Hacker News Reader

> Personally, I have no issue with this.

I agree that people have the right to push for companies to select officers that meet their criteria. But things like the OkCupid stunt are less respectable IMHO.

Is that really the way we want to see the Internet going? Visit a website where the web client is technically perfectly capable of displaying the page, but was associated with someone of the wrong political ideology, and so they get a nag page instead?

There is no clean exit to that logic; shouldn't OkCupid have banned JavaScript at the same time then? Shouldn't they put up nag messages to people visiting from IPs that resolve to a Republican National Committee host?

And if you do the things above, when does it become a net neutrality issue?

The beautiful thing is that you are free to boycott or speak against OKCupid for this all you want. You could even write your own browser that puts up a nag screen if you go to OKCupid.

Whether or not OKCupid did the right thing here (they certainly got some press out of it), it certainly wasn't bad for the internet as a whole.

> You could even write your own browser that puts up a nag screen if you go to OKCupid.

The scary thing about HN is that you might actually be serious that people should "simply write a web browser" to enforce correct political ideology...

But there now seems to be a police on moral thought. If someone dares to speak against an opinion that the left holds dearly, they're now subjected to having their careers and lives ruined. Don't you think this stifles alternative thought?

No, there are no thought police. There are, however, consequences among your social peers and professional colleagues for public statements. There is no reasonable free speech protection you can put in place to change this.

Throughout history, groups have always sought to stifle alternative thought. The moral difference is in the tactics they use, which have ranged from censorship to violence and bribery to peaceful protest and civil disobedience. I, for one, prefer and even encourage peaceful public outcry of this sort. Say what you want, but if your customers (users, friends, coworkers) don't like it they don't have to buy from you. In fact, they probably feel a moral obligation not to. This doesn't only happen on the left - remember the Million Moms (or whoever) boycotting JC Penny for using Ellen as a spokeswoman?

> No company is entitled to a person's money, and if they make their public face about politics they accept the consequences

I think Eich was chosen for his technical contributions (e.g. the creation of Javascript), not because he donated $1000 to a political campaign a few years back. There was no indication whatsoever that he was about to use his his new influence or Mozilla's money to advance political causes. In Chick-Fil-A's case it was at least possible to imagine that eating there would increase the owner's wealth, which would then go towards politics. But any fears about Mozilla promoting an anti-gay agenda under Eich seem unfounded at best.

I'm sure he was, and that's an ok (but not perfect) argument for when he was appointed CTO, and that's probably at least partly why the similar reaction then didn't gain anywhere near the same traction.

But as CEO you are a representative of much more than your technical contributions. You are the face of the company.

"The right wing of american politics is an avid user of and believer in boycotts."

Which companies have they boycotted? The recent organized calls for boycotts include Chick-Fil-A, Mozilla, Walmart, McDonald's, etc. I haven't seen the right calling for a boycott of companies that supported gay marriage initiatives. Seems like the left is more into boycotts than the right.

There is an ongoing conservative boycott of the Girl Scouts of America: http://cookiecott.com/

and in response...

http://monsantoboycott.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Family_Association#Boy...

and in response...

http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/boycotts/boycottslist.aspx

This doesn't look like a response to me, since I never said that the left doesn't use boycotts. They're a common political tool and have been for a very very long time.

I was asked for some examples of right wing boycotts and I came up with just one organization that has organized a bunch of them. I did not have to dig deep to find it and I dug no further than that at this very moment, but they are not rare or hard to find.

This person's response seems a bit… asymmetric anyway. Boycotting Girl Scout cookies because of personally-held beliefs about abortions on one hand.

Boycotting Monsanto because of pesticide injuries, gmo, funding opposition to gmo labeling, franken crops, etc. isn't even a matter of opinion.

This is like boycotting Ellen DeGeneres' show because she's gay, vs boycotting Chris Brown albums because he beat Rhianna.

You do realize this kind of thing actually happens, right? The right wing of american politics is an avid user of and believer in boycotts.

Let me introduce you to my neighbor down the street, the Rev. Jesse Jackson. His entire power structure is based upon leveraging boycotts as a means to an end. Each side is more than willing to play the victim game.