Mozilla CEO: Gay-marriage firestorm could hurt Firefox
cnet.com
cnet.com
Or we can live in a world where we respect everyone's beliefs. We can allow them to join both liberal and conservative causes, because we're not 2 political parties fighting but individual humans all trying to make the world a better place? It's amazing the mentality with politics these days, where people have to risk their life just for standing up for themselves.
That "must be..." bit is the antithesis of "liberal". Seems the banner of "liberal" was waved only to get unpopular views tolerated until the "liberals" garnered enough influence to silence their opposition. To go "all-out liberal" would say "representatives of our cause must respect those who think abortion is murder, pot is self-destructive, guns are vital for self-defense, and one's healthcare is not subject to public compulsion; we don't agree, but respect that sensible people can and do hold differing views because of differing axioms. Since the subject at hand is web browsing software, and those subjects have absolutely nothing to do with this, we will not ostracize people because of those common differences of irrelevant opinion."
That's kind of the way I see it. I don't know if there are solid definitions for these terms, so I'm open to corrections if I'm way off here.
inb4 "but that sounds like libertarianism which everyone knows only rich bigoted fedora wearing assholes like!"
edit: This story was correctly flagged off the homepage. There are other places far more appropriate on the internet to learn about political philosophy than HN if you're sincerely interested, and they are not hard to find.
But little do or can the best of us:
That little is achieved through Liberty.
Who, then, dares hold, emancipated thus,
His fellow shall continue bound? Not I,
Who live, love, labour freely, nor discuss
A brother's right to freedom. That is "Why."
Why? Some beliefs are stupid and/or harmful. Why should I respect bad ideas?
Rather, I think it's more about everyone respecting the ability of everyone else to hold their own set of beliefs, even if you disagree with theirs, and even if they may disagree with yours.
In this particular incident we've seen a lot of hypocrisy. We've seen a lot of people calling for "tolerance" and "equality", yet to them that means merely that their viewpoint must be the only one that can be held or expressed. It ends up being a very quaint, twisted interpretation of tolerance and equality.
1. Eich is absolutely allowed to be against gay marriage.
2. The Mozilla community is absolutely allowed to be against Eich because of his position on gay marriage.
This is not a discrimination case where Eich is being excluded from a job because of beliefs unrelated to his job. This is a case where Eich is being elected to a job where his job is to represent the Mozilla community. But he doesn't obviously represent the community – potentially disqualifying him from the job.
Is the Mozilla community asking him to represent their views on marriage?
If he's making the donations as a private citizen, then it strikes me as odd that he's somehow unqualified to talk about software.
Is the next step asking people to step down because they voted for the losing candidate who represented slightly less than 51% of the voting public? (That's a serious questions & a logical next step in an increasingly partisan ideology that thinks in black & white rather than shades of grey).
No, but why does that matter? The community doesn't want anything to do with him because he's a bigot. He's allowed to do what he wants and the community is allowed to shun him if they want.
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
When did we get afraid to let people make up their own minds on things? For every out-there crazy idea that's the work of a nut-job, there's one out-there crazy idea that just might work.
Is anyone saying that Eich shouldn't be able to believe what he wants? Or are people upset that someone campaigning against civil liberties is now representing and leading Mozilla?
They have their beliefs. You have yours. You presumably want to be able to hold your own beliefs. They presumably want to be able to hold their own beliefs. You may disagree with their beliefs, and you should be free to express this, if you so desire. They may disagree with your beliefs, and they should be able to express this, if they so desire. It's irrelevant who "you" are in this case, and who "they" are.
Even if they choose not to respect your ability to hold your own beliefs, it's probably best if you still respect their ability to hold that belief.
Isn't that what this is all about? Eich expressed his beliefs by contributing to a cause that actively harmed many people's personal lives. Now people are upset about that and thinking perhaps he shouldn't lead Mozilla. I don't see any free speech issues here.
I may be on the wrong side of this issue but I refuse to take part in boycotts because I think they're ineffective and just harmful, unless of course the product itself is harming people in some way.
Boycotts are a form of free speech too, you know. How come you're not so antsy to defend those rights, I wonder?
- Organizing a group of bookstores to stop selling a certain book because you find it offensive for any reason
- Using your privileged position at say, a conference, to get other speakers removed because you dislike them
- as a web service provider, removing a website about a topic you find offensive
None of these have anything to do with the government making a law that infringes on free speech. If they don't violate laws protecting free speech then they certainly piss all over the spirit of it. Or are they only bad when the speech is the "right" kind of speech?
Also as I said elsewhere in the thread, most of the time I find boycotts ineffective, especially when it would only jurt innocent people and when the change it creates is merely cosmetic. You're certainly free to boycott anything you wish, and to ask others to boycott, but you can't expect everyone to agree it's a good idea.
a person's private life and professional life are SEPARATE. You shouldn't punish Mozilla employees for things the person at the helm does IN HIS PRIVATE LIFE
I have no idea what you're saying here. What does respecting stupid ideas even look like?
EDIT: I respect people's right to hold and express stupid ideas. That does not mean I cannot discuss, at length and with vigor, how stupid they are, or encourage others to avoid financially supporting the people who hold those stupid ideas. I, too, have the right to free speech.
Gilbert K. Chesterton
The real issue is money as speech.
I'd wager that most of those against Eich's position would not begrudge anyone freedom of opinion, or private speech, or even public speech so long as such opinions or speech did not elevate to action. On the other hand had Eich fired a LGBT staffer based on their sexual orientation, not only would he be in the wrong legally, but I think even those carrying the banner of free speech in this case would agree that his promotion was wrong.
So the real question is: by donating money to the Proposition 8 cause, was Eich exercising his right to free speech? or was he taking a discriminatory action?
Of course, you may note this is exactly the same issue in question with the Citizen's United decision. I think this larger question, is money speech or action, will be one of the most important questions of our time...
It's clearly free speech. Had he fired or refused to hire someone over their orientation, it would be discriminatory action. That being said, as the CEO of Mozilla, he is the face and voice of Mozilla. So it is natural that people are looking into how he has exercised his speech, not just actions in the past, to see how he will shape Mozilla in the future.
I make my living coding in JavaScript/CoffeeScript and my personal hobbies include hacking 3D UIs in the browser. To say that my life was directly and positively impacted by Eich's past actions is an understatement. On the other hand, there are many people, more than a few in this very community, who were indirectly and negatively impacted by the small part he played when exercising his right to free speech.
To me the bigger question is, can you officially act 'for' when you personally speak 'against' something?
It's a slippery slope if we try to paint people as "wholy-bad" or "wholy-good" based on one or two hot-button issues. Human's are flawed, complicated creatures. Trying to pass judgment on their entire career & capabilities based on one or two actions not related and/or affecting their job is a dangerous decision to make.
but at the same time, as much as i'm entitled to my opinion, he's entitled to his. mozilla foundation never donated a dime for prop 8, brendan eich did. as such we should 'judge' him, as a person, for it, not him as the ceo.
as evelyn beatrice hall said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (wikipedia says she said it, not voltaire[0])
If you see a movie star use a racial slur, the natural response isn't "well, he wasn't on set so I still support him as an actor". The natural response is to recategorize that person as racist, and have a dim awareness of that while considering what films to watch and while watching them perform.
Once you're aware of it, the knowledge that the CEO of Mozilla gets utility from oppressing gay people is something you're aware of whenever you see the Mozilla brand. I don't think that's illogical or something Mrs Hall would say Voltaire thinks is bad.
As I learned in High School Debate Club, most un-winnable, never-ending arguments are actually disagreements over definitions.
If we actually had these debates, I wonder how many people would realize that their actual viewpoints aren't that far off of each other after all.
I think this is a fundamentally different issue than the Citizen's United decision. Here, it's a person's speech/action. I firmly believe that people should be allowed to express whatever opinion through words and/or actions, even if it is donating money to a cause, or choosing not to associate with certain people (e.g. gays/Jews/insert favourite -ism). However, I strongly oppose awarding the same rights to political/commercial/non-profit organizations - I don't think a company should be able to donate money to political parties, nor fire an employee because of his/her skin color, sexual orientation, or political beliefs.
Certainly adopting the view that same-sex marriage is a human we should export to countries like Singapore is non-inclusive, and alienates people based on culture.
At a certain point, I think we have to accept that reasonable people can disagree on almost any issue, and we have to live with that.
On the other hand had Eich fired a LGBT staffer based on their sexual orientation, not only would he be in the wrong legally, but I think even those carrying the banner of free speech in this case would agree that his promotion was wrong.
Yes, because in the context of marriage in the US, I think basic fairness requires certain things. Where that context is different (India, Indonesia, Singapore, Poland) the same demands are not at issue. I actually see Eich's donation as far less offensive (even though I see it as wrong) than I do Google's efforts at pushing the issue internationally. The US is no longer a culture for the most part where people get married, have kids, and then retire with their kids. Opponents of same-sex marriage should be working instead on bringing back that ideal, rather than upholding the rights of opposite sex couples not to reproduce and then trying to deny marriage rights to same-sex couples.
This is all about punishing the bad evil bigot man. He has committed the sin of not throwing his arms around gay marriage and he must pay. He cannot be allowed to have such an important position; why, that's almost like a reward for hate.
This is a frighteningly disingenuous interpretation.
Would it be better if he publicly lied about his views? Are we promoting an environment where you have to announce all the "correct" political positions to gain employment?
He cant(he donated publicly).
Now he is free to believe what's he wants to believe,just as you and I are free to have an opinion about the subject.Humans are not perfect we all have some level of bigotery and prejudice,noone can deny that. Even I who is pro gay rights.
Are we promoting an environment where you have to announce all the "correct" political positions to gain employment?
Only if you are a public figure in that company,and the CEO obviously is.
He is in the tech business,where these issues are becoming important today. Misogyny,racism at the work place are important subjects right now,we all saw what happened with github and how it can hurt a brand.
It's all about wether Eich as CEO will hurt Firefox and Mozilla brand or not, I believe it will.
You presume that people can't change their opinion.
That would be a fine solution, really.
Is the argument that CEO is a position unlike other positions that hard to grasp? The CEO is the "face" of a company and not just a worker.
I think there'd be outrage if it was suggested that some employee of some company should be fired just because he chose to spend his own time and/or money supporting a pro-gay cause.
Yet as we've seen in this case, it's apparently deemed perfectly acceptable by those who'd be outraged in the other case to level the exact same kind of discrimination against somebody who supports an opposite viewpoint.
I can't see how such contradictory behavior will help garner support. Fighting discrimination with discrimination is self-defeating.
No, we should not. We should live in a world with correct ideas, full stop. Some ideas are stupid, like racism, creationism, or flat-earth models, and don't deserve "balance". What you call "pro-gay" is actually a human rights issue.
Certainly everyone would be all over him if he was promoting racism, right? Or donating to groups to track down and execute people that have committed apostasy? Certainly Stormfront shouldn't be ostracized for having "political views".
Where do you draw the line? Is disliking gay people to the extent of wanting to deny them rights less important than Mozilla's goals?
Edit: I don't mean to imply that people shouldn't be able to hold incorrect (untrue) beliefs - free speech and thought should be strongly defended. But beliefs are obviously invalid and it should be fair to judge and dismiss people stating untrue things. We don't leap to someone's defense when they say the Earth is flat, why should we defend "two sides" for human rights depending on sexual preference?
What a nice world that would be. Are all your ideas correct? How can you know?
I see gay rights as a human rights as well, but I realize that's partially because I learned about it in a context permissive to that interpretation. If someone was raised in a society where they were taught gay people were abominations, and their mind is no longer plastic enough to eliminate that impression, perhaps they're safe as the COO.
At some point, some idea you don't agree with will become central to society's values. Maybe you'll be able to understand why you were wrong, or maybe you won't, but I don't think your job performance will be affected either way. I think political litmus tests for positions should make us all extremely uneasy. Would you accept a job that requires you to swear an oath to protect gay rights? What about the rights of trans* individuals? What about the rights of polygamists? The biblical literalists?
For me, I suppose it depends on what the oath means by 'rights.'
I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion that Eich is an overt homophobe. His intentions are still unclear.
This is always an interesting word definition to me. Just because someone donated against something, might mean he's against it it, but doesn't mean he's "scared" of it (the definition of "phobia" being "fear").
The equivalence of the two words into it's current meaning has always been interesting to me.
Honestly, they can say they're "not scared of gay people" all they want, but the actions of a person who would donate their money or time to get same-sex marriage outlawed speak much, much louder than their words.
That's the same attitude you're accusing them of. It's not helpful on either side of the debate.
There's a difference between being scared & disagreeing. Your refusal to acknowledge the difference says more about your desire to perpetuate your viewpoint of them rather than attempt to understand their background. It's one thing to disagree with someone, it's another to refuse to come to the table with them at all in the first place.
I think we could continue to go back & forth all day, but you don't seem very open to the idea of listening to people with opposing viewpoints :).
See that's where we fundamentally disagree. I respect all opinions - even if they're wrong, offensive or I disagree with them completely. That's the whole point of free speech
This latter interpretation is how we get creationists demanding equal time be given to teaching their "theory" in schools. They certainly have a right to not believe in evolution, and even shudder to promote that opinion, but that doesn't mean that opinion isn't stupid and somehow deserves to be given equal standing to evolution in the public sphere.
Well the line on racism seems to keep getting moved. Everyone got all up in arms about #cancelcolbert recently about something he said out of context.
I'm curious about the urge we feel to protest/boycott everything & making people we disagree with "go away" rather than having difficult discussions with people who hold different viewpoints than us.
I suspect it has to do with the fact that the latter is much more difficult & it often is tough to directly hate someone once you take the time to personally know them.
Aristotle believed women had less teeth than men. If someone states that belief now, is it wrong to say "no that's wrong", and then laugh/ignore them?
If someone stated that men and women have different numbers of teeth, why not encourage an experiment? It's not an absurd statement unless you've gathered evidence or trust the evidence you've read elsewhere.
The challenge in this case is that morality can't be determined objectively without reference to some other framework, which itself is likely subjective. So it doesn't tell us whether Eich can reason or incorporate evidence. He likely formulates his view from a different set of assumptions.
I'm not sure I know which ideas are "correct", but I know this particular idea you've just expressed is terrifying.
Perhaps my phrasing was off - I didn't mean to imply that other ideas shouldn't exist, just that they should not be accepted as true, nor should every issue be two-sided and seek a balance.
Even so, if we could all agree on basic axioms and goals, I don't think it's too far-fetched to say we'd all like to arrive at correct ideas.
You would have thoroughly enjoyed living in the USSR.
I think we can replace this pachinko machine of representative democracy, not with some one or two dimensional direct-democracy, but with the kind of thing that cypherpunks have been thinking about for decades.
But in the short-term, the current zeitgeist, which I _rejoice_ in, as an ex-mormon 'queer' person (so queer I can't categorize myself), I am stricken by the thought that Mozilla may be suffocated by people I would like to hold hands with.
Brendan supported Proposition 8, which had but one purpose: to deny to a certain group of people a right which is recognized in the US as fundamental. If you're unable to see the difference between disliking someone else's marriage, and campaigning to have their marriage annulled by law, perhaps you should examine that more closely.
Are you also Super Concerned about LGBT folks being ostracized by oppressive policies? This isn't some abstract fucking debate to them.
> We should be living in world of balance
Fuck that. We should be living in a world of justice.
I'm talking about things like Firefox trying to imitate Chrome at the expense of usability. Or the abandonment of Thunderbird. Or resources wasted on a failed effort like Persona, or wasted on software like Firefox OS that's inherently inferior to its many well-established competitors.
Mozilla's influence is directly related to the number of people using its software products. I see far more of its existing users moving away from its software due to usability problems or a lack of maintenance than I see moving due to purely political anger directed toward Eich.
To everyone yelling about bigotry & discrimination, if you actually read the article & those words, those don't sound like the words of a bigot to me.
I'm not sure phrasing it as being a bigot or not is helpful, and neither is the money/speech categorization.
Not knowing Mr Eich personally, I'd give him the benefit of doubt. I believe him when he says that he has LGBT friends, and that they were hurt by his actions, and that maybe he was sorry for causing that pain. It must be deeply uncomfortable to believe in something that compels a person to hurt their friends. It's not his religious views per se that got him into hot water, it's the willingness to use legislation to deny a group of people equal rights which still stands as an unethical act.
Speaking as someone who both admires Eich as a technologist but was disappointed by the message Mozilla was conveying by his appointment as CEO, I really don't care that much if he's a religious fanatic. It's not only his right to believe these things, it also doesn't really matter. His achievements can very well stand on their own, and likewise acknowledging the achievements of a person does not imply endorsing all of their beliefs.
Beyond the initial ethics violation, Mr Eich has done nothing wrong that I can see. The fault lies solely with the Mozilla board for appointing him to a position that consists of little else but projecting the public image of the foundation.
There's often several lenses to see things through. People are complicated, messy things.
"Words are wind."
Deleted comment
Growing up, my deeply religious immediate and extended family was surprised by my turning out to be the black swan secularist. As you alluded to I find that, as usual, ignorance breeds these misunderstandings.
Having many personal discussions with many the deeply religious, I can honestly say that the majority do have empathy for those who are being discriminated against, abused, disowned, lynched and executed because of their expression of gender identity.
This isn't a hate issue. This is an ignorance issue.
Instead of shaming those like Eich, who (assumedly) take issue with their idea of the institution of marriage being trampled (which is reinforced by herd mentality), we should all try and engage personally to make them understand.
Does that mean we should respect their beliefs? No, but we should strive for dialogue.
It's that whole communication thing...
personally, i'm most tired of this argument, that it's important for "freedom" to let people discriminate me in peace. that i should not complain about being discriminated, lest i ruin the freedom of society.
i love Firefox, and I'm still using it. never got this close to reconsidering that decision before.
What Eich fails to see that for many people, we are only just moving away from the "dark world" where gay marriage is illegal. I appreciate his work for Mozilla, but it's double-think to advocate "inclusivity" while promoting narrow views of marriage.
I can tell you that, in the context of this hypothetical situation, any arguments that my actions are uncalled-for because "coffee has nothing to do with the Internet" would not have much impact on me.
We'll see how the promised inclusivity efforts go. If he's genuinely committed to inclusivity, great! For the moment, however, I have reservations.
This isn't about respecting beliefs, this is about the CEO of mozilla and if we can believe him and how his beliefs can and will affect the company.
In defence of homosexual marriage, you seem happy to promote racism.
Indonesia is the world's 4th largest country by population, and the most-democratic of all majority-Muslim countries. It's important. And other countries that should be giant parts of open web projects are in similar positions.
Should open-web advocates from these countries, who in their personal lives express the same sort of political views on marriage as Obama did as recently as his 2008 campaign, be excluded from leadership positions at Mozilla? How deep should the proposed purge go?
I do agree with you though, that Mozilla's work is more important than civil rights. Eventually, it would seem that all people will give up poor, invalid beliefs. It's a near certainty as technology progresses and definitely disproves religions. However an open web is in quite the opposite position.
Tolerance means trying to accept a wide range of people and beliefs. And gay marriage, unfortunately, is against that of a lot of people. Whether we try to get them fired, or, in the Gandhian way, try to use love to get across our message peacefully, says a lot about our tolerance in the first place.
[Edit: Also, now imagine if a bunch of people of Indonesian extraction started a "Stop Pete XXXXX from hosting Y event because he is racist!" (where "X", "Y" is stuff mentioned in your profile/username) petition. How would you feel then? I think the same feelings, only to a far greater extent, are the ones going through Eich's mind. It's hard to put yourself in the mindset of someone you instinctively dislike, but try it.]
Yes. Please don't combat snark with snark on HN. It never helps, only provokes.
"It's pretty clear that people have latched onto this issue as a way to express their own political beliefs." seems too loaded in Eich's favor to be part of a respectable interview question.
It's going to take one hell of a silver tongue to do that with your foot wedged firmly in your mouth.
I get the 'tit for tat' argument, but if you're trying to get rid of an oppressive opinion by being oppressive, you're not really getting anywhere.
You can't really "force" anyone to believe anything. If you have to "make" someone believe something by force, then it doesn't seem like your argument is strong enough to stand on your own (a statement that's applicable to both sides of this debate).
Really? Really?? This guy's a CEO and yet he can't figure out why he's so dreadfully wrong on this one? Doesn't bode well for the future of Mozilla.
Deleted comment
Note I haven't managed to find Eich's name yet. He may have donated to some other cause, but this was the most publicized list in 2009.