Brendan Eich Steps Down As Mozilla CEO

New submitter matafagafo (1343219) writes with this news, straight from the Mozilla blog, which comes in the wake of controversy over Brendan Eich's polticial views (in particular, his support for California's Proposition 8, which would have reversed a decision legalizing same-sex marriage within the state). and how they would reflect on the organization : "Brendan Eich has chosen to step down from his role as CEO. He's made this decision for Mozilla and our community. Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard ..."

Comments

Moral of the story...

[axlash]

...Keep your political views well hidden if you plan to head up an organisation that is sensitive as to how it is perceived by a cross-section of society.

Re:Moral of the story...

[businessnerd]

Chick-fil-a's CEO, Dan Cathy, may actually disagree with you. Not long ago, he openly apologized for his comments about gay marriage and his donations to many of the apparent hate groups have declined or all together stopped. He cited many reasons for his change of heart, but the most telling was that "it was bad for business." http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US...

I remember reading at the time (although I can't find the source anymore) that while sales spiked during the initial publicity, they later declined to a point lower than before the controversy started. So they didn't really get any new customers from the whole thing, just lots of people who were already Chick-fil-a customers going out and making a statement. Once the controversy died down, existing customers went back to their old purchasing habits. However, they did lose customers. Those who used to be customers and were offended by the comments, will likely never be customers again.

A company needs to succeed based on the product that they are offering, whether its differentiating qualities are real or perceived. Anything else is simply a distraction. This goes for chicken and web browsers. The views of the CEO shouldn't be a consideration for customers when choosing a web browser.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[galloog1]

He and mozilla made a business decision. It didn't matter what his feelings were on the topic; all that mattered was what it would do to the organization and its mission. While I will defend to the death anyone's right to say what they want regardless of if I agree with them I definitely do not blame Eich for it. I blame OkCupid and others instead.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[JDG1980]

I'm not clear. When did freedom of speech extend to the operations of a private business?

A majority of people in modern-day America work for corporate entities of some kind. If you argue that free speech should only be protected against the government and not against employers, then you are in effect saying that a majority of people shouldn't have any free speech protections at all.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Culture20]

What if he had said, "blacks don't deserve the right to vote"?

I would have said "Mr. X is wrong in his view, but his company makes a mighty fine browser."
Now if Mozilla had started using HP webcams for facial recognition to determine who can and can't use Firefox, then I'd change my tune about whether the company's product should be boycotted.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom of speech does not mean free from consequences. Freedom of speech does not mean unconditional support.
It means that you have the right to say what you want, and that you should not be persecuted for it.

Now, as consumers of a product, it is our right to not use/buy the product to not financially support acts that go against our beliefs and moral stances (just like we choose to buy organic, or buy american, or buy fair trade, etc.)

You are right, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. However, I'd argue that there is a difference between spouting a view in a public forum and supporting a cause through what should be an anonymous donation. Should I be persecuted for voting Democrat? What about voting for or giving money to gay marriage? It cuts both ways remember.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Dixie_Flatline]

Oh Christ. Free Speech is fine. The government interfered with nothing. Just because he's allowed to say shit doesn't mean the world has to like it. He's an asshole if he thinks that a certain class of people deserve fewer rights than other people, and I wouldn't be any less condemning of his statements if he'd donated similar money to campaigns to remove rights from blacks, or asians, or any other minority group.

Re:I think this is bullshit

[Solandri]

And as long as they're not directly being a dick to you, you're supposed to exhibit some degree of tolerance, especially in the workplace.

I would say that if you are Gay and would like to receive the government benefits associated with a marriage then giving $1,000 to stopping you would fall into the category of "Being a dick to you".

I've actually proposed a solution that addresses that. Overhaul the government laws so that all "marriage" benefits are now tied to civil unions, leaving the term "marriage" reserved for purely ceremonial (religious) use. This neatly eliminates the conflict between religious definitions of marriage and government benefits tied to marriage (or lack thereof for gay couples). The benefits would be tied to civil unions instead.

Every pro-gay marriage friend I suggested this to rejected it. The only acceptable solution to them was to strip the concept of marriage entirely from any religious influence, and hand complete control of it over it to those with modern secular viewpoints. I protested that this could create a conflict wherein a church could be sued for refusing to allow a gay couple to use the church for a wedding. They had no problem with this. i.e. Their stance is based on attributing no value to any religious viewpoint - they do not believe in freedom of religion.

Second, it's not like the man is a skin-head.

Skinheads think blacks are inferior and bad for society.
Homophobes think gays are inferior and bad for society.

So yes it is like he's a skin-head.

Conservatives think liberals are inferior and bad for society.
Liberals think conservatives are inferior and bad for society.
Religio-phobes think religious people are inferior and bad for society.
People like you think skin-heads are inferior and bad for society.

So by your reasoning, pretty much everyone is like a skin-head; including yourself.

Skin-heads aren't bad because they think Jews and blacks are inferior and bad for society. They're bad because they think this justifies eliminating Jews and blacks from society - removing their influence from the socio-political fabric which makes up our society. Kinda like how Eich was eliminated. The supporters of Prop 8 at least had the decency to push their viewpoint through legislative channels, giving the electorate a chance to vote on the issue, and allowing the courts to weigh in on the outcome (eventually overturning the vote). What happened to Eich was a lynch mob-like naming and shaming. The whole reason we came up with formal government systems was because at some point we decided gossip and hearsay were a poor means to run society. Unfortunately, one of the downsides of the Internet is that it gives more power to gossip and hearsay.

Tolerance doesn't mean tolerating only those who tolerate you. Tolerance means also tolerating those who don't tolerate you. If you live by the former, then you believe the Black Panthers were right, and Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. were wrong. The former leads to all-out war. The latter leads to coexistence. When Prop 8 passed, I didn't rub it in the faces of my gay friends. I encouraged them to not lose hope and to continue fighting for what they believed in, because that is the way our system is set up to work. Everyone gets their (thorough) say before society as a whole decides what to do, and the losers (usually the minority, though in Prop 8's case it was the majority) agree to live with the outcome without resorting to violence, while the winners do not resort to outbursts of Schadenfreude.