7 ms·

It's not about differing opinions, it's about actions which exclude and/or oppress people. It's one thing to campaign for the republican party, or donate money

It's not about differing opinions, it's about actions which exclude and/or oppress people. It's one thing to campaign for the republican party, or donate money to them. That's not a problem. The problem is donating money to oppress a portion of the population based on their beliefs. That is an action, not a belief.

coldtea 12y ago
>It's not about differing opinions, it's about actions which exclude and/or oppress people. Well, for me the Republican party excludes and oppresses people. If MANY MANY more ways than banning gay marriage ever did. From starting all those wars under false pretexes that resulted to tens of thousands of casualties to everyday issues like health coverage. Should we fire every CEO/CTO that's donated to it? Or is it only an "action which excludes and/or opresses people" if you specifically disagree with it? (Oh, and I don't have than much better an opinion on the Democrats either, just think the Reps are like a few percentage points worse -- plus it would get more people to agree with my statement).
- zorpner 12y ago
  The point here is that "we" did not fire anyone. Members of the Mozilla community expressed an opinion that they didn't want a CEO who had previously acted to restrict the rights of a particular group. Some expressed this by ceasing their use of Mozilla products, and some of those people also encouraged others to do the same. Mozilla (and Eich) decided that this expression from the community was sufficient for Eich to step down as CEO. No one forced them to do it, much like no one forced them to make Eich CEO in the first place. This is exactly how public dialogue is supposed to work. If you find that a particular executive at a company has taken actions you disagree with and this upsets you to the degree that you wish to stop using their products, you're free to do so. You're also free to talk to others and encourage them to do the same. The company is free to retain that executive or remove them depending on how they feel about the public outcry you've raised. This is free speech and public dialogue. It's people deciding what products they want to use and talking about it. It's companies deciding what to do based on what's good for them and their objectives. Which one of those things do you object to?
  - emocakes 12y ago
    It wasn't free speech and public dialogue, it was a spineless witchhunt. Quit trying to sweeten the cyanide.
    - Crito 12y ago
      Of course it was free speech. Every party involved were well within their rights to act as they did. What crimes do you believe were committed by those who voiced their displeasure?
      - bzbarsky 12y ago
        None at all, by many. A number, though, arguably violated California Penal Code Section 422 (I say "arguably" because whether they did depends on how seriously the threat recipient took them). Of course they may not be in California, but many other jurisdictions have similar laws.
        Crito 12y ago
        Can you point to any of the specific comments that you think arguably threatened others? I did not see any such comments on HN, although admittedly I did not follow the story closely on reddit, tumblr, or twitter.
        bzbarsky 12y ago
        There were no such comments on HN, thankfully. I didn't follow the story on reddit or twitter much myself, but I _did_ talk to a fair number of people at Mozilla during the goings on. (I work at Mozilla, if that wasn't clear.) There were certainly mails or blog comments (I'm not sure which, and the two are equivalent anyway when comments are moderated) with such threats in response to Lars Lohn's blog post (quoted near the bottom of <http://www.twobraids.com/2014/04/back-into-light.html> http://www.twobraids.com/2014/04/back-into-light.html>). Of course I have no way to prove that to you. An earlier version of Lars' post (before he deleted it in his fit of pique) had an explicit edit mentioning the threats, but even Google's cache now only has <http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:eKzKHuOPsxYJ:www.twobraids.com/2014/04/the-mozilla-ceo.html>.. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:eKzKHuO.... I'm told (more second-hand than in Lars' case, but by people I trust) that others received similar threats as well. Again, I have no way to convince you that this is true.
- zem 12y ago
  false analogy. it's not like eich donated money to the mormon church who then used it to do bad things. he donated directly to the prop 8 people, which was pretty much all bathwater and no baby.
- protomyth 12y ago
  Might want to read a bit of history on Vietnam, the Civil War, gun control origins, and the KKK. The Democrats don't have a very good record either. Also, on the Republican side search for Dakota 38 and find out why some think very poorly of Abe's character.

coldtea 12y ago

>It's not about differing opinions, it's about actions which exclude and/or oppress people. Well, for me the Republican party excludes and oppresses people. If MANY MANY more ways than banning gay marriage ever did. From starting all those wars under false pretexes that resulted to tens of thousands of casualties to everyday issues like health coverage. Should we fire every CEO/CTO that's donated to it? Or is it only an "action which excludes and/or opresses people" if you specifically disagree with it? (Oh, and I don't have than much better an opinion on the Democrats either, just think the Reps are like a few percentage points worse -- plus it would get more people to agree with my statement).

zorpner 12y ago
The point here is that "we" did not fire anyone. Members of the Mozilla community expressed an opinion that they didn't want a CEO who had previously acted to restrict the rights of a particular group. Some expressed this by ceasing their use of Mozilla products, and some of those people also encouraged others to do the same. Mozilla (and Eich) decided that this expression from the community was sufficient for Eich to step down as CEO. No one forced them to do it, much like no one forced them to make Eich CEO in the first place. This is exactly how public dialogue is supposed to work. If you find that a particular executive at a company has taken actions you disagree with and this upsets you to the degree that you wish to stop using their products, you're free to do so. You're also free to talk to others and encourage them to do the same. The company is free to retain that executive or remove them depending on how they feel about the public outcry you've raised. This is free speech and public dialogue. It's people deciding what products they want to use and talking about it. It's companies deciding what to do based on what's good for them and their objectives. Which one of those things do you object to?
- emocakes 12y ago
  It wasn't free speech and public dialogue, it was a spineless witchhunt. Quit trying to sweeten the cyanide.
  - Crito 12y ago
    Of course it was free speech. Every party involved were well within their rights to act as they did. What crimes do you believe were committed by those who voiced their displeasure?
    - bzbarsky 12y ago
      None at all, by many. A number, though, arguably violated California Penal Code Section 422 (I say "arguably" because whether they did depends on how seriously the threat recipient took them). Of course they may not be in California, but many other jurisdictions have similar laws.
      - Crito 12y ago
        Can you point to any of the specific comments that you think arguably threatened others? I did not see any such comments on HN, although admittedly I did not follow the story closely on reddit, tumblr, or twitter.
        bzbarsky 12y ago
        There were no such comments on HN, thankfully. I didn't follow the story on reddit or twitter much myself, but I _did_ talk to a fair number of people at Mozilla during the goings on. (I work at Mozilla, if that wasn't clear.) There were certainly mails or blog comments (I'm not sure which, and the two are equivalent anyway when comments are moderated) with such threats in response to Lars Lohn's blog post (quoted near the bottom of <http://www.twobraids.com/2014/04/back-into-light.html> http://www.twobraids.com/2014/04/back-into-light.html>). Of course I have no way to prove that to you. An earlier version of Lars' post (before he deleted it in his fit of pique) had an explicit edit mentioning the threats, but even Google's cache now only has <http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:eKzKHuOPsxYJ:www.twobraids.com/2014/04/the-mozilla-ceo.html>.. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:eKzKHuO.... I'm told (more second-hand than in Lars' case, but by people I trust) that others received similar threats as well. Again, I have no way to convince you that this is true.
zem 12y ago
false analogy. it's not like eich donated money to the mormon church who then used it to do bad things. he donated directly to the prop 8 people, which was pretty much all bathwater and no baby.
protomyth 12y ago
Might want to read a bit of history on Vietnam, the Civil War, gun control origins, and the KKK. The Democrats don't have a very good record either. Also, on the Republican side search for Dakota 38 and find out why some think very poorly of Abe's character.