Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MorleyDev]

The guy could of come out and said "I was wrong then. I have grown, and come to realise I put my money in something I have come to since view as a vile and repugnant belief, and I'm sorry." and odds would of been better all would of been fine. Most of the boycotters probably would of stopped boycotting and the board of directors hand wouldn't of been forced. Did he ever sincerely express regret and shame for his decision to donate to that cause?

The people who disagree with the mainstream get judged and punished. Social progress isn't when this stops, it's when the people who are spreading the hate become the ones being judged and punished, instead of the ones being hated.

It's social progress and exactly what you expect to happen in a more progressive society when the racists and homophobes of the world start being looked down on and personally suffering for their beliefs. It's not rainbows and everybody holding hands, it's the racists and homophobes being forced to shut up and act like they aren't so their memes can't spread effectively. They're free to still try and spread those memes, but they're also free to suffer the consequences of that.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

All I've got to say is this is a private company whose board of directors was about to remove a person for reasons they found suitable, and the guy resigned preemptively to save face. If someone has an issue with that then you've got a problem with the entire concept of corporate governance. Political motivation or not, you are not allowed to dictate to a private company what their board is allowed to do with respect to hiring and firing of decision-makers.

Yes, I did link the basic wiki page on it because I feel some people are completely ignoring the fact that the board made this decision, not the society we live in.

[nenjin]

Feel bad for the guy all you want. Lament "this tragically PC world of ours all you want." But please, don't ignore the larger implications of holding business accountable for what they can do that isn't business. Because that's what this is about. No one was concerned Mozilla would ask you if you're gay when it launches and it shuts down if you say yes. They're concerned about probably the 3rd most used browser in the world being controlled by someone who may have the power and the influence to affect their lives in ways they don't want, outside of their browser.

*sniff*
Do I smell a strawman? I think I do. It's not that the situation is "tragically PC", it's just that someone's position as a job has nothing to do with themselves as a person. Does this guy's position as Mozilla CEO give him more ability to influence politics? Does it bollocks; being rich does.

When a CEO has the ability to go to Congress, be listened to by policy makers, affect policy and donate to political campaigns in excess of what most private citizens can, yes it does.

And seriously. I wouldn't have maintained friendships with people who voted for Prop 8 or paid to help it succeed, unless they're opinion had changed into the present time. Why should I hold him to a different standard?

Because he is not your friend. He is the CEO of an organisation and so what kind of person he is and what opinions he hold do not have the impact as they would with a friend.

You're right. They have way more ability to affect my life than what any of my friends are capable of.

Yes, I did link the basic wiki page on it because I feel some people are completely ignoring the fact that the board made this decision, not the society we live in.

Source?

[kaijyuu]

So what is the "morally right" way to deal with the situation (and the "right" stance on the issue as a consumer):
A:political views/religion/sexual orientation/everything that doesn't directly affect peoples' ability to do the job isn't a valid argument so decision about firing you shouldn't be based on these factors
B:It's the public opinion that matters so if a substantial part of our consumer base doesn't like being PUT A RANDOM TRAIT HERE then you should be fired
C:fight the opression, if they agree with us then we are like A but if they don't then we are like B.

Remember those "random traits" can affect one's ability to do their job. Someone who waits tables being racist/homophobic/etc can have obvious effects if the "wrong" customer comes in.

The people who disagree with the mainstream get judged and punished. Social progress isn't when this stops, it's when the people who are spreading the hate become the ones being judged and punished, instead of the ones being hated.

It's social progress and exactly what you expect to happen in a more progressive society when the racists and homophobes of the world start being looked down on and personally suffering for their beliefs. It's not rainbows and everybody holding hands, it's the racists and homophobes being forced to shut up and act like they aren't so their memes can't spread effectively.

Do remember that the torches and pitchforks can go too far. You're actually helping some causes by trying to trample them underfoot; gives them the underdog mentality and all that.

Not to mention that reactions ought to be appropriate. Lynching racists would be ironic I suppose but not at all something that should actually happen.

[Graknorke]

When a CEO has the ability to go to Congress, be listened to by policy makers, affect policy and donate to political campaigns in excess of what most private citizens can, yes it does.

Elaborate?

[Kicior]

Yes, I did link the basic wiki page on it because I feel some people are completely ignoring the fact that the board made this decision, not the society we live in.

The thing is that the society can influence (and most likely did influence) the decision. Whether it should or not is a different thing.

So what is the "morally right" way to deal with the situation (and the "right" stance on
Remember those "random traits" can affect one's ability to do their job. Someone who waits tables being racist/homophobic/etc can have obvious effects if the "wrong" customer comes in.

Same can be said about militant gays/christians/atheists/whatever.

[Vector]

The guy could of come out and said "I was wrong then. I have grown, and come to realise I put my money in something I have come to since view as a vile and repugnant belief, and I'm sorry." and odds would of been better all would of been fine. Most of the boycotters probably would of stopped boycotting and the board of directors hand wouldn't of been forced. Did he ever sincerely express regret and shame for his decision to donate to that cause?

This.  I was about to come in and say this.

[GlyphGryph]

All I've got to say is this is a private company whose board of directors was about to remove a person for reasons they found suitable, and the guy resigned preemptively to save face. If someone has an issue with that then you've got a problem with the entire concept of corporate governance. Political motivation or not, you are not allowed to dictate to a private company what their board is allowed to do with respect to hiring and firing of decision-makers.

Yes, I did link the basic wiki page on it because I feel some people are completely ignoring the fact that the board made this decision, not the society we live in.

Okay, aside from not being interested in anything anyone is actually talking about, including myself in the OP, what are you actually doing in this thread? Because I'm not particularly interested in the actions of the board here, but the actions of people who think it's a good idea to try and run people out of their jobs for having political views they disagree with.

[nenjin]

When a CEO has the ability to go to Congress, be listened to by policy makers, affect policy and donate to political campaigns in excess of what most private citizens can, yes it does.

Elaborate?

Corporations as an entity have far more wealth to distribute across the political spectrum than most people, who have to pay bills and provide for their families. As an entity, corporations have a disproportionate ability to affect and participate in politics than an individual private citizen. Doubly so if you run the company making the browser that statistically 1/3rd of lawmakers are probably looking at while they talk to you.

[kaijyuu]

Same can be said about militant gays/christians/atheists/whatever.

If you didn't notice, cramming those things down customer's throats results in the employee getting fired.


I don't mean to strawman so I'll ask this hesitantly: Are you taking a "not tolerating intolerance is hypocritical" stance?

[Loud Whispers]

It's social progress and exactly what you expect to happen in a more progressive society when the racists and homophobes of the world start being looked down on and personally suffering for their beliefs. It's not rainbows and everybody holding hands, it's the racists and homophobes being forced to shut up and act like they aren't so their memes can't spread effectively. Their free to still try and spread those memes, but they're also free to suffer the consequences of that.

It's like this post was hand-crafted to give me an aneurysm or something D:

To elaborate, I believe firmly that technological advances and freedom of expression come hand in hand, and social progress inevitably follows. The washing machine and women's rights, the industrialization of the world and the rise of the middle class - all the way to the internet, the ultimate idea network. I guess I should steer away from free speech (especially in the context of social activism as is the days) and save it for a progressive thread argument, but everything we are saying here now is possible because of the very same man being crucified. Anything that hampers the free transferal of information should be met with the utmost scrutiny, because one should never be certain that they are 100% correct. Mainstream beliefs change over time, and without the open dialogue to reason and work out which is the best position to adopt - deliberate and willful handicapping is the only thing achieved. America is not the world; the internet is.

The guy could of come out and said "I was wrong then. I have grown, and come to realise I put my money in something I have come to since view as a vile and repugnant belief, and I'm sorry." and odds would of been better all would of been fine. Most of the boycotters probably would of stopped boycotting and the board of directors hand wouldn't of been forced. Did he ever sincerely express regret and shame for his decision to donate to that cause?

You seriously overestimate the rationality of the social justice bandwagon. Once it starts, no one can stop it; much like corporations they operate entirely without the consent of the individuals acting within it. The colbert shitstorm and the countless cases like it are proof enough.

So if your neighbor donated to a Neo-Nazi group 6 years ago, you'd give him the same pass?
No, you wouldn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip

Hey, if I could come after the politicians who thought that was a swell idea, I would. But they're all dead. Also, we're people. Not government officials thinking they need to bomb the Russians back into the Stone Age with the best Nazi scientists could come up with.

This wasn't just weapons to bomb the Russians with, so much of the technology the world enjoys today as convenient truths has come from horrendous people like Nazis or U731. Godwin's silly, yet it goes without saying that one must point out Eich is not a nazi.

[Graknorke]

When a CEO has the ability to go to Congress, be listened to by policy makers, affect policy and donate to political campaigns in excess of what most private citizens can, yes it does.

Elaborate?

Corporations as an entity have far more wealth to distribute across the political spectrum than most people, who have to pay bills and provide for their families. As an entity, corporations have a disproportionate ability to affect and participate in politics than an individual private citizen. Doubly so if you run the company making the browser that statistically 1/3rd of lawmakers are probably looking at while they talk to you.

So it's still about wealth, and Eich still only ever acted independently of Mozilla (since it was before he was the CEO).

Same can be said about militant gays/christians/atheists/whatever.

If you didn't notice, cramming those things down customer's throats results in the employee getting fired.

So does that mean they should be fired on principle because they might be tempted to?

[nenjin]

This wasn't just weapons to bomb the Russians with, so much of the technology the world enjoys today as convenient truths has come from horrendous people like Nazis or U731. Godwin's silly, yet it goes without saying that one must point out Eich is not a nazi.

To use your belief, we would have inevitably come to the same scientific discoveries without the direct participation of those scientists. But point your about who was or wasn't or isn't an actual Nazi is well-taken.

So it's still about wealth, and Eich still only ever acted independently of Mozilla (since it was before he was the CEO).

Do people suddenly check their beliefs at the door when they get hired? No. Past history matters. Just go try and get a job as a convicted felon or someone with a criminal record of any sort. Ask this as an employer looks at your FB profile during the hiring process.

I almost feel like this debate is akin to when Huckabee was running again for Governor and a lot of people felt the fact he cheated on his wife had zero bearing on his ability to be in politics or his trustworthiness in general. I was not one of them.

[Playergamer]

I'll just put this here for reference. I know the guy's a gamer, and he's talking about game companies, but I feel it has a little relevance. Now I'll just be backing out of here for a bit...

[Mictlantecuhtli]

I'm looking into his appointment more and it seems he wasn't even appointed with appropriate amount of board members. Looks like he shouldn't have been the CEO in the first place, honestly. This might've even been a face saving measure from the remaining two board members who basically forced Eich into the position against the other half of the board's wishes, who resigned in protest and didn't even vote for him.

The only information on this I can find is this:

The controversy has been a difficult one for Mozilla, which could be described as more of a movement than a tech company and which has a very vocal community around it.

It has also resulted in scrutiny of its governance, in which Baker and also Eich — who have worked together for 15 years since founding Mozilla on deeply held beliefs over the development of an open Internet — played a big part.

In addition, three of Mozilla Corporation’s board members — former Mozilla CEO and current Greylock Partners VC John Lilly, former Mozilla CEO Gary Kovacs and well-known tech exec Ellen Siminoff — have recently resigned.

But each of their departures seems to have been only tangentially related to Eich’s appointment — though none of them supported his selection as CEO, according to numerous sources, for other reasons — and not to the controversy over Prop 8.

Baker said that she had not known about Eich’s views on gay marriage throughout most of their working relationship, until the donation came to light last year.

“That was shocking to me, because I never saw any kind of behavior or attitude from him that was not in line with Mozilla’s values of inclusiveness,” she said, noting that there was a long and public community process about what to do about it in which Eich, then CTO, participated. “But I overestimated that experience.”

Baker — who became emotional at one point during the interview — noted that she was “doing a fair amount of self-reflection and I am wondering how did I miss it that this would matter more when he was the CEO.”

Preserving Mozilla’s integrity was paramount, she said, especially since “we are heading into a period of global mass surveillance and the role of those fighting against will be more important than ever.”

She added: “This is hard since Brendan is a founder and has contributed so much here. But making sure others continue to join and support Mozilla’s efforts is even more important.”

Baker said there was not another leading candidate for the CEO role as yet, although Mozilla had been conducting an extensive search using Spencer Stuart before the Eich selection, which also included another internal candidate, Jay Sullivan.

“There are certainly very talented people we have talked to, so we are not at ground zero by any means,” she said. “But we are now in the middle of what is clearly a crisis, and this had to happen.”

http://recode.net/2014/04/03/mozilla-co-founder-brendan-eich-resigns-as-ceo-and-also-from-foundation-board/

Looks like Baker might be resigning next as well. Something about his 'appointment' coupled with the skittishness of the new board along with the complete resignation of the other half of the [Now old-] board who outright decried his complete lack of experience running the business itself..

I will continue to dig, I just know for a fact that someone is trying to save someone's face here and maybe avoid being looked at closer by officials. I read something about the only people voting for him being himself, and Baker, but I lost the link to my history ugh

That, or Baker just wants to head the board and have a lock on any new leadership's decisions, being de-facto leader now. If she does this and then attempts to shoehorn herself or another 'ally' into the CEO I can see much investigation into the way these cogs turned.