Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The Brendan Eich debate


Spaceman Spiff

Recommended Posts

Surprised this one isn't all over the Tailgate.  Seems to be a prime debate topic.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/brendan-eich-resigns-mozilla-ceo-anti-gay-flap-article-1.1744765

 

 

A newly promoted tech CEO who contributed money to an effort to ban gay marriage in California resigned Thursday, days after dating site OkCupid.com outed him as “an opponent of equal rights.”

Brendan Eich, a co-founder of Mozilla, was named CEO of the company last month, sparking outrage among board members of the nonprofit, which created the Firefox Internet browser, as well as users of the free service.

OkCupid prevented web surfers from logging onto the site through the Firefox portal, claiming 8% of its users are gay or lesbian.



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/brendan-eich-resigns-mozilla-ceo-anti-gay-flap-article-1.1744765#ixzz2xsF5qEZs

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

PC horse****....yawn

 

add

http://www.cnet.com/news/mozilla-ceo-gay-marriage-firestorm-could-hurt-firefox-cause-q-a/

 

Now, in his first interview on the subject, Eich is responding with a message that Mozilla is at its core inclusive -- not just of gay-marriage supporters but also of people like him or gay-marriage opponents in Indonesia who also are part of the Mozilla cause. Those beliefs must be checked at the door on the way into Mozilla, he argues.

"If Mozilla cannot continue to operate according to its principles of inclusiveness, where you can work on the mission no matter what your background or other beliefs, I think we'll probably fail," he told CNET.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems pretty cut and dried to me.
People are free to speak, free to donate, and other people are also free to see what the donations are for and decide they don't like his stance  and remove him from their presence.

 

 

~Bang

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if corporations are going to be people, i guess you've got to expect them to be emotional.

 

How many ways do we want to try and eat our cake?

 

Pretty soon who you vote for will be a requisite for your job.

 

Pandora can be a real **** when you go popping her lid.

 

~Bang

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/03/the-hounding-of-brendan-eich/

 

Will he now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brendan Eich has done a ton for Open Source Projects, and is part of the reason of where the web is today (anyone who knows Javascript—he created it). 

 

That said, I don't have a problem with his resignation. I'm not really happy about it, just indifferent. He wanted to restrict others rights based on his beliefs, which I find stupid on his end. I don't think he or Mozilla "deserved" the public backlash, but I'm not going to pretend everyone is out on an anti-gay bigot hunt with pitchforks like anyone with their own agenda will do.

 

I'm not sure how this is related to Hobby Lobby at all. All we know about Hobby Lobby is they're a "christian values" group who uses low-pay and poor conditions in other countries (because thats jesus-like values), and now its come out they even hypocritically send gobs of money to the pharma companies via retirement plans. So basically, they're throwing hissy fits for publicity. No other reason they'd give cash to folks they're against unless they really don't care as much as they're putting on. It seems even to the elite, money is money no matter where it comes in from.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brendan Eich has done a ton for Open Source Projects, and is part of the reason of where the web is today (anyone who knows Javascript—he created it). 

 

That said, I don't have a problem with his resignation. I'm not really happy about it, just indifferent. He wanted to restrict others rights based on his beliefs, which I find stupid on his end. I don't think he or Mozilla "deserved" the public backlash, but I'm not going to pretend everyone is out on an anti-gay bigot hunt with pitchforks like anyone with their own agenda will do.

 

I'm not sure how this is related to Hobby Lobby at all. All we know about Hobby Lobby is they're a "christian values" group who uses low-pay and poor conditions in other countries (because thats jesus-like values), and now its come out they even hypocritically send gobs of money to the pharma companies via retirement plans. So basically, they're throwing hissy fits for publicity. No other reason they'd give cash to folks they're against unless they really don't care as much as they're putting on. It seems even to the elite, money is money no matter where it comes in from.

For someone who doesn't think they have anything to do with it or an agenda, it sure didn't stop you from writing a "nice" paragraph about them.

 

Anyway, Hobby Lobby has everything to do with it and nothing. They don't directly have anything to do with Mozilla, this is true, but they are another example of a company collectively having convictions about certain things, as generalized as that is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A quote I read on Twitter today: "Isn't it interesting that many who don't think Hobby Lobby can have corporate convictions now think Mozilla can?"

 

Isn't it interesting that many people who think Hobby Lobby can have corporate convictions now think Mozilla can't?

I did find the economist article interesting though.

 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2014/04/mozillas-boss-resigns

 

 

In a blog post about his departure, Mozilla’s executive chairwoman, Mitchell Baker, admitted that the former chief executive’s beliefs had created a dilemma for the company. “Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech,” she wrote. “Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need to have free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.”

 

Plenty of folk have wondered out loud why Mr Eich’s views on gay marriage had anything to do with his ability to lead an organisation that makes software. After all, he seemed eminently suited to the job given his track record as a co-founder of Mozilla and the man behind JavaScript, a very popular programming language.

 

However, the dilemma that Ms Baker refers to is real. Mozilla isn’t a typical company. It is more of a community organisation that is strongly committed to so-called “open-source software”, which is developed collaboratively and then licensed for use in such a way that it can be studied and changed easily by others. The outfit also campaigns actively to keep the internet open in the face of efforts by a few giant tech companies such as Google and Facebook to carve it up into fiefdoms that they rule over.

 

So Mozilla is a bizarre beast in the world of tech: part business and part internet missionary. It also relies heavily on the goodwill of programmers and others to support its efforts. To woo them, the outfit has stressed that it is an open and inclusive workplace. In her blog post Ms Baker refers to the fact that Mozilla “prides itself on being held to a different standard” as an organisation.

 

 

But a chief executive has to be able to get people to follow him and engender confidence in the broader marketplace. The schism Mr Eich’s appointment caused within Mozilla risked damaging its ability to pursue its mission. And OKCupid’s decision to call on Firefox users to switch to other web browsers is evidence that the fallout was starting to have a real impact on Mozilla's operations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, Hobby Lobby has everything to do with it and nothing. They don't directly have anything to do with Mozilla, this is true, but they are another example of a company collectively having convictions about certain things, as generalized as that is.

Yes, there are things in common between the two situations.  (And others.  Someone has already pointed out Duck Dude.  Me, when things like this come up, I always compare things to The Dixie Chicks.) 

 

There are also differences. 

 

Hobby Lobby wants to impose their "corporate convictions" (am I the only one who thinks that sounds a lot like "criminal lawyer"?) on every minimum wage employee of the company.  (And to do so based on a myth:  That contraception is abortion.) 

 

Whereas the CEO of a corporation, (and Duck Dude and the Dixie Chicks), are the public faces of their respective corporations. 

 

And Hobby Lobby is the only one wanting to be exempt from a law.  And the only one claiming that their "corporate religion" grants them immunity from a law. 

 

----------

 

But I certainly agree that it's a valid point:  The number of people who's opinion of censorship and boycots and people getting fired over their opinions, changes dramatically, depending on the opinions being expressed. 

 

(Although, I will also point out something else:  It's perfectly valid to have different opinions of "some employee just expressing his opinion", depending on the opinion.  To pick stupid examples, there's a difference between firing an employee for being a Dallas fan, and doing so for being a Klansman.  Yes, which opinion the employee is publicly expressing is a factor.) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we merge this and the HL thread?  The hypocrisy from all would be tasty.

 

Is there is a difference between the CEO being forced out because of intolerant beliefs vs boycotting a company (or suing them) because their CEO (or owners) don't want to provide ACA mandated health coverage for some contraceptions? 

 

If anything, it could merge with the aforementioned Dixie Chicks thread. Two cases of people being fired/forced out of their market because of controversial (to their brand) statements and/or actions. Although the ironic thing  to me is that many of the people who blasted the Dixie Chicks back then probably have no problem making the same statement they made but in reference to the current president.

 

I guess the line has moved a little in what it acceptable or not acceptable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there is a difference between the CEO being forced out because of intolerant beliefs vs boycotting a company (or suing them) because their CEO (or owners) don't want to provide ACA mandated health coverage for some contraceptions? 

 

If anything, you should merge it was the aforementioned Dixie Chicks thread. Two cases of people being fired/forced out of their market because of controversial (to their brand) statements. Although the ironic thing is - many of the people who blasted the Dixie Chicks back then probably have no problem making their statement but in reference to the current president.

 

I guess the line has moved a little in what it acceptable or not acceptable.

 

Is there is a difference between the CEO being forced out because of intolerant beliefs vs boycotting a company (or suing them) because their CEO (or owners) don't want to provide ACA mandated health coverage for some contraceptions? 

 

If anything, you should merge it was the aforementioned Dixie Chicks thread. Two cases of people being fired/forced out of their market because of controversial (to their brand) statements. Although the ironic thing is - many of the people who blasted the Dixie Chicks back then probably have no problem making their statement but in reference to the current president.

 

I guess the line has moved a little in what it acceptable or not acceptable.

Absolutely.  Im talking about the people here justifying the actions, not the actions themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How is he being intolerant?

 

Wheres the line

 

In his case, I suspect the line is defined by his customers and his workers. The  backlash from his contribution to a cause that prohibited marriage equality has defined him as being intolerant. 

 

As Kilmer likes to say, actions have consequences. His just came a few years later. 

 

edit..Silicon valley has little tolerance for anti-gay behavior. That came as no suprise to Mr. Eich since he personally blogged that "There are concerns about my commitment to fostering equality and welcome for LGBT individuals at Mozilla" as one of the reasons for his departure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In his case, I suspect the line is defined by his customers and his workers. The  backlash from his contribution to a cause that prohibited marriage equality has defined him as being intolerant. 

 

As Kilmer likes to say, actions have consequences. His just came a few years later. 

 

 

There will be some backlash from this idiocy as well

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/mozillas-gay-marriage-litmus-test-violates-liberal-values/360156/

 

Those words make me think that the people who wrote them like to think of themselves as the sort of people who do the right thing. The hint of humanity is there. But they're evasive words, and their authors don't have the courage of their convictions. They didn't merely "try and change someone's mind" by expressing their personal story. Disinclined to stop at personal persuasion, they waged a pressure campaign that could be summed up as "change your mind, or else."

Now that the ultimatum has been rejected, they're not taking their share of responsibility for the outcome. They should face and own up to the fact that they helped force out a CEO solely because he disagreed with them about same-sex marriage. Put in their position, I'd feel uneasy about admitting that too. The rise of marriage equality is a happy, hopeful story. This is an ugly, illiberal footnote, appended by the winners.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's perfectly valid to have different opinions of "some employee just expressing his opinion", depending on the opinion. To pick stupid examples, there's a difference between firing an employee for being a Dallas fan, and doing so for being a Klansman. Yes, which opinion the employee is publicly expressing is a factor.)

You think it's stupid to fire someone for being a klansman?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Believe it or not, I am actually against forcing him out on the basis of his support of Prop 8. There are a lot of folks who supported Prop 8, and while I think it is very misguided and bigoted point of view, I do not think they should find themselves unemployed because of it.  

 

Not being mentioned very often was that they had already lost three board members over his appointment that had nothing to do with his Prop 8 support - they wanted someone brought in from the outside to help improve their business model. Again, like Prop 8 support, not grounds by itself  to support forcing him out as I am sure that losing board members and such during a period of change in leadership is common. 

 

I also would be against forcing him out just because he made donations to folks like Pat "Stop Immigration to Save White People" Buchanan. I personally know a couple of Republicans who that would have instantly uninstalled Firefox just based on that donation Eich made in 1992, or his later contributions to Ron Paul. Whatever I as an individual may think of who he supports politically, it becomes dangerous ground when it comes a standard by which a company can decide who works for them (obviously this is different if the company is based around politics to begin with, such as a lobbyist firm). 

 

However, start taking all of these elements together and then compare them to the culture within a company and it starts to change the situation some. You have a company (Mozilla) that is known for being very "liberal" in it's culture. You now have a CEO who is at the opposite end of the spectrum, and will become the "face" of the company. This is going to cause conflict within the company as evident by the fact that it was becoming a disruption between its employees (who had begun feuding in private and, eventually, in public via twitter), and the loss of more board members. In other words, whether the reasons were right or wrong, his appointment was causing chaos within the company. This disruption effects the company's ability to do business.

 

Or, to create a generic example of what I mean, a company that has an extremely "Christian" culture but whose business services are not Christian oriented (think Hobby Lobby, Chik-Fil-A, whatever) appointed a new CEO who donated money to GLAAD and voted for Obama (this is assuming that he is very good at his job). Some of the board members quit and there is infighting between the employees over the appointment. It causes a major disruption because the company has a strong Christian identity - it is part of what makes the company what/who the company is. Under those circumstances, would it be surprising or wrong for the CEO to be fired/forced to resign?  

 

So, while I might not like the specific reasons, I understand why a company might make a change in leadership. 

 

Now add in the public but non-individual backlash. 

 

OkCupid is basically a business. Part of their customer base is homosexuals, specifically homosexuals looking for relationships which could/can lead to marriage. As a result, laws banning homosexual marriage can directly effect their business in those states. Therefore it is actually reasonable that they took the stand they did against Eich's appointment over his support for Prop 8 from a business standpoint. Also note that they did not block the use of Firefox on their website, only the add-ons, while encouraging visitors to use a different browsers...so it was basically a partial-boycott.

 

Since part of what makes Firefox so popular is the use of add-ons, like the one used by OKCupid, the website's blocking of add-ons represented a danger to Mozilla as a company, especially if other companies began following OkCupid's lead.  

 

For a minute, view non-profits like businesses. Now consider what is going on with the Christian humanitarian group World Vision. World Vision made the decision to stay out of the gay marriage debate, especially since there are Christian denominations which recognize same-sex marriage (either performing them or simply accepting them as members). To do this, they changed their employment guidelines so that homosexuals could be hired if they were married.

 

There was immediate backlash from RR groups (again, think of them as businesses). World Vision, in addition to federal funds (a separate issue from this discussion), also receive a lot funds and publicity from these groups, much like OkCupid and other companies having Firefox add-ons helps Mozilla. To survive as a "business", World Vision had to change their employment guidelines to how they were previously.  

 

In regards to the individual public backlash -

 

People are always going to speak out when it comes to opposing viewpoints, whether it is political, religious, or whatever. That is part of what makes us...well...us. Doing so is the primary method by which the individual is able to affect change within our society, with boycotts and such being the most powerful tool they have outside of voting (and voting is hit and miss).

 

Eich supported a legal measure than many people in this country feel was based on bigotry, and that used that bigotry as justification to try and prevent individuals from having the same rights that supporters of Prop 8 enjoyed whenever they filed their tax return or visited a loved one in the hospital. Or, more simply put, they view Eich as supporting bigotry, and thus speaking out against him is part of speaking out against intolerance and bigotry. Whether or not they are right in this view is in the eyes of the beholder. Obviously there are also those who are going to disagree with these individuals, and thus will see their (the protestor's) views as intolerant.

 

Both groups have the right to speak their minds on the issue, and the responsibility to accept the consequences of their views, as Eich found out.   

 

        

 

 

 

Edit: I actually had a long part of this post about tolerance and intolerance, but realized it skewed to far from the actual subject of the thread, so might just start another one instead.          

Link to post
Share on other sites

lol Hobby Lobby trying to get out of a law is nothing like firing a guy who's actions could cost the company customers or users.

Mozilla is not really in a position to lose any, their browser gets killed by the competition.

 

Oh, the  upside down world of the persecuted conservative mind these days.

 

~Bang

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...