Print

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

[Frumple]

Here's the thing I think you're not getting, at least about my problem with this. This wasn't a boycott. Companies specifically inserted code to refuse to let other people use the product and enjoy their services.

People not only said 'I don't like this guy and what he does, so I'm not going to use his product... but I'm going to take active measure to prevent other people from using his product too.

Glyph... people in the software business do that all the time. Specifically engineering compatibility issues -- either by directly blocking the service (there's multiple games, ferex, that will refuse to run if Process Explorer is open), or making sure your software cannot interact through other means (See: Microsoft's latest document formats or Quickbook's refusal to work with any spreadsheet software that's not Excel) -- is bloody close to standard practice these days. And they're perfectly in the right to do so, though it's goddamn horrifically terrible design methodology. They have no obligation to include or not include whatever features they please in their software -- up to and including engineered incompatibility with other software. If their market doesn't like it, they're welcome to use a different product.

It... it's okay if you don't want your software interacting with someone else's. That's the programmer's prerogative, and they have as much right to refuse to work (Blacklist, whatever.) with another company as the consumer has to boycott. It's frankly the exact same thing, just a company doing it instead of an individual. In cases like this, it's even a potentially good business move -- you've got a non-zero chance to snipe some market share from a competitor by doing so and appealing to the portion of the market that wants absolutely nothing to do with Mozilla.

[DJ]

He wasn't using his position as a platform to promote his political views, so his political views are irrelevant. Tolerance is a two way street, you know. If you demand of conervatives to tolerate your views and at the same time refuse to tolerate theirs you are a hypocrit. Or do you think it's right and proper to try and make every registered Republican lose his job?

[Leafsnail]

Here's the thing I think you're not getting, at least about my problem with this. This wasn't a boycott. Companies specifically inserted code to refuse to let other people use the product and enjoy their services.

People not only said 'I don't like this guy and what he does, so I'm not going to use his product... but I'm going to take active measure to prevent other people from using his product too.

So I take it you also oppose, say, the sit-ins organized by the Civil Rights movement in the 60s?  Taking measures to make people who use a service aware of the problems associated with it is a really basic form of protest.

He wasn't using his position as a platform to promote his political views, so his political views are irrelevant. Tolerance is a two way street, you know. If you demand of conervatives to tolerate your views and at the same time refuse to tolerate theirs you are a hypocrit. Or do you think it's right and proper to try and make every registered Republican lose his job?

I've said it a lot in this thread, but I still haven't had a decent answer, so I'll say it again: there is no moral equivalence between having a particular sexuality and actively discriminating against people, and if you think there is it is up to you to demonstrate it.  "Complete and total tolerance for everyone, regardless of their beliefs or actions" is a strawman that the vast majority of gay rights (or indeed any form of civil rights) activists do not support.

I do not ask conservatives to tolerate everyone regardless of their beliefs, rather I oppose anyone who seeks to take rights away from or otherwise discriminate against people just because of their identity.

[kaijyuu]

No tolerance for intolerance.

It's not "respecting beliefs." It's stopping people from hurting others.

[DJ]

Hostility will accomplish nothing, it just verifies the paranoid stance that those darn liberals are out to end their way of life. If people have wrong beliefs you're supposed to try and persuade them rather than clobber them into changing them, as long as they're acting within boundaries of legal political activity. And no, you won't persuade everyone, but you don't need to either. All you need is a majority, and the trend for the past half a century or so has been towards liberal values, so there's really no need for such forceful measures like boycotting a company that has nothing to do with an issue just because it's CEO is on the wrong side of the issue.

[Leafsnail]

There has indeed been a trend towards liberal values over the past half century.  Why do you think that is?  Why, for instance, do you think explicit racism has become socially unacceptable during that period?

[DJ]

Positive action rather than negative. MLK advanced the cause, Black Panthers regressed it.

[Leafsnail]

I think that is an incredibly over-simplified viewpoint.  MLK led all kinds of "negative" campaigns - campaigns that identified a particular injustice and then worked to stamp them out.  Sit-ins at businesses that wouldn't let black people in.  Boycotts of segregated bus services.  Marches in cities with racist laws.

These campaigns had clear goals that they usually achieved in a relatively non-violent manner.  Isn't that what happened here?  Why is this event more comparable to the violent actions of the Black Panthers (although I feel I should point out the Black Panthers did have a fair amount of success with some of their campaigns)?

[WealthyRadish]

This is closer to burning a cross on someone's lawn. Damn, I said I wouldn't get back in.

*zoidberg shuffle*

[Leafsnail]

This is closer to burning a cross on someone's lawn. Damn, I said I wouldn't get back in.

What?

[Graknorke]

I think that is an incredibly over-simplified viewpoint.  MLK led all kinds of "negative" campaigns - campaigns that identified a particular injustice and then worked to stamp them out.  Sit-ins at businesses that wouldn't let black people in.  Boycotts of segregated bus services.  Marches in cities with racist laws.

These campaigns had clear goals that they usually achieved in a relatively non-violent manner.  Isn't that what happened here?  Why is this event more comparable to the violent actions of the Black Panthers (although I feel I should point out the Black Panthers did have a fair amount of success with some of their campaigns)?

I am not likening those things, but the difference between the things you listed MLK as having done and what is happening here has been gone over countless times.

A business not serving black people is the policy of the business. Segregated buses are policy of the bus company. Racist laws are policy of the government. Disrupting the business or governing body in those cases makes sense because it is the entity that is responsible.
But Mozilla does not have discriminatory policies. It was one employee.

The difference is not at all confusing.

[Leafsnail]

The employee who was in charge of the company yes

[Sheb]

Still, if Firefox suddenly blocked gay porn because the CEO think it's an abomination, I'm all for boycott. But Mozilla didn't do a thing.

[Leafsnail]

Except appoint him to run their company

[Sheb]

Ok, so any company that appoint someone that ever gave to a anti-gay political campaign is worthy of boycott?

Come on, it's OKCupid that decided to make a mess out of it to get free PR.