OkCupid Pulls Firefox Blocker
cnet.comOn the one hand, Brendan Eich is entitled to his political views, and they do not inherently preclude him from being a great CEO.
On the other hand, a non-trivial portion of the population, particularly the next generation, see opposition to gay marriage as morally repugnant, the way most people now view anti-miscegenation laws.
I don't think this is going to go away. Mozilla will continue to suffer a minor but significant attrition of mindshare over this issue as long as he remains at the helm, regardless of his merits as a leader or as a human being.
I've got to disagree. At the end of the day, there aren't a whole lot of "substitute goods" for Mozilla the same way as there are for, say, Chick-Fil-A. Unless people within Mozilla oust Eich or fork the organization, the world may just have to deal with it. I wish Brendan Eich had different points of view, but I'm certainly not prepared to ditch Firefox over the situation.
But I'm also I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of someone emotionally closer to the situation than myself. I'm a black guy in an interracial relationship. It's tough to say how I'd feel if Brendan Eich had donated to an anti-miscegenation campaign. I'd probably feel pretty shitty about it. But I don't think I'd stop using Firefox on that basis alone.
> But I don't think I'd stop using Firefox on that basis alone.
Maybe it's because you are not LGBT? Given that you're black, would you stop using Firefox if he had donated to the KKK?
As a bisexual-leaning-gay man, I have some strong feelings regarding people holding outdated views. VERY strong.
In the end balance, though, Mr. Eich's donation was... fairly small, relatively speaking. This cost is likely MUCH smaller than the potential damage this could do to Firefox and the various freedom-centered movements that depend on it.
Therefor, this is a mater of PICKING YOUR BATTLES and realizing that those who normally would be seen as an enemy can sometimes become an ally against a larger foe. Winning difficult social issues such as marriage equality would be a LOT harder without tools like firefox to maintain free (as in speech) communication on the net.
/* especially when certain intelligence agencies have been found using this kind of wedge issue to break up groups they perceive as a threat */
As someone who identifies as Bisexual and has been invovled with a few gay relationships, I have no intention of ditching Firefox nor do I plan to stop supporting Mozilla. While I don't agree with Eich's personal beliefs on the matter of same sex marriage, it's his PERSONAL belief. It seems he has and still wants personal matters distant from Mozilla or Firefox or anything else related to his career. Everyone will disagree with you on something, doesn't mean you should always shame them for an opinion.
The problem is that he donated money to support a law that discriminates against people. It's not a private personal opinion that isn't harming anyone, his personal belief has directly contributed to discrimination. Beliefs are never truly personal and private, what people believe affects their behavior and interaction with others.
"Beliefs are never truly personal and private, what people believe affects their behavior and interaction with others."
It's true. If I find out that a CEO is an atheist and voted on laws that went against the rights of Christians, I would probably want him fired too.
Sure, if a CEO supported and donated money to a law that would stop Christians from being able to get married like everyone else then i would hope they are publicly criticized and pressured to defend their beliefs and the actions they have taken as a result of those beliefs. I wouldn't say they should be fired but they should be made to feel that actions taken to discriminate against others can have social consequences in both your personal and professional life.
"I wouldn't say they should be fired but they should be made to feel that actions taken to discriminate against others can have social consequences in both your personal and professional life."
Well, it worked. The CEO has resigned today.
I would like to see one instance of the HN (or should I say, the US left) community going on the side against discrimination but regarding something against their personal beliefs.
I won't hold my breath.....
Why should I respect your freedom of choice..when you can't respect mine? We live in a world now where if I say or do something that is against the US left, I have a chance of getting fired and or having my livelihood or career ruined.
This is evil.
Discrimination isn't subjective, either something is discrimination or it isn't. It would require cognitive dissonance to be someone who is opposed to discrimination while holding a personal belief that supports discrimination.
There is a difference between respecting your freedom of choice and respecting your actual choice. If your belief is repulsive to your peers and discriminatory then you need to realize there are going to be consequences for holding that belief and acting on that belief when it comes time to try to fit in with society. Your freedom of choice does not give you freedom from all consequences of that choice. On the other hand LGBT people are NOT free to choose to marry the person they wish if laws like the one Mr Eich supported exist.
If you stand against discrimination and apply social pressure to the people who choose to continue to support discrimination then you are, in fact, on the side AGAINST discrimination.
It is a curious characteristic of the philosophy of tolerance that only one thing may not be tolerated: intolerance.
In general, I don't like a sociocultural norm that punishes people solely for taboo or unpopular beliefs; while I'm pro-gay-marriage, I hold other opinions which are even more controversial. Yet if the issue was a more extreme one (say, if Eich was a Holocaust denier), very few people would be comfortable with having him in a position of power, and the implicit legitimization of that political opinion.
I'm not sure it was right for the left to call for his resignation; however, in terms of what's best for Mozilla and the open web, I think it was the right move for Eich to step down.
He seems to have answered a version of the question prior to the quote you selected.
One thing I was struck by, when I read yesterday's Gizmodo report[1], was how haphazardly the decision was made to add the Firefox blocker message to the site.
OKCupid founder Christian Rudder essentially said that they made the decision in a hurry, in the span of about 36 hours, and had no concrete plan about what they would do next.
In fact, when Gizmodo asked him what outcome he expected, he said, "I don't have a good answer for you."
Let's step aside, for a minute, from the divisive social issue that inspired the stunt, and consider what this says about OKCupid's ability to make business decisions.
If I'm IAC, OKCupid's owner[2], should I really have confidence in Rudder and other OKCupid decision-makers if this is the way they make far-reaching, very public business decisions?
"Hey, let's slap something together and see what happens!"
I think that it is possible for a business to make a bold stand on social issues, even if it means calling out another business for its conduct. But if you're going to do it, you'd better have thought it out well and have a game plan.
OKCupid did not ... and that says a lot about the people in charge there.
[1] http://gizmodo.com/why-okcupid-took-a-stand-against-mozillas...
More likely the reality is that the reason they went ahead with it is because they knew they would get a bunch of PR for it and a corresponding spike in signups.
That isn't the sort of thing you can come out and say in a gizmodo interview.
It's been curious to me from the beginning that this has been treated as a free speech issue. Free speech is a legal question. If a group of people boycott you, they aren't impeding on your right to free speech. In fact, they are merely exercising their own right to free speech.
As a CEO, you have the right to support slavery. As a worker, you have the right to quit in response to those views.
Free speech is a larger concept in America than the legal protection, specifically that people with alternate viewpoints should be respected even if you disagree, and that a marketplace of ideas is a good thing for society.
This isn't exactly true. Free speech just means you need to respect someones RIGHT TO VOICE their viewpoint. There is a difference between respecting someones right to free speech and respecting the actual person and/or their viewpoint. If the viewpoint someone expresses is repulsive you are under no obligation to respect that person or their viewpoint. Criticizing bad ideas and calling people out on them and applying social pressure to those people for their bad ideas is what makes the market place of idea's work, it stops bad harmful ideas like racism and LGBT discrimination from propagating. Criticizing someone and saying you don't respect that person anymore because of their ideas is not the same as disrespecting or taking away their right to free speech.
The thing is, everyone has their opinions. It just happens that his donation was revealed.
Ok, suppose a new guy comes along, he could have donated a million dollars to ... I don't know .. an even worse cause. How would you know?
That's why we have laws and protections against each other's opinions (however imperfect they may be).