Slashdot Mirror
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 ..."
I am a lesbian and I still think hounding Eich for standing for Prop. 8 and threatening to boycott a cornerstone of the internet and internet development if he was CEO of the Mozilla foundation is complete and utter intolerant bullshit. I am very disappointed with people doing such things and disappointed he caved to such.
When do we start boycotting rms for smelling bad?
...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.
Deal with reality - the world as it is - rather than ideality - the world as you would like it to be.
I'm not sure how we are supposed to take this. I guess the Thought Police have won another round. I've never met the guy and don't know much about him but it seems like he was harpooned for personal beliefs (that clearly match up with many other people based on the vote). Are we really this much against differing viewpoints? Against religious freedom?
Wow America. Step back and get a grip.
Clearly someone doesn't quite get it.
I feel bad for him, it is only because of his public position that this is an issue. If you dig deep enough, none of us should keep our jobs.
People should be free to engage in politics according to their conviction, without punishment or reward. The ballot is secret for a reason.
Political donations are publicised as a check against a few billionaires distorting the playing field. To see how much money influenced the election. It was not meant to be a tool for personal retribution.
Freedom of political activism doesn't cease to apply when it is about rights. Imagine if this happened in other controversies about rights:
Employer 1: "Oh, you are pro-choice? You want to deny unborn children the right to life. Fired!"
Employer 2: "Oh, you are pro-life? You want to deny women the right to self-determination. Fired!"
Employer 3: "Oh, you support the death penalty? You want to deny felons the right to life. Fired!"
This is wrong. People must never be demoted because of political activism they do privatly, not using the company brand, and not related to the company mission.
Okay, I'm trying to summarize all of the events and make some sense out of it. In 2008, Eich gives $1,000 for support of Prop 8. I voted against Prop 8, as did 48% of the other Californians who voted that day (remember the measure passed). To my knowledge, he has said nothing otherwise and apparently did not interfere with apparently LGBT friendly policies of the Mozilla Corporation. In 2012, his donation was leaked somehow, and it causes headlines to flare. Two years ago. Late March 2014, the Mozilla board selects him as the CEO (he obviously is qualified for the job based on experience), full well knowing about his donation and the internal opposition. In April 2014, virtual blip on the online dating scene, OkCupid, capitalizes first and makes a glorious stand against the Mozilla browser because of a 6 year old donation. The media puts them on every front page, highlighting their commitment to LGBT rights and providing hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of free advertising.
So what do I get out of this? The board saw a win-win, if he can weather the storm of the Prop 8 fiasco then they get one of the most technically competent CEOs available, otherwise, they push him out and get a lot of visibility for doing so (and maybe more converts).
OkCupid was smart to capitalize, and Eich, whom I disagree with, gets the hammer.
I think Howard Stern was right, if you're planning on leading a public company, keep your mouth shut and be everybody's best friend.
"Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
I've got absolutely no time for poofter bashers.
But the torches-and-pitchforks brigade really overdid it this time.
Well, Eich did invent Javascript, and despite what that says about his judgement (or lack thereof), I think it's totally unfair to crucify somebody for their personal opinions. Just saying.
Do we want to live in a society where people are persecuted for their beliefs?
When those beliefs are abhorrent, sure. To go ahead and make an extreme example, do you want to live in a society where nobody bats an eye if somebody in a position of power says they believe Jewish people should be burned in ovens?
While this guy's particular belief isn't quite that bad, also consider that he donated a considerable amount of money to a group dedicated to passing laws discriminating against a class of people. On top of that, it's hardly "persecuting" somebody to simply not use a product that he represents. He made the decision to step down. Try again when people are physically harassing him or refusing to serve him in restaurants.
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
So he supported Proposition 8 six years ago. How much insight does that really give us into the scope of his character? How many CEOs have done much, much more despicable things in their personal and professional lives and faced little to no public criticism for it? You could write a novel on all of the rotten things that Steve Jobs did, but instead he gets praised by the media as the computing messiah, because none of his antics were hot-button political issues. The gay rights community is turning into the very thing they despise. Flame me all you want. This was NOT justice.
I've been firmly pro marriage equality and firmly against Prop 8 and its supporters forever. That said, I think this whole thing is really a shame. Supporting this law was deplorable, I think it's very much like supporting miscegenation laws last century. It's backwards and just shouldn't be a thing.
In On Liberty, JS Mill said something that's stuck with me since my undergrad Philosophy days:
"Those in whose eyes this reticence on the part of heretics is no evil, should consider in the first place, that in consequence of it there is never any fair and thorough discussion of heretical opinions; and that such of them as could not stand such a discussion, though they may be prevented from spreading, do not disappear."
However, we've won. The tide has turned and mainstream opinion is on our side. Assuming that's undisputed, we can't just browbeat and boycott people who still disagree. We should engage and accept them. Unless he's actually oppressing anyone, Eich deserves our respect and engagement. It's in our best interest if we ever want to leave the kinds of views he's expressed behind us. A "fair and thorough discussion" of the views supporting Prop 8 may seem downright silly to those who don't hold that view, but if we don't have it, we'll keep this nasty view around for a lot longer than if we do.
Further, I think people have been comfortable dismissing Eich and wanting him to leave simply because they don't want to acknowledge that someone who's contributed so much could have views they find so deplorable. Again, without supporting his views at all, I think he and those who oppose him both deserve more respect than they've received.
Would you think it OK if the figurehead of a technological organization had to resign after boycots from those who objected to a $1000 donation, 5 years ago, to some side of the abortion issue, or the death penalty issue?
Your observation jives with one of my own thoughts on the matter.
Many people have something which they incorporate as the center of their identity, be it their race, their ethnicity, their gender, their sexual proclivities, their religion, their choice of operating system, their athletic team, their place of origin, their family, their career, their hobby, and so forth. People who have convinced themselves that their very identity is tied first and foremost to one aspect of life have an incredibly strong, even visceral, reaction to anyone who expresses anything less than complete agreement with them. There is a term for this: zealotry. A zealot is unable to distinguish disagreement with their view from a personal attack or even hatred, as their very identity is melded with that for which they are zealous.
One of the most zealous sets of people we see today (at least in my myopic U.S.-centric personal experience) are homosexuals. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but my observation seems to be that this particular group of people has made homosexuality the defining feature of their life. As such, even minor disagreement with the idea that homosexuality is completely normal results in a strong adverse reaction and accusations of fear and hatred.
Personally I am saddened by this, that people have focused so strongly on one aspect of their identity so intensely that they view themselves first and foremost as that thing, rather than as a person, complete and whole. This is unhealthy, and when widespread (as we see today most strongly in both political zealotry and the zealotry of homosexuality) we end up with a fractious society that struggles to engage in a civil exchange of ideas, and at its worst can lead to quite literal violence and bloodshed.
Cyrano de Maniac
PS. Don't let the door hit you on your pompous asses as you leave.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.