OKCupid seeks to block Mozilla Firefox over gay rights

I'm actually really offended by this... as a programmer, simply because it's imposing so much on me when I already support their conclusion. I just think okcupid is taking this too far.

The Firefox browser is not inherently evil because one man in their organization has less than agreeable political views, especially when it comes down to the work of everyone who has helped with their mission! It's a damned good browser, and shouldn't be dismissed on the grounds of one man's political views alone.

I'd sooner boycott okcupid for this suicidal mission of clawing at and destroying everything in the world that's related in the slightest to something that offends them.

I will not support them in their gallant wrecklessness!

Put simply: You have your own life. Same-sex partners can get married, adopt kids, and live your life the way you want to. But now you want to tell me what to do with mine, and what browser I should use? I don't understand how that makes any sense -- because it sounds like they're just twisting the practical problem in their favor, which doesn't relay the underlying message of letting people live their lives, without being oppressed or told what to do.

I am a big supporter of gay rights (and am myself bisexual), but I oppose this sort of thing, for reasons explained very well by the venerable Scott Alexander:

"Constitutional freedom-of-speech is a necessary but not sufficient condition to have a “marketplace of ideas” and avoid de facto censorship. But people also have to understand that the correct response to “idea I disagree with” is “counterargument”, not “find some way to punish or financially ruin the person who expresses it.” If you respond with counterargument, then there’s a debate and eventually the people with better ideas win (as is very clearly happening right now with gay marriage). If there’s a norm of trying to punish the people with opposing views, then it doesn’t really matter whether you’re doing it with threats of political oppression, of financial ruin, or of social ostracism, the end result is the same – the group with the most money and popularity wins, any disagreeing ideas never get expressed.

Atheists may one day be the group with the most money and popularity, but that day isn’t today and right now it’s neither moral nor in our self-interest to encourage using greater resources to steamroll opponents. It’s certainly not in gay people’s self-interest either. Why shouldn’t companies owned by Christians fire all gay people on the grounds that they are promoting sin? Right now it’s because we have a mutual truce in which we agree businesses should employ people based on their skills and merit rather than to reward their political allies and punish their political opponents. Once you undermine that, gay people are in a pretty precarious position.

So I would turn your own hypothetical scenario in Part 2 of your post back on you. Suppose Robertson had indeed, been a gay rights supporter – or a gay person! – who said on national news he thought everyone should stand up for gay rights. But his company was going for the fundie demographic and decided to fire him for his statement. Would you be so quick to attack everyone who was disappointed in this action, so eager to stand up for the right of companies to fire anyone they disagree with?"

http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/28/a-comment-i-posted-on-w...

People and the things they make are quite different entities. The opinions of the creators of a web browser are unimportant if that web browser has no opinions on gay marriage.

This is an interesting debate (should you boycott a thing, because you disagree with the person who made it?), but it is asking the wrong question. It reminds me of Lenin's feelings about Beethoven - how could a bourgeois create such wonderful music! Instead of questioning the framework of thinking which led him there, he claimed to avoid listening to the music in case it made him bourgeois.

Many human creations which we value as a culture were by outspoken and sometimes abusive people - Gill Sans, Francis Bacon, Picasso, Lewis Carroll, Wagner, Caravaggio etc. I think their work should stand alone, separate from any other views they might have had, and be judged on its own merits and the messages it contains, not on other messages their authors promulgated or actions they took.

I think it would be more suitable to not allow any Javascript to be used on the website. As an avid NoScript user that is how I like my sites anyway ;)

Are they also planning to ban use of JavaScript on their website because you know, Brendan Eich created the language.

Huh? Does the BBC do April fools? I can't make this fit in my head as a joke...so I am left pondering how OK Cupid gets by while boycotting JavaScript, if they are so wound up about Mr Eich

IDGAF. Tools are tools.

Should I throw up messages to users on Chrome that Google's CEO feels x or supports y (given any x or y I can find on the first page of search results)?

Or maybe I should warn iOS users about Foxconn's treatment of factory laborers.

I've written code for the benefit of Reddit and seen its use pop up in a white supremacy subreddit. Do I care? Should I censor or ban its use? No.

Congrats okcupid, you've won the prize for worst proselytization attempt.

The most galling thing is they directed people to use an alternate browser, such as Internet Explorer. I'm sorry - whatever sins Brendan Eich may have committed pale in comparison to the evil Microsoft - THE CORPORATION - has wrought on the world over the course of the past 25 years.

OKCupid decides to help the competition. I hope match.com sends them a cake.

No. JUST NO. This is getting out of hand. You want to change the way people think, you do it through public discourse. You want to change the laws, you do it through votes. You lost a vote. Try again next time when you have more support. Don't hate a person and try to ruin their life because you think the world needs to function how you see it. I don't care anymore if I get downvoted. This HAS TO STOP. We HAVE TO STOP THIS. These people are hypocrites and I'm sick of it. I may vote against gay rights laws because they think they can manipulate the system. Sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it. Well, it's the same goddamn thing!

OKCupid should stop use JS instead.

Even some gay people are against gay marriage. I can think of rational reasons to oppose it without being opposed to homosexuality in general. For example you could view marriage as having the main point of supporting children.

I'm not saying I agree with that view, just that perhaps this is an issue where there is no absolute truth, just different priorities. And then the democratic process decides the outcome, but people on the losing side should be respected.

I don't know anything about Brendan Eich, it just seems to me that labeling him homophobic is probably rather thoughtless and might be unwarranted.

I think it's brilliant. None of my single gay friends out of tech knew about this guy before OKC made the announcement, but now? Now they know. Now they are informed.