Response to OkCupid's blocking of Firefox users

Even if Brendan Eich has private views that I disagree with, I don't see a big problem here, because they are his private views, not those of Mozilla.

Furthermore, people have a right to their own opinions, and I don't want corporations digging through contribution records to dig up dirt on who someone gave money to. This seems shameful to me; we're talking about a country that values free speech.

"He is listed publicly as having donated to a campaign in support of California's Proposition 8 campaign in 2008, which had sought to ban gay marriage in the western US state." From: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-26830383

Who knows why Mr. Eich gave this donation. Maybe he changed his mind since then. Maybe not. It should not matter. Correct me if I'm wrong -- and maybe I've naive -- but Mozilla should not be singled out for every action or donation that their CEO has taken. (Yes, I realize CEO's are high visibility people.)

I am happy OKCupid is promoting marriage equality, but I don't like this particular way of doing it.

I hope this results in people boycotting javascript too; that atrocity has long outstayed its' welcome.

Thank you, Sylvain. I don't entirely agree with your line of reasoning but appreciate you're "stepping up" with this blog post.

I for one want a browser created by people who value free speech and privacy rather than by people who severely punish the slightest misstep. The fact that some employees urge him to step down is therefore concerning to me. Will these people support handing over my data when it suits their ideological whims? Will they insert backdoors for that purpose?

When private views become public, one should expect to be "judged" by others, especially when this person is explicitly enlisting the company he is working for in such a campaign and is a well-known field activist.

AFAICT he _had_ to tell what company he was working for. On that very moment, I'm curious to known what went through his mind. Was there any hesitation? Was he realizing he was bringing Mozilla into this debate?

My personal believes is that whether this was deliberate (bringing Mozilla explicitly) or not (being "forced" to list his employer), this was a really bad move you - as a board advisor or investor - will have to deal with and take public actions against.

The additional damage and injury of OKC's actions here is that they are directly discouraging the use of perhaps one of the last great free and unencumbered browsers based on something that doesn't matter technically--and that a lot of people are going to switch just because of scary and hateful wording and possibly be hurt.

Had they blocked Firefox users because of a security hole or layout glitch, that'd be fine--many of us have done the same upon finding somebody hitting our site with IE6 and requesting that they upgrade.

Had they blocked Firefox because it was a competing product (as Microsoft has done at times), that'd make sense too, although it's a bit scummy.

The problem though is that they've elected to block a particular browser based solely on the third-order actions of an employee of that company exercising their right to free speech.

Legally, sure, they can do whatever they want, but we really ought to hold them to the same standard we seem to be holding Eich.

Note, for example, that he sent some money into a cause and then the gears of politics ground and spat out what he'd supported--whereas fully 12% of people on OKC (according to their statistics) have been denied service on a whim.

Even from a business standpoint, why would you inconvenience 12% of your customers? That's just silly. Because you can get away with it, because you are a gatekeeper of part of their social graph? That's just scummy.

This is not how we should be behaving as a community.