4 ms·

The political background of a CEO matters because the realm of a corporation is not just how much money it can make for its shareholders, but the manner in whic

The political background of a CEO matters because the realm of a corporation is not just how much money it can make for its shareholders, but the manner in which it conducts its business as well. This is why people can be upset about companies using child labour, or sending jobs overseas, and so forth. If a company promotes a bigot as a CEO, then people will question whether the company is being ethical in its business practices, or will be in the future. People will also think that it isn't fair for someone who is a bigot to be successful while trying to deny other people basic rights, and will be upset by that.

Alupis 12y ago
> If a company promotes a bigot as a CEO If you are referring to the previous Mozilla CEO, he was hardly a "bigot". He (I believe, going from memory here) donated $1,000 to an organization that was against same-sex marriage in CA many years back (the same election that had an overwhelming yes vote that year, more than 60%, -- a yes vote on the prop was to continue outlawing same-sex-marriage). So, fast forward to today, and this CEO was chastised for a political contribution that sided with the majority at the time. Today, it would likely be a political minority that feel that way... but at the time it was a majority. Is he not allowed to change his attitude/views about political topics? I know mine has changed in the past few years, and I expect it to change more as the future comes.
- nknighthb 12y ago
  He paid for disgusting, dehumanizing ads. And his views have not changed -- if they had, he would have said so. He did not, nor did he disavow anything his money went toward. If he had, he would still be CEO.
  - Alupis 12y ago
    > He paid for disgusting, dehumanizing ads. No he didn't... he funded an organization (with a one-time $1,000 donation) that was against same-sex marriage. That's a far cry from directly funding adverts. And, at the time, his view and contribution was in the significant majority here in California. Today, maybe not, but back then, his views were shared by a vast majority (almost 60% in the vote). That's not to say it's right... only to point out we are chastising an individual for past beliefs that were popular at the time, but have gown to be unpopular today.
- makomk 12y ago
  More than 60% of voted to outlaw same-sex marriage after a blitz of awful, fearmongering homophobic ads that portrayed gays as pedophiles and gay marriage as leading to kids being raped - ads that Eich helped to fund, if only a little.
  - Alupis 12y ago
    > voted to outlaw same-sex marriage after a blitz of awful, fearmongering homophobic ads that portrayed gays as pedophiles and gay marriage as leading to kids being raped Horribly untrue and very off-base. I live in California and voted in that election, and remember it well. Let's not exaggerate history. I find it repulsive how badly you are willing to distort the truth to make this man appear like a monster. There were none of the advert campaigns you speak of. The adverts that were run, mostly discussed "keeping the sanctity of marriage". Please do some homework before stating atrocities that are this inaccurate. The people of California did not sway their vote because of some advert campaign anyways. This subject has been put to a vote before, and since then, with the same outcome. This is not to say I believe it's right -- only stating the facts. Regardless, open source has nothing to do with sexuality. Nothing. Who cares!? Do what you do, so long as you contribute something to the project.

Alupis 12y ago

> If a company promotes a bigot as a CEO If you are referring to the previous Mozilla CEO, he was hardly a "bigot". He (I believe, going from memory here) donated $1,000 to an organization that was against same-sex marriage in CA many years back (the same election that had an overwhelming yes vote that year, more than 60%, -- a yes vote on the prop was to continue outlawing same-sex-marriage). So, fast forward to today, and this CEO was chastised for a political contribution that sided with the majority at the time. Today, it would likely be a political minority that feel that way... but at the time it was a majority. Is he not allowed to change his attitude/views about political topics? I know mine has changed in the past few years, and I expect it to change more as the future comes.

nknighthb 12y ago
He paid for disgusting, dehumanizing ads. And his views have not changed -- if they had, he would have said so. He did not, nor did he disavow anything his money went toward. If he had, he would still be CEO.
- Alupis 12y ago
  > He paid for disgusting, dehumanizing ads. No he didn't... he funded an organization (with a one-time $1,000 donation) that was against same-sex marriage. That's a far cry from directly funding adverts. And, at the time, his view and contribution was in the significant majority here in California. Today, maybe not, but back then, his views were shared by a vast majority (almost 60% in the vote). That's not to say it's right... only to point out we are chastising an individual for past beliefs that were popular at the time, but have gown to be unpopular today.
makomk 12y ago
More than 60% of voted to outlaw same-sex marriage after a blitz of awful, fearmongering homophobic ads that portrayed gays as pedophiles and gay marriage as leading to kids being raped - ads that Eich helped to fund, if only a little.
- Alupis 12y ago
  > voted to outlaw same-sex marriage after a blitz of awful, fearmongering homophobic ads that portrayed gays as pedophiles and gay marriage as leading to kids being raped Horribly untrue and very off-base. I live in California and voted in that election, and remember it well. Let's not exaggerate history. I find it repulsive how badly you are willing to distort the truth to make this man appear like a monster. There were none of the advert campaigns you speak of. The adverts that were run, mostly discussed "keeping the sanctity of marriage". Please do some homework before stating atrocities that are this inaccurate. The people of California did not sway their vote because of some advert campaign anyways. This subject has been put to a vote before, and since then, with the same outcome. This is not to say I believe it's right -- only stating the facts. Regardless, open source has nothing to do with sexuality. Nothing. Who cares!? Do what you do, so long as you contribute something to the project.