Mozilla and I | Hacker News Reader

Mozilla and I

archiville.org

33 pointsthomseddon59 comments

Did I read this argument right? Is everyone fired up for a guy that voted against some proposition that was against LGBT? Isn't it his right to vote how he pleases? Has he taken any direct action against someone in the LGBT community? Has he shown in the past that his views change the ways he treats people? So, I remember reading about something called the Red Scare that blackballed people because of their political views. Is that really the way the LGBT community wants to be viewed: Love us or we'll ruin your life? People don't see things the same way, and that's their right. People aren't required to see your same point of view. That is one of the great things about America, we can feel however we want. Once there was a time when his views were in the majority, and I think it's a shame that this is how people think it should be solved. If you want to change him, you should make him hate you and ruin his career. I'm not trolling, I'm just reading headlines, and I saw nowhere where this man did anything except vote his mind. Please correct me if I'm in the wrong.

Financially backing prop 8 constitutes taking direct action against the LGBT community, yes.

> Isn't it his right to vote how he pleases?

Yes, that was his right, and no one has ever said differently. But freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences in the realm of public opinion. Funding Prop 8 had a direct negative impact on the LGBT community of California. To expect that community to have no reaction to his actions would be naive.

The first amendment does not guarantee freedom from consequences, but it's not absurd to expect people to also have a social notion of freedom of speech that encourages tolerance of different viewpoints.

>The first amendment does not guarantee freedom from consequences

It should. Freedom of speech without freedom from consequences is meaningless. If you have to self-censor yourelf because you might lose your job or whatever, then there's no freedom of speech.

Since some people get paid to speak for someone else, I'm not sure you could make a blanket right like that. But certain forms of retaliation (like firing people) for certain forms of speech (like voting on ballot issues) should be grounds for a lawsuit.

> Freedom of speech without freedom from consequences is meaningless.

What is protected by the Constitution -- freedom (from government restrictions) of speech does guarantee (is, in fact, equivalent to) freedom from (government imposed) consequences of speech -- the former is present exactly to the extent that the latter is provided.

However, the much of the theory behind that guarantee of free speech is the idea that it is best to allow ideas to compete in the marketplace of ideas, and for people to hear the speech from all sides and to decide, individually, which speech to reward and which to punish(within their scope of power as market participants, rather than with the compulsory power of government). It was not about making speech free from private consequences, so long as those consequences were restricted to the kind that are not otherwise criminal.

The marketplace of ideas isn't as robust if ideas are allowed to corner the market by forcing other ideas off the market. If you disagree with someone, disagree with them (civilly, please), don't force them to shut up.

The reaction is disproportionate to his contribution, though. His donation was quite small, and at no point did he use his status as a public figure to speak out in favor of Prop 8.

What he did was wrong, but it was not enough for us to prop him up as a sacrificial lamb in the name of equality. It would serve no common good, bringing us no closer to repealing the law, but could lead to consequences for Brendan far worse than any well-meaning blogger could conceivably intend.

Let us instead work to change his moral stance, whether by argument or by example. If tomorrow Brendan Eich were to say - and genuinely believe - that marriage is just as much a right for gays as it is for heterosexuals, then that would be a victory far sweeter than punishing him for having once believed wrongly.

> The reaction is disproportionate to his contribution, though. His donation was quite small, and at no point did he use his status as a public figure to speak out in favor of Prop 8.

What difference does donating 10cents vs $10,000 to a cause make? By donating you are supporting the bill/policy/action.

> What he did was wrong, but it was not enough for us to prop him up as a sacrificial lamb in the name of equality. It would serve no common good, bringing us no closer to repealing the law, but could lead to consequences for Brendan far worse than any well-meaning blogger could conceivably intend.

The law was already struck down as unconstitutional. But it took 5 years to do so.

> Let us instead work to change his moral stance, whether by argument or by example. If tomorrow Brendan Eich were to say - and genuinely believe - that marriage is just as much a right for gays as it is for heterosexuals, then that would be a victory far sweeter than punishing him for having once believed wrongly.

I think there is some anger over how Brendan Eich responded; which is not directly admitting to anything.

I don't know if I would ask for his resignation, but he still hasn't addressed this very well. The problem seems to be that he refuses to address his stance on it. So you can't very well work with him when he doesn't even admit to donating the money, nor admit to believing that gays should not marry.

>I think there is some anger over how Brendan Eich responded; which is not directly admitting to anything.

There's nothing to admit though, he didn't commit a crime, he gave money to an organization. What is there to admit?

The fact that his donation was so small makes it much worse in my opinion. That indicates that the primary intent was to make a public, symbolic statement on the matter. Or he completely whiffed at thinking through the implications of his action. Both are pretty bad for someone wanting to be CEO of Mozilla. IMO.

Garnering the intent through no actual evidence... wonder how it would be if he had made a bigger donation - worse that way as well?

> The fact that his donation was so small makes it much worse in my opinion. That indicates that the primary intent was to make a public, symbolic statement on the matter.

Making a donation is a pretty ridiculous way to try to make a public, symbolic statement on the matter. It relies on someone taking advantage of the election disclosure laws to get a list of donors, then going over the list of donors, then picking him out of the list of thousands of donors, and then calling public attention to that.

He's not the Robot Devil. If he wanted to make a public, symbolic statement on the matter, wouldn't he simply tweet, or use Facebook, or blog about it?

Yeah, you're right. Really bizarre move by him given the makeup of Bay Area tech.

Sacrificial lamb, what are you talking about? What kind of sacrifice would it have been for Eich to not become CEO of Mozilla? I already make that sacrifice every day.

So many commenters want to make it all about what a small donation it was, or about Brendan Eich's right to support the causes of his choice. Of course he has that right, but consider the classic analogy for this issue: if the CTO of a company made a small donation toward banning interracial marriage, how would you feel about that company? How about if that person were then promoted to CEO? I can only speak for myself but my answers are "not great" and "disgusted", respectively.

What's important here is not Brendan Eich's right to hold whatever position he wants and simultaneously whatever job he wants. He came out against equality, and Mozilla knew it, and promoted him, and specifically promoted him to CEO. This is how they weigh their priorities. If you think that marriage equality matters then you should think that this decision matters.

>Yes, that was his right, and no one has ever said differently. But freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences in the realm of public opinion.

Those consequences shouldn't include "losing your job" or "being treated differently at work", else there's no freedom of speech.

How would LGBT community liked it they could lose their jobs for being LGBT?

> Those consequences shouldn't include "losing your job" or "being treated differently at work", else there's no freedom of speech.

Yes, they can. Freedom of speech is a right that you have before the state, not in front of you fellowship.

Everyone is fully entitled to refuse to follow you, on whichever ground they please, including a public or private statement by you.

Just because you can punish someone for political views doesn't mean you should. The freedom of speech can be an idea and an attitude that is bigger than the First Amendment.

I don't care about the first amendment, as it doesn't cover me.

Please don't assume that I am speaking about that.

That's fine. Even more so, then, freedom of speech can be a social norm (tolerance of other viewpoints) that protects people beyond the minimum standards the government sets.

> How would LGBT community liked it they could lose their jobs for being LGBT?

The fact that LGBT people can be fired without recourse is a central issue.

So let's make a law that LGBT people can't be fired at all? I personally know one straight person that claimed he is gay and sued the company that fired him for discrimination. And he won.

Identities of the parties aside, How is this case different? Aren't you still harming someone for a bad reason (you don't like them and what they stand for)?

I can't quite parse what you're saying. Can you rephrase or clarify?

Would Eich have recourse if he were passed up for the CEO spot? Why makes discriminating against LGBT people in the workplace different than discriminating against Eich in this case?

I don't see how firing someone for an opinion is comparable to firing someone for sexual orientation. Neither should be allowed, but they're fundamentally different things.

Sometimes opinions flow seamlessly from a person's identity.

What if a gay principal is fired for supporting gay marriage. What if someone is a religious pacifist and the ballot issue had to do with gun control? Are those just opinions or is there no other option for a person given his or her identity?

I'd even go so far as to say that sometimes opinions are core to someone's identity. As in, the person would be fundamentally different if that opinion changed.

I'm not sure the issue is so cut-and-dry as you presume.

All I'm pointing out is that they're fundamentally different. Sexual orientation is something you're born with. Opinions can be changed. Neither should be grounds for termination. What are we arguing about here?

They can. It's legal in most states, ignoring states with "right to work" laws even. It's a known, serious issue in the United States.

> How would LGBT community liked it they could lose their jobs for being LGBT?

Under the interpretations until recently of federal statutes [1], and under the law of most US states, they can, and largely the same groups fighting against marriage equality have been fighting to preserve and extend that condition, as well.

[1] Though recent EEOC decisions finding that discrimination based on gender identity and/or sex stereotypes are subtypes of discrimination based on sex may significantly limit the degree to which that is in practice true under federal law, but AFAIK those agency interpretations have not yet been tested in the courts.

Some people opposed Prop 8 due to their notions of tolerance or acceptance. Being tolerant of Prop 8 supporters would be a consistent position for these people.

Some people opposed Prop 8 because they want to advocate for a particular worldview (homosexual marriage is a natural right). It doesn't follow that they would necessarily tolerate people who supported Prop 8.

I suppose people can belong to both camps, but this case surely crystallizes the idea that these motivations aren't the same.

Would you take the same position if this guy had contributed money to a less socially acceptable cause? Would you defend a CEO with a history of donating to the KKK anti-interracial-marriage fund as the public face of Mozilla?

I think your missing a few things here. Yes, of course, it's his right to vote however he wants. It's also perfectly fine for his constituents to take his voting record or other public actions/statements into consideration regarding pretty much anything. There's a big difference between "love us" and "avoid making a symbolic public statement against us".

For a lot of organizations, this wouldn't merit this much discussion. But it's easy to make the case that Mozilla is a bit different. It's mission-based. It's employee and constituent bases probably skew LGBT. The tech industry is one of the biggest supporters of LGBT rights. Mozilla is a fairly flat org. We're talking about the CEO role which requires a sphere of influence both internally, and in this case, to a great extent externally.

The guy made a huge mistake if he ever had an eye on moving into the CEO role. His donation was pretty much insignificant so we can only view it as a symbolic gesture. And the symbolism is very antagonistic towards his constituents.

>Has he taken any direct action against someone in the LGBT community?

Yes, a thousand dollars of political speech. This was a direct action on his part to try to take away rights people already had at that time. He admits he took this action.

You are trolling.

And like most trolls on this subject, you try to twist hateful bigotry into "political views". There's nothing political about considering other people subhuman. It's pure, unadulterated vicious hatred.

And even then there is a fundamental difference believing that something is against your religion and actually trying to prevent people from having equal rights. The former maybe a personal view, but the latter is just outright viciousness.

He has the right to believe whatever he wants, but nobody should be expected to work for this asshole, or want to have anything to do with him.

It's also completely beyond me why any company would want such a hateful extremist as their leader.

no, this is trolling. Steve Jobs was an asshole, nobody would argue that. He treated people like shit, but he did great things... So, I guess it's ok to own an apple device because, hey, he didn't hate MY culture, he just hates all people. Attacking one man because he disagrees with your political/emotional/sexual views is the problem. As a group that claims accept people that are different, your community comes off as hypocrites. So you only accept people if they're your kind of different?

Worked in a cube next to Brendan many years ago, back before the lizard was free from the yolk of AOL. A blue E and an inflatable Lizard were exchanged as pranks. I was recently out of college. Brendan was an approachable, smart, and talented engineer. I didn't work on Javascript, but learned a few things from him during my tenure nonetheless.

I know Mozilla and it's drive for openness, embracing of diversity, etc. So that may be why it is special. The CEO role is definitely a very visible role.

That said, I wonder. If we knew the beliefs of and the organizations donated to of those any of us happen to be working for at a given time, how would that impact our day to day lives? Say someone who was very much anti-H1B/immigration visas, should they not work for Microsoft or Facebook, both of which have leaders that are very much for changes to the visa system? If you are quite liberal in your beliefs and you then end up working for someone that is a member of the tea party?

I realize the role mozilla plays (and it's charter), I know of Brendan's donation (for which I disagree).

I'm trying to understand is this particular issue specific to this organization and individual or is it something that we might see become broader?

That's one aspect of this I don't understand. Another is the idea that you can reduce a persons impact to one issue. The irony is that through his involvement in JavaScript and Mozilla, he has likely done more for the LGBT community than I have and I'm part of that community. Should I disregard that incidental impact because of the smaller, intentional impact coming from his personal life?

I admire Mozilla as a profoundly transparent and open culture. The CEO does set the tone so the conversation is completely justified but this isn't so much a conversation as it is picketing and posturing. I wouldn't want my legacy to be reduced to one of the many things I disagree with the world about. I would want people to see the full context of my impact, disagree with me where I went wrong, and respect our differences.

>I can’t walk away from these people nor the cause I share with them nor the potential for Mozilla to once again be known as the champion to all but neither can I continue to earn my living from Mozilla while it is seen to exclude and alienate anyone.

Translation: I need the attention and the feeling I'm doing something great for a large cause, so I'm forcing it, even though nothing has been done to any Mozilla employee, just because we elected a CEO whose PERSONAL opinions on some certain civil rights differ than mine.

You know, I'll get downvoted to hell and back for this.

If you read the Unabomber manifesto a few things strike you. One is obviously that the guy has a few screws loose as to how to resolve what he perceived as the problems of the world, another is when it comes to attacking the psychology of the protest movement he was bang on.

This is an example of exactly what he rants about - people over thinking and then making highly visible group based sacrifices with no reasonable endgame just to make everyone feel more solidarity but achieving absolutely nothing except making them all feel better.

Want to oust the CEO? Get in a group and walk into his office. Don't go on about it on the Internet.

Great post, I think you analyzed this very well.

I think it's unfortunate that he's donated money to fight against personal liberties. I don't think it is worth it to deny yourself contributions to Mozilla on this one fact alone.

There are many greater causes to throw yourself behind, and I'm somewhat disappointed I don't see the same vehemance for those

52% of voters, just a hair over 7 million or 1 in 5 Californians, voted in favor of Proposition 8.

Each of those people contributed to the moral travesty of that constitutional amendment. Are we to deny them all the right to a career in the name of moral freedoms? In this perfect world, would removing 1/5th of California's working force be a net benefit to society?

Perhaps instead of vilifying a few of them, we should focus our efforts on repealing the amendment and securing a more ideal future that everyone can prosper in.

Those people voted privately. The CEO of Mozilla publicly contributed to the Prop 8 campaign. If any of those seven million people made it publicly known that they funded or voted for Prop 8, then they might have to live with the consequences of making that publicly known.

They won't have their careers denied at all.

So it's OK if they can get away with it?

Donations are public record, even if done as a private citizen. Which is a bit different than someone publicly making their private donation known.

So no-one can take action against stands and actions they disagree with?

Would it be OK if I didn't hire someone because they supported gay marriage?

Yes, that is perfectly within your right. You also, however, better be prepared for any backlash that may come from that action.

I think you misunderstand me. I didn't ask if it were my right. I asked if it were OK. If you think the backlash is justified in this case, then it's not OK.

Nobody's denying anybody the right to a career. They're questioning the appointment of a man who has contributed to the oppression of others into the top leadership position of an organization. This drives decent people away from associating with that organization, as has happened in this case. It's up to the organization to determine if that appointment is worth it, and it's up to the man who is now in a leadership position to try to make the situation better.

Every one of us has oppressed another at one point in our lives. Is it just because it is recent?

He did it willfully without any remorse.

The author works for the Mozilla Foundation on which Eich has always been a board member.

Eich was promoted to CEO of the Corporation which is a for-profit subsidiary of the Foundation.

As far as I can tell Eich's promotion to CEO doesn't give him any more power or status within the Foundation than he already had. It seems like this person should have quit the Foundation when it was revealed one of their board members donated to Prop 8 years ago.

Does anyone know the political actions of the other Foundation board members? The CEO answers to the corporation's board of directors; does anyone know (or care) about their political actions?

> I hope [Mozilla] will very soon find its way back to the core values that I hold so dear.

The whole tone of this post (and that sentence in particular) makes it sound like this person sees some kind of systemic shift in Mozilla, which seems like a stretch.

Over the last few years Mozilla has been focusing on making the web be a platform for applications. This is so 100% spot-on with their mission statement -- it's like Mozilla has found their true purpose, and that is more than just creating applications than enable people to use the internet (Firefox, Thunderbird). Now they're doing more to make sure the web is a great platform for applications (asm.js, Firefox OS). I'm assuming that, as CTO, Brendan Eich had a lot to do with that. It would seem natural to pick him to be CEO. But now people are making it sound like Mozilla has lost it's way all of the sudden.

Obligatory disclaimer: I completely disagree with Eich's view on gay marriage. At the same time, I think he's very qualified to be CEO of Mozilla. Ousting him is not what will ultimately lead to LGBT acceptance. He does hold a stupid belief, but I don't think that means he should be "shunned" and not allowed to contribute to (or exist in) the web community, where he has proven to be a passionate innovator. I've found that I don't like allowing myself to be polarized towards everyone in some group, even if it's justifiable to dislike them.

I do not think that this sort of behavior reflects well on LGBT community as a whole. This is like a devoted Christian employee leaving Microsoft because Satya Nadella is a polytheist pagan and has been donating his money to institutions that support paganism and idolatry. It only goes to show that some people who talk of need for equal treatment for all but themselves are unable to tolerate diversity of thoughts.

Mozilla employees have total right to leave their job for whatever reason they want but if I had to hire them in my company I will think thrice.

This kind of knee jerk reactions would make hiring LGBT people more riskier and hence affect the whole LGBT community. In my opinion it is very irrational for an employee to judge his boss by what he chooses to do with his spare cash and time after office hours. What matters is whether he is a competent leader within organization or not.

It would be like Satya donating money towards restricting the rights of Christians. Like, say, the right to marry whoever you want.

Exactly! Some people state that they "do not think that this sort of behavior reflects well on LGBT community as a whole," but if a CEO were to financially support the promotion of legislation that would prevent Christians from marrying, millions of Christians would flip out.

I don't get it. What is wrong with someone donating his money legitimately to a cause that restricts someone' freedom ?

- Should I leave my job if my CEO supports Gun Control ? - As a government employee is it rational for me to leave my job because Obama's idiotic welfare programs are reducing choice for millions of people in education and other fields ?

How on earth it helps anyone including the LGBT community itself ? Likely this hurts their employment chances.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com