ago
  The gay rights issue is much more complicated than "oppose gay mariage == EVIL". A huge number of people supported the proposition - a really huge number. Do you think they all were bad people? Do you think this particular, say, 30% of the population of California are bad people who should never run a company? If you're not isolated in a liberal pocket of a huge city, you know and like and respect some of these people, and you think they can do a fantastic job at many things. And by the way, it seems to have been fine for Eich to be CTO, but end of the world for him to be CEO, explain that. The truth is both sides are wrong. Marriage is defined between and man and a woman, that's just the meaning of the word applied to people. And it shouldn't mean anything to the law, there should be no tax implications, no child rights implications, nothing. Also, by the way, all religions are just not true. Of course, thinking these things makes me EVIL to just about everyone. I'm not sad though, just really cynical. Politics is just one irrational side shouting at the other, saying that anyone who doubts their side for a second is evil. Anything logical doesn't matter until it happens to come into fashion. I just avoid it all to the greatest extent possible.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
batiudrami 13y ago
I'm really struggling to decide where to come down on this issue. It absolutely is a bigoted opinion that he holds and essentially comes down to denying a group of people happiness for no good reason. It is extremely unlikely that these beliefs would affect Eich's job performance, though it is probable that holding those beliefs would affect the performance of Mozilla contributors - and for a group (corporation?) which relies on volunteers to function, this is an important consideration. Plus, a big part of Mozilla's modus operandi is holding itself to a higher standard - and I don't see why that shouldn't apply to social issues as well, especially for those which Mozilla's community deems important. I have seen arguments that this is only a vocal minority making a fuss - I would imagine that the vast majority of those involved in Mozilla believe in equal rights for gay people, and many are upset (I am upset that he seems resolute in his views and refuses to have a conversation about it, for instance). I do feel bad for the guy, though - it seems like he played a massive part in getting Mozilla to where it was today - but he partially brought this on himself, and not just by way of a $1000 donation 6 years ago, but also how he reacted to it recently.
- stcredzero 13y ago
  It absolutely is a bigoted opinion that he holds and essentially comes down to denying a group of people happiness for no good reason. Yes, but note how you have framed the situation. What if the person with the opinion also sincerely believed that his position was not bigoted and was not denying anyone happiness? Who then is the arbiter of whose opinion is right? Somehow I don't think it's a good idea for democratic processes to label the side that is wrong as "horrible people." Otherwise, why have a democratic process at all? he partially brought this on himself, and not just by way of a $1000 donation 6 years ago, but also how he reacted to it recently. What specifically did he do recently?
  - jeswin 13y ago
    What if the person with the opinion also sincerely believed that his position was not bigoted and was not denying anyone happiness? Well, if a person sincerely believed that black people should not be granted equal rights would you pick him as CEO? I'm pretty sure you won't; gay rights are the same thing. I really admire the technical work Eich does, and benefit tremendously from it. However, his views on gay rights are disappointing.
mikeash 13y ago
How can you call it "thoughtcrime" while immediately bringing up his donation? You may consider it minor, but clearly there's more to this than just thought.
- stcredzero 13y ago
  "Donationcrime" would be considered the equivalent of "speechcrime" under the current Supreme Court's interpretation of the law.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    Turns out you can get fired for your speech.
    - ChrisGaudreau 13y ago
      Yeah. If you say "my manager is a prick" and he finds out about it, prepare to get fired.
      - stcredzero 13y ago
        If your manager fires you because you said something he didn't like 6 years ago, you should have left of your own accord a long time ago. Also, the statement probably does apply after all, in that case.
- fennecfoxen 13y ago
  Hey Mike. Help me come up with a term that's like "political prisoner" but without the imprisonment part.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    "Political wealthy, skilled, healthy dude who still has a great life"?
    - 13y ago
Raticide 13y ago
It might be ok if they were just his beliefs, but he was actively working to restrict the rights of gay couples. How would you feel if your CEO was actively working to get your rights restricted, regardless of if he didn't change any company policy.
glesica 13y ago
> ...you might be the one receiving this treatment. If at that point I'm wrong, then good. If at that point I'm right, then that will be an injustice, but whether Eich was forced out or not will have had zero bearing on that. Like it or not, the CEO of Mozilla is a public figure, and people are entitled to have opinions about public figures and to voice those opinions, and Mozilla is free to consider those opinions when choosing a CEO. This is literally how every boycott or other similar action happens. No one (that I know of) called for the government to remove Eich, no one called for him to be lynched, they called for Mozilla to remove Eich or for Eich to resign or, failing one of those, for people to stop supporting Mozilla. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. What you call "thoughtcrime" has another name: public discourse.
- betterunix 13y ago
  "people are entitled to have opinions about public figures and to voice those opinions" Sure, people are entitled to their opinions, and that is what this is all about. The problem here is that someone lost his job because of his opinion. "This is literally how every boycott or other similar action happens." Boycotts are typically about corporate policies, practices, or lobbying. For example, I know people who refuse to shop at Walmart because of the company's anti-unionization efforts. What we saw here is very different. At no point did Mozilla take any kind of anti-gay-marriage position. At no point did Mozilla do anything that was hostile to homosexual employees, users, or people in general. This was a boycott over the CEO's personal beliefs, despite the complete lack of evidence or accusations of him using his position at Mozilla to advance those beliefs. What happened here is that Mozilla's public image was attacked in an effort to punish Eich for his opinion. "What you call "thoughtcrime" has another name: public discourse." No, public discourse involves people calmly stating their views and arguing for those views (e.g. what we are doing right now). It is not public discourse when someone loses their job because of their opinion, all the more so when that opinion has no relevance to their job. It is not public discourse when people band together to ostracize anyone who disagrees with them. Eich was punished for having an opinion that people do not like. He was told that he has no right to be a leader in the tech community because of that opinion, without regard to his contributions to the community, without regard to his behavior in a leadership position at Mozilla. There are only two terms that are appropriate in describing what happened: thoughtcrime and bullying.
lawnchair_larry 13y ago
So you'd work for someone who takes the proceeds of your work and spends it on attempting to attack your rights and freedoms, or the rights of your friends? Once you vote or donate money, it's not a thought, and it's not speech. You're taking direct action to negatively impact the rights of another person. This is completely relevant to the company a CEO represents, regardless of what the company does. All of the output from that company contributes to his ability to restrict rights.
mikeash 13y ago
"...just remember that political winds can shift and that in a few decades you might be the one receiving this treatment." I know you mean this statement in a cautionary way, but to me that's unbelievably optimistic. Historically, minority rights are political issues people are willing to kill for. Those who fight have to be willing to die for their cause. Now the worst I can expect is to be forced to resign as CEO, to go on and play with problems that interest me and find a new job at leisure? Wonderful! This is why I really don't get all the counter-uproar here. What happened to Mr. Each was basically nothing. He wasn't killed, or hurt, or blacklisted, or run out of town. He didn't even lose his CTO job, which he held for years after the controversial donation came to light. All that happened was that once he was made CEO, the public said this is a bad choice, and then the board basically said, you know what, you're right.
- betterunix 13y ago
  Keep in mind that a ban on gay marriage does not kill, physically injure, blacklist, or run anyone out of town either. If we can ascribe such importance to gay marriage despite all that, why should we be so willing to downplay the impact of ousting a man who has devoted years of his life to Mozilla from a leadership position there?
  - mikeash 13y ago
    Who's downplaying the impact? The impact is small. It's not like he needed that job to feed his family. Better people lose more important (to them) jobs for worse reasons all the time. This whole thing is a tempest in a teacup. I don't understand why people are so outraged at a $1000 donation from years ago (I don't think it's good, but it's not all that important), nor do I understand why people are so outraged that he doesn't get to be CEO because of it.

benched 13y ago

Today, I learned just how trivial people believe gay rights are. I'm actually surprised by it. That's much sadder to me.

fennecfoxen 13y ago
Today I learned that some people believe gay rights are so important that they think anyone who disagrees with the preferred, tendentious public-policy perspective on gay rights IS A MONSTER incapable of treating people like human beings and destructive to an organization. Also, pluralism is dead.
- tptacek 13y ago
  ... as if yelling back at him was going to make the thread any better. Only the flag button on the story can save us now.
  - stcredzero 13y ago
    Flag button? Make it a flag pin!
freyrs3 13y ago
Most people are probably very much in favor of marriage equality, they just draw a different line than you about the role that personal opinions should play in an pluralistic workplace. Let's not conflate the two views here, there's been enough discussion around this to recognize that there are at least nuanced arguments on both sides that defy this binary classification.
tptacek 13y ago
See, this comment is why we need to do a better job of keeping stories like this off the front page. There's nothing in the comment you replied to that indicates any cavalierness about "gay rights", and yet, there it is: the nasty comment accusing another HN user of bad faith. Right on cue.
- waterlesscloud 13y ago
  Normally I'd agree that stories with a high political divisiveness content should be kept off the front page. But this is a story about one of the most prominent people in tech and one of the most prominent companies in tech. In addition, it has ramifications for everyone who wants to run or own a company. So it very much belongs on the front page of HN. The fact that a lot of the comments will be inflammatory is predictable, if sad, but that's no reason to try to sweep it under the rug. A different approach is needed for stories like this one that are otherwise perfect fits for top-of-HN material.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    There's a story about Eich already on the front page. All the new story does is create new opportunities for ungroomed nasty threads.
- enko 13y ago
  > There's nothing in the comment you replied to that indicates any cavalierness about "gay rights" You missed the point. The GP's comment, by dismissing gay right's relevance to mozilla, implicitly treated the matter in a "cavalier" manner. Let's do a little find/replace to prove the point. Eich donated $1000 to the KKK. The GP notes that lynching niggers has nothing to do with the day to day operations of Mozilla, so what's the big deal. The parent is dismayed by how trivial black person's rights are considered by HN. What's your comment, tptacek?
  - tptacek 13y ago
    You don't even know if you disagree with this person about marriage equality, but here we are talking about the KKK.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
jswinghammer 13y ago
Today you learned that how? Are you unaware that there is a large portion of the population that think that gay marriage should not be recognized by the state?
ploxiln 13y ago
The gay rights issue is much more complicated than "oppose gay mariage == EVIL". A huge number of people supported the proposition - a really huge number. Do you think they all were bad people? Do you think this particular, say, 30% of the population of California are bad people who should never run a company? If you're not isolated in a liberal pocket of a huge city, you know and like and respect some of these people, and you think they can do a fantastic job at many things. And by the way, it seems to have been fine for Eich to be CTO, but end of the world for him to be CEO, explain that. The truth is both sides are wrong. Marriage is defined between and man and a woman, that's just the meaning of the word applied to people. And it shouldn't mean anything to the law, there should be no tax implications, no child rights implications, nothing. Also, by the way, all religions are just not true. Of course, thinking these things makes me EVIL to just about everyone. I'm not sad though, just really cynical. Politics is just one irrational side shouting at the other, saying that anyone who doubts their side for a second is evil. Anything logical doesn't matter until it happens to come into fashion. I just avoid it all to the greatest extent possible.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

batiudrami 13y ago

I'm really struggling to decide where to come down on this issue. It absolutely is a bigoted opinion that he holds and essentially comes down to denying a group of people happiness for no good reason. It is extremely unlikely that these beliefs would affect Eich's job performance, though it is probable that holding those beliefs would affect the performance of Mozilla contributors - and for a group (corporation?) which relies on volunteers to function, this is an important consideration. Plus, a big part of Mozilla's modus operandi is holding itself to a higher standard - and I don't see why that shouldn't apply to social issues as well, especially for those which Mozilla's community deems important. I have seen arguments that this is only a vocal minority making a fuss - I would imagine that the vast majority of those involved in Mozilla believe in equal rights for gay people, and many are upset (I am upset that he seems resolute in his views and refuses to have a conversation about it, for instance). I do feel bad for the guy, though - it seems like he played a massive part in getting Mozilla to where it was today - but he partially brought this on himself, and not just by way of a $1000 donation 6 years ago, but also how he reacted to it recently.

stcredzero 13y ago
It absolutely is a bigoted opinion that he holds and essentially comes down to denying a group of people happiness for no good reason. Yes, but note how you have framed the situation. What if the person with the opinion also sincerely believed that his position was not bigoted and was not denying anyone happiness? Who then is the arbiter of whose opinion is right? Somehow I don't think it's a good idea for democratic processes to label the side that is wrong as "horrible people." Otherwise, why have a democratic process at all? he partially brought this on himself, and not just by way of a $1000 donation 6 years ago, but also how he reacted to it recently. What specifically did he do recently?
- jeswin 13y ago
  What if the person with the opinion also sincerely believed that his position was not bigoted and was not denying anyone happiness? Well, if a person sincerely believed that black people should not be granted equal rights would you pick him as CEO? I'm pretty sure you won't; gay rights are the same thing. I really admire the technical work Eich does, and benefit tremendously from it. However, his views on gay rights are disappointing.

mikeash 13y ago

How can you call it "thoughtcrime" while immediately bringing up his donation? You may consider it minor, but clearly there's more to this than just thought.

stcredzero 13y ago
"Donationcrime" would be considered the equivalent of "speechcrime" under the current Supreme Court's interpretation of the law.
- mikeash 13y ago
  Turns out you can get fired for your speech.
  - ChrisGaudreau 13y ago
    Yeah. If you say "my manager is a prick" and he finds out about it, prepare to get fired.
    - stcredzero 13y ago
      If your manager fires you because you said something he didn't like 6 years ago, you should have left of your own accord a long time ago. Also, the statement probably does apply after all, in that case.
fennecfoxen 13y ago
Hey Mike. Help me come up with a term that's like "political prisoner" but without the imprisonment part.
- mikeash 13y ago
  "Political wealthy, skilled, healthy dude who still has a great life"?
  - 13y ago

Raticide 13y ago

It might be ok if they were just his beliefs, but he was actively working to restrict the rights of gay couples. How would you feel if your CEO was actively working to get your rights restricted, regardless of if he didn't change any company policy.

glesica 13y ago

> ...you might be the one receiving this treatment. If at that point I'm wrong, then good. If at that point I'm right, then that will be an injustice, but whether Eich was forced out or not will have had zero bearing on that. Like it or not, the CEO of Mozilla is a public figure, and people are entitled to have opinions about public figures and to voice those opinions, and Mozilla is free to consider those opinions when choosing a CEO. This is literally how every boycott or other similar action happens. No one (that I know of) called for the government to remove Eich, no one called for him to be lynched, they called for Mozilla to remove Eich or for Eich to resign or, failing one of those, for people to stop supporting Mozilla. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. What you call "thoughtcrime" has another name: public discourse.

betterunix 13y ago
"people are entitled to have opinions about public figures and to voice those opinions" Sure, people are entitled to their opinions, and that is what this is all about. The problem here is that someone lost his job because of his opinion. "This is literally how every boycott or other similar action happens." Boycotts are typically about corporate policies, practices, or lobbying. For example, I know people who refuse to shop at Walmart because of the company's anti-unionization efforts. What we saw here is very different. At no point did Mozilla take any kind of anti-gay-marriage position. At no point did Mozilla do anything that was hostile to homosexual employees, users, or people in general. This was a boycott over the CEO's personal beliefs, despite the complete lack of evidence or accusations of him using his position at Mozilla to advance those beliefs. What happened here is that Mozilla's public image was attacked in an effort to punish Eich for his opinion. "What you call "thoughtcrime" has another name: public discourse." No, public discourse involves people calmly stating their views and arguing for those views (e.g. what we are doing right now). It is not public discourse when someone loses their job because of their opinion, all the more so when that opinion has no relevance to their job. It is not public discourse when people band together to ostracize anyone who disagrees with them. Eich was punished for having an opinion that people do not like. He was told that he has no right to be a leader in the tech community because of that opinion, without regard to his contributions to the community, without regard to his behavior in a leadership position at Mozilla. There are only two terms that are appropriate in describing what happened: thoughtcrime and bullying.

lawnchair_larry 13y ago

So you'd work for someone who takes the proceeds of your work and spends it on attempting to attack your rights and freedoms, or the rights of your friends? Once you vote or donate money, it's not a thought, and it's not speech. You're taking direct action to negatively impact the rights of another person. This is completely relevant to the company a CEO represents, regardless of what the company does. All of the output from that company contributes to his ability to restrict rights.

mikeash 13y ago

"...just remember that political winds can shift and that in a few decades you might be the one receiving this treatment." I know you mean this statement in a cautionary way, but to me that's unbelievably optimistic. Historically, minority rights are political issues people are willing to kill for. Those who fight have to be willing to die for their cause. Now the worst I can expect is to be forced to resign as CEO, to go on and play with problems that interest me and find a new job at leisure? Wonderful! This is why I really don't get all the counter-uproar here. What happened to Mr. Each was basically nothing. He wasn't killed, or hurt, or blacklisted, or run out of town. He didn't even lose his CTO job, which he held for years after the controversial donation came to light. All that happened was that once he was made CEO, the public said this is a bad choice, and then the board basically said, you know what, you're right.

betterunix 13y ago
Keep in mind that a ban on gay marriage does not kill, physically injure, blacklist, or run anyone out of town either. If we can ascribe such importance to gay marriage despite all that, why should we be so willing to downplay the impact of ousting a man who has devoted years of his life to Mozilla from a leadership position there?
- mikeash 13y ago
  Who's downplaying the impact? The impact is small. It's not like he needed that job to feed his family. Better people lose more important (to them) jobs for worse reasons all the time. This whole thing is a tempest in a teacup. I don't understand why people are so outraged at a $1000 donation from years ago (I don't think it's good, but it's not all that important), nor do I understand why people are so outraged that he doesn't get to be CEO because of it.