Gay Developers Boycott As Mozilla Appoints Allegedly Anti-Gay CEO(instinctmagazine.com)
instinctmagazine.com
Gay Developers Boycott As Mozilla Appoints Allegedly Anti-Gay CEO
http://instinctmagazine.com/post/gay-developers-boycott-mozilla-appoints-allegedly-anti-gay-ceo
9 comments
Personally, I'm so sick of everyone being so damn sensitive about everything nowadays. Guess what? Business is business and 99.99% of the time CEO's are appointed on their business acumen and not their personal beliefs. If Eich is a professional he'll keep the two separate.
I don't like to tell other people what to do, but I wouldn't want to see any revenue generated (even indirectly) by me find its way into this guy's pocket. Not that there's a truly positive or better option....
Warning, this site seems to have some articles that are probably NSFW at many places.
While they're entitled to do that, wouldn't it have made sense to boycott long ago when Eich helped found Mozilla?
Sounds like it only came out the Brendan Eich was homophobic when he recently supported overturning Prop 8.
Doesn't that predate his donation?
While it does, the donation was made 6 years ago. He has been CEO for less than a week. At the time he was CTO.
IMO, Mozilla's work for the public good is more important than this.
Times are changing quickly, but remember that Obama was on the same side as Eich, and prop 8 passed with a majority of voters. I don't think it is very helpful to be shaming everyone who did not support gay marriage in a vote 6 years ago.
Times are changing quickly, but remember that Obama was on the same side as Eich, and prop 8 passed with a majority of voters. I don't think it is very helpful to be shaming everyone who did not support gay marriage in a vote 6 years ago.
> Times are changing quickly, but remember that Obama was on the same side as Eich
Really? Can you cite any statement or action of Obama advocating for or directed toward advancing the cause of removing the right of same sex couples to marry any place that it had been established?
Really? Can you cite any statement or action of Obama advocating for or directed toward advancing the cause of removing the right of same sex couples to marry any place that it had been established?
In 2008, when Prop 8 was on the ballot, Obama was for civil unions but professed to believe that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. "I'm not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K9dS9wl7U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K9dS9wl7U
Not promoting same sex marriage is not the same thing as promoting withdrawing it where it has been established. So, that's not an example of what was asked.
Isn't this just intolerant of his own views and morals? He's free to have those, last I checked.
No. People are free to associate with whomever they wish. Just as Mozilla is free to appoint an anti-gay CEO, those of us who disagree with that direction are free to go elsewhere when we choose to contribute to an open-source project.
Of course he is. That doesn't make a boycott wrong, or the those who boycott "intolerant." Further the causes you wish to further, but be aware that as a consumer I may choose to withhold direct or indirect support based on your decisions. That's fair for everyone.
Times have changed.
It use to be you were only allowed to have (and voice) popular views and beliefs.
Today you are not allowed to have (and voice) unpopular views and beliefs.
It use to be you were only allowed to have (and voice) popular views and beliefs.
Today you are not allowed to have (and voice) unpopular views and beliefs.
If his views and morals clash with basic human rights, then he deserves whatever "intolerant" reactions he receives.
The biggest impact this could possibly have is in producing legislation that lets large donations conceal their source because of fear of hateful retaliation. Ironic I know.
If we don't want to have those laws we need to be a little less witch-hunty about what we discover in the records.
If we don't want to have those laws we need to be a little less witch-hunty about what we discover in the records.
I personally don't think there's anything "witch-hunty" about this boycott. This information about Eich's donation has been available for some 6 years, and only became a recent issue when he was promoted to the head of an organization based on community values and community contributions.
I can guarantee you that the same thing would happen if someone who donated to Prop. 8 were appointed to the head of Wikimedia Foundation, or any similar organization that depends on a community's goodwill to flourish.
And to those commenting with complaints about what Eich is/isn't "allowed" to do: of course he's allowed to do whatever he wants (within the law). But if he takes a stand that is unpopular with some people, and is appointed to the head of an important organization, it's likewise their right to cease doing business with said organization.
I have mixed feelings. Some of the open source projects I'm most interested in at the moment are under the aegis of Mozilla, but I'm also not happy at all with the message this sends out to those of us who were deeply offended by Prop. 8.
I can guarantee you that the same thing would happen if someone who donated to Prop. 8 were appointed to the head of Wikimedia Foundation, or any similar organization that depends on a community's goodwill to flourish.
And to those commenting with complaints about what Eich is/isn't "allowed" to do: of course he's allowed to do whatever he wants (within the law). But if he takes a stand that is unpopular with some people, and is appointed to the head of an important organization, it's likewise their right to cease doing business with said organization.
I have mixed feelings. Some of the open source projects I'm most interested in at the moment are under the aegis of Mozilla, but I'm also not happy at all with the message this sends out to those of us who were deeply offended by Prop. 8.
He probably didn't want his donation to be public information and now he, and all of us, know exactly why large donators sometimes do everything they can to conceal themselves. Events like this, whether 6 years late or not, give good reason to not have to reveal yourself when donating. I mean it's quite literally still haunting him. Whether he still feels the same way or not.
Also it's one thing to cease doing business with an organization yourself. It's another thing entirely to try to incite other people to do the same using your notoriety as a tool for coercion.
Times change, people change, records do not. It's hard to explain what you were thinking and what was happening 6 years ago. It's easy to point a finger now and say, "look at what that asshole did."
Also it's one thing to cease doing business with an organization yourself. It's another thing entirely to try to incite other people to do the same using your notoriety as a tool for coercion.
Times change, people change, records do not. It's hard to explain what you were thinking and what was happening 6 years ago. It's easy to point a finger now and say, "look at what that asshole did."
Who is using their "notoriety as a tool for coercion"?
And if Eich no longer feels the same way, I suspect he could put an end to this by simply writing a blog post stating this. But I suspect that's not the case.
I've done things in the past that I'm not proud of, but I'm quick to disavow them when they come up. Are you implying that we shouldn't be held responsible for our past actions?
And if Eich no longer feels the same way, I suspect he could put an end to this by simply writing a blog post stating this. But I suspect that's not the case.
I've done things in the past that I'm not proud of, but I'm quick to disavow them when they come up. Are you implying that we shouldn't be held responsible for our past actions?
Here is a link to something he just posted to his blog: https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/
Are you implying that because someone does or does not write a blog post that somehow we know their true feelings?
Of course not, but at some point we have to take most people at their word, otherwise life becomes difficult.
You didn't answer my question. I'm genuinely interested in who you're talking about who's using their notoriety to "coerce" people.
You didn't answer my question. I'm genuinely interested in who you're talking about who's using their notoriety to "coerce" people.
We do not have to take people at their word about their opinions. That's childish. You will never know what anyone truly feels because you are not them. You can let them fill you with whatever they want or you can just continue your life observing their actions and planning yours accordingly. You can take his lack of blog posting denouncing his previous donation as a clear indicator that he's a homophobe, or you can understand that life is more complicated than that.
As per your previous question, the article is thus: http://www.teamrarebit.com/blog/2014/03/24/goodbye_firefox_m...
Now I'm not saying that people shouldn't act on their strong convictions, I'm merely saying that those in charge of team rarebit have decided to publicly incite ill will towards a person who made a donation on public record 6 years ago. I have no interest in deciding who is right or wrong. I'm simply pointing out that they are giving very good reason for people to want to keep their donations completely private.
As per your previous question, the article is thus: http://www.teamrarebit.com/blog/2014/03/24/goodbye_firefox_m...
Now I'm not saying that people shouldn't act on their strong convictions, I'm merely saying that those in charge of team rarebit have decided to publicly incite ill will towards a person who made a donation on public record 6 years ago. I have no interest in deciding who is right or wrong. I'm simply pointing out that they are giving very good reason for people to want to keep their donations completely private.
Do we though? I think we need to fight to keep speech in the open. There's no constitutional right to free speech that can't be traced back to you.
If we're going to equate money and speech then we have to equate the fact that speech is audible. Money masquerading as speech needs to be as well.
If you're not willing to stand up for what you believe then you have no business saying it.
If we're going to equate money and speech then we have to equate the fact that speech is audible. Money masquerading as speech needs to be as well.
If you're not willing to stand up for what you believe then you have no business saying it.
You don't think anonymous speech should be protected?
Voting?
Reporting crimes in your neighborhood?
Protesting an employer decision?
In the US voting is not guaranteed to be anonymous. It's protected and (mostly) un-traced to prevent coercion. But the fact you voted is recorded. If you live in a district with few enough voters (or voters who all vote the same way) your voting record could be used to tell who you voted for.
I don't think the other ones you mentioned are particularly compelling, no. There are ways to protect the names of people who report crimes without guaranteeing absolute anonymity.
I don't think the other ones you mentioned are particularly compelling, no. There are ways to protect the names of people who report crimes without guaranteeing absolute anonymity.
But no, let's rag on Mozilla because Brendan Eich has views we don't agree with.
Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman both have views I don't like but I use Linux and GNU software... In fact, if I were to boycott everyone I didn't agree with I'd have to live in a hole in the ground.