
The Next Mission - bpierre
https://brendaneich.com/2014/04/the-next-mission/
======
natural219
When I first heard the news, I was very angry and confused. After reading the
Recode[1] writeup, it made a little more sense. The key point was the
interviews where he refused to back down from his opinions or apologize. Some
could find that respectable (and ultimately I do), but if you take on the
position of CEO you need to be prepared to eat your words. It would have been
very easy for him to just apologize and have everyone go back to their
business. It's sad that people are so shallow, but that's just the way it is.
I'm not upset that he was fired.

That said.

I have nothing but fury for the people instigating these kinds of senseless
whichhunts. The key point here is that Eich has been CTO of Mozilla for years.
CTO to CEO, while a big transition, is much smaller distance in executive
representation than this controversy calls for. What I suspect is somebody in
the Gawkerati saw a news piece on "somebody something new CEO of Mozilla",
Googled his name, and dug up one political contribution from 5 years ago to
create a controversy out of thin air. This kind of behavior sickens me -- not
just the media publications that stir this pot, but the individual people
boiling at the seams to crucify everyone with a different opinion. In 2014,
people that contribute nothing to society other than digging up controversies
have the power to bring down historic figures from pushing the envelope of
innovation and opening the Web to allow to allow this very kind of expression.

At the end of the day, that is the ultimate irony. The technology that Branden
worked his life on gave voice to those who destroyed him. The entire point of
the web is to allow this kind of radical expression, and the moment we get it
we use it to tear down and villanize the people who make it run.

Absolutely disgraceful.

If you're glad Eich resigned, I really only have one question for you: What do
you hope to gain out of this? Do you think this will push the envelope toward
greater acceptance of homosexuality? Is the idea that if we villify ideas
enough and those that express them, they will eventually go away? Or does it
just, I don't know, feel good?

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

~~~
muyuu
All my life I've considered these goons talking about "evil homosexual lobby"
and "reactionary liberals" to be basically wacko mad bigots. For the first
time I find myself thinking there might be something to that.

When you find that your movement excuses means like lynching ("consequences"
to your opinions and your freedom of speech) and persecution as long as they
help your goals, then maybe your movement has lost the plot. I'm seeing truly
scary comments that would have made McCarthyists cringe. In an environment
where I'd never have expected them.

~~~
chasing
Wait, what? This is the fault of the "evil homosexual lobby" and "reactionary
liberals?"

The guy's a bigot. (Unless he's made a statement disavowing his contribution
in some way.) Being against equal rights for gay folks is being a bigot.
Sorry.

If you don't want to catch shit for being a bigot when you're placed in a
position of public power and trust, don't act like a bigot. Or give money to
bigoted causes.

~~~
muyuu
Make no mistake. What happened here is the strongest point one could have
against full disclosure and transparency in the electoral system.

What we are seeing here is a person being harshly punished for his campaign
donations. Basically for his political opinion (and an opinion that passed
with a strong majority in California to boot).

This is enormously destructive for democracy. It's McCarthyism of the highest
level. Both the fact and its staunch defence by many in the forums.

Never had the gay community been casted so intolerant before, or not that I
know of, at least.

~~~
vectorpush
_Never had the gay community been casted so intolerant before, or not that I
know of, at least._

Why would the gay community ever be tolerant of someone who supports anti-gay
legislature? I mean, come on, it seems pretty rational for LGBT supporters to
be intolerant of individuals who want to prevent them from having the same
legal rights as heterosexuals. It's not as if there is some reasonable excuse
to oppose gay marriage, this whole thing exploded because the position is
unambiguously indefensible. That doesn't mean it's the worst thing in the
world, you just come off as a petty asshole when you try to prevent people
from living their lives in a way that has absolutely no affect on your own
life whatsoever.

~~~
muyuu
That's your opinion, and that's fine. The problem starts when people start
rallying active boycott on a person because his opinion is different. It's
particularly delicate when it's a prop campaing donation (a prop that passed
in California, by the way, so maybe it's not just a bunch of wackos).

~~~
vectorpush
_The problem starts when people start rallying active boycott on a person
because his opinion is different._

Why is that a problem? People have the right to boycott whatever they want,
it's really one of the only peaceful and effective forms of dissent available
to ordinary citizens. That "difference of opinion" manifested itself as a
financial contribution to an anti-gay cause, what kind of reaction would you
expect from those who were exclusively targeted by said law?

 _a prop that passed in California, by the way, so maybe it 's not just a
bunch of wackos_

And then it was overturned by the supreme court as unconstitutional, so maybe
it is "just a bunch of wackos". Either way, I don't think the fact that a law
passes lends any credibility to the substance of the law. To quote the court:

 _DOMA’s unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and
accepting state definitions of marriage here operates to deprive same-sex
couples of the benefits and responsibilities that come with the federal
recognition of their marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having the
purpose and effect of disapproval of that class. The avowed purpose and
practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a
separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages
made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States._

In other words, the only practical effect of the law is to disparage and
stigmatize homosexuals.

------
rinon
This is very sad and unfortunate. Brendan was basically forced out of his own
job because of a political view he supported. No matter whether you agree or
disagree with someone's views, a discussion should be reasonable and fair, not
a lynching in the court of popular opinion. We should respect others views,
and their freedom to support any political position, if we wish those same
freedoms for ourselves.

~~~
rhizome
Consider what would happen to a CEO who held the political view that profits
should be minimized.

~~~
rinon
Does this view conflict with the job description? If this is so, then this
makes the person ill-suited for the job, just like innumerable other workers
who don't have the best qualifications for their jobs. Does this mean the view
is wrong? Not necessarily, but that is an entirely different question. Does
this mean that we should publicly deride this person for their view and
boycott the company who hired them? No. This is the job of the board of
directors, who answer to the shareholders of the company, and their
responsibility. Certainly anyone outside can offer advice, but only as an
outsider, who has no right or reason to blackmail and threaten the company.

~~~
vertex-four
I'm sorry, are you suggesting that we do not in fact have the right to choose
which companies to support based on our opinions of them and their employees,
and to tell others of our choices? That seems a rather more slippery slope
than anything else here.

------
pvnick
This is so upsetting, it's infuriating. Here we had a wonderful chance for
someone brilliant like Eich to lead one of the most important organizations in
defending us against looming omnipresent state surveillance, and a bunch of
social justice warriors went and ruined it. Pat yourselves on the back guys,
you won!

~~~
untog
Would you support a company whose CEO was a dazzling, intelligent, brilliant
racist? Or anti-semite?

I don't understand how being brilliant means that everyone should ignore that
you're also a bigot. Presumably if he had no talent then he'd be fair game?

~~~
visualR
Is he a bigot? "A bigot is someone who, as a result of their prejudices,
treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred." I don't think he
does that. He just wrongly thinks the state shouldnt recognize same sex
marriage.

~~~
rafe33
No. He doesn't just think it. He donated a substantial amount of money to
force his views on others.

~~~
visualR
It was a ballot initiative in 2008. We have a constitution to prevent the will
of the majority violating the rights of a minority. Its too bad it was up to
voters. But he still has a right to take a side without fear of economic
retribution.

~~~
SolarNet
Economic retribution _from the government_ the first amendment does not
protect your rights with respect to things like keeping a job. If you call
your boss an asshole to his face on a regular basis, you are going to be
fired.

Which is why we have laws (separate from the amendments) which ensure people
can't be fired for their race/gender/etc. These laws have nothing to do with
the first amendment because they don't involve the government.

~~~
visualR
Liberals would not like it if the Catholic Church used its members to lobby
for a person to be fired for their stance on abortion. Don't use Firefox,
fine. But actively lobbying to take away someone's livelihood is not a
proportional response in this case.

~~~
SolarNet
I'm ignoring your partisan labelling/strawman/etc.

On the second point, that's why employers aren’t allowed to ask those
questions (nor use them in their evaluation of employees). Those are the
protection laws I mentioned above. Which don't protect executive members, as
they run the company. Hence employees shouldn't, and can't, be fired for their
political opinions (unless that's somehow part of their job).

Proportional response? Sure. Here is a guy who paid money to make it so people
can't see their significant others when they are dying, so that they don't
have the recognition of the government as being married, to institutionalize
oppression, and the untold misery which comes with it. He didn't apologize, he
still holds the same views now. Yes, people should lobby a company, any
company, to remove someone who would inflict such misery on his fellows. Yes,
people should lobby a company like mozilla which says its an avid supporter of
freedom to remove someone who would not support equal freedoms for every
single person. These companies are corporate citizens, and their opinions are
shaped by their executive board, and we can tell them we won't do business
with them because of their opinions.

Edit: If you read the above, the response to the question should be obvious.
Is it a board member? Then sure, good luck with that though, considering they
would loose business if they followed the complaints, but not loose any if
they ignored them (yea hospitals don't really care about customer retention).
If it's an employee, and that employee didn't do anything wrong (like say,
perform an abortion when not asked to; or badger someone with their political
view) then no.

------
ndarilek
Another perspective that I'm surprised hasn't been voiced:

Brendan had the _privilege_ to climb to the rank of CEO, if only for a few
days. But it is because of views like his that many don't get a chance _at
all_ to climb to _anywhere near_ those heights. I know many qualified,
talented, awesome people who, if they _were_ straight and able to marry the
loves of their lives, could become American citizens and pursue meaningful
opportunities here (arguments about whether moving here is such a good idea
these days not withstanding.) And marriage is just _one of many_ ways in which
we as a society diminish, limit or actively dehumanize those not a member of
the majority.

I tolerate your views right up to the point where they make someone's dying
moments hell because their husband or wife can't visit, or bar someone from
working for someone else because of their gender or skin color. At that point,
yeah, I'll gladly be a biggot against biggots.

Perhaps the reason we don't see more minorities in positions of power is that
so many of us exercise our influence, be it via rhetoric or $1000 donations,
to keep them out of those positions. I can't bring myself to feel bad when
someone who does that is brought down.

------
pbateman
Well, it's not going to be a popular opinion but I think it's a shame he's
been forced out. Simply having the wrong views shouldn't make him ineligible
for a job.

~~~
zem
depends on the job. being cto is one thing; being the ceo is a far more
people-oriented role with a far more significant impact on how people who work
for mozilla are potentially treated.

and this is not about his views; he actually donated money to help ensure that
people would not get equal rights; _even though those rights did not affect
him in any way_.

~~~
PedroBatista
So today I learned the CEO is much more people-oriented role because everybody
knows "technical" people aren't really people.

He voted for prop 8 which means he doesn't want people to have the same rights
(which before that everybody had (of course!!!)), so it goes like this: Heaven
on Earth --> prop 8 --> gay holocaust --> Brendan must go.

It makes perfect sense sir.

~~~
zem
are you trying to spin prop 8 as a "difference of views"? let me break it down
for you:

side a: \- straight people have rights \- gay people have the same rights \-
the law does not discriminate in any way

side b: \- straight people have exactly the same rights as in side a \- gay
people have fewer rights \- the law discriminates between people depending on
who they love

there is literally not a single negative consequence for straight people if
gay marriage is legalised, and yet eich spent $1000 in the hope that gay
people would continue to be legally seen as lesser. of all the hundreds of
causes out there, one motivated by pure spite was what he picked to actively
work for.

now as for the "technical people aren't people" strawman, perhaps you aren't
familiar with mozilla? it is a tech company - a significant fraction of their
employees are technical people. and the company culture (which is shorthand
for how the company treats and interacts with its employees) is definitely
something the ceo can affect. the company technology stack is more in the
cto's purview, and no one ever doubted that eich was competent at that.

------
Futurebot
People who think this is unjust, think about this. If Eich had instead donated
to a Neo-Nazi party, a group that supports re-legalizing slavery, or an
organization taking away women's right to vote, would your opinion be any
different? For those who say 'no, my opinion would be the same. Free speech is
free speech and political affiliation is political affiliation' would you be
comfortable _working_ at Mozilla? I think this is the much more important
practical concern. Eich's ability to continue as CEO was _compromised_ - could
he hire and retain talent? Would Mozilla have seen a mass quit? Could they
continue to get volunteers to work on the code?

The social justice warrior lynch mob can be an ugly, fickle beast, and its
actions can be a double-edged sword, there's no question about it. In this
case, they may have saved Mozilla (and Eich) from themselves.

edit: being the public face of a company is different in kind than being
another kind of worker. Its "distance" from CTO may not be large, but the
"king is the king" as it were.

edit 2: a couple of bigger questions here that will/should be asked. Should
CEOs remain apolitical, or at least take great pains to hide their
affiliations - particularly in industries with many much more liberal-minded
workers? Will they after this?

Interesting stat: latest Pew has 61% of _Republicans_ under 30 supporting gay
marriage. Take that as you may, but I'd go with 'excellent bellwether for
society at large'.

------
jhonovich
Is there any record or incidences in his 15 years working at Mozilla of him
discriminating or maltreating anyone?

I ask this because, in the Recode article, Mozilla's executive chairwomen,
says "That [the contribution] 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"

Unless there is some evidence, 15 years track record in a company should
seemingly count for more than a single political contribution. Yes/no?

~~~
Zelphyr
I think this helps clarify the distinction between him being CEO and a blatant
racist being CEO (a comparison that seems to be common in this thread).

Should a person be allowed in a position of power if they are able to separate
their personal beliefs and lead the organization properly, without improper
bias against anyone? I suspect this has happened many times before.

I don't see how the LGBT community has benefited much from this. It seems to
me that giving him credit for clearly not letting his personal beliefs affect
his work relationships and taking a wait-and-see stance would've resulted in a
more productive outcome. Would this not have been an opportunity to educate
someone who is otherwise seemingly capable of reasoned and rational thought?

------
AdamTReineke
Note that it says he's leaving Mozilla. That was the part missing from the
Mozilla blog post, I believe.

~~~
ra88it
There was plenty missing from that Mozilla post, but yeah, that was a big one!

------
lawl
I personally think it's sad that he's leaving

But I do have to say I think Brandon handled that really well and its
definitely the right thing to do.

He had to step down eventually from mozilla to avoid further damage to the
brand.

I think it's good he realized that and takes on new challenges.

~~~
protomyth
"He had to step down eventually from mozilla to avoid further damage to the
brand."

In the other thread[1], I pointed out the damage will now continue via a
second mob that seems to be sifting through all the other Mozilla employee's
donations.

It happens a lot with this stuff in politics, and it sucks to high heaven
having a group looking at everything you've ever donated.

1)
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7527579](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7527579)

~~~
awnird
If you're not comfortable having people know you donated to hate groups, you
might want to consider not donating to hate groups.

~~~
protomyth
Do you consider Mr. Eich's donation to a "hate group"?

------
KwanEsq
It's sad that Mozilla is losing someone of Eich's technical ability, but
having him as CEO simply wasn't tenable.

His appointment was a misjudgement.

------
yaur
I have misgivings here mainly because I have previously given enough to
political campaigns that any prospective employer that cares can find out what
my politics are. The idea that my personal political opinions are fair game in
a hiring decision is scary.

Granted, its a _little_ different when we are talking about the CEO of a
foundation with a specific ideology, but if this becomes wide spread the
chilling effects are something to be concerned about.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Granted, its a little different when we are talking about the CEO of a
> foundation with a specific ideology

Eich was CEO of Mozilla Corporation, not the Mozilla Foundation.

------
mauricioc
I think he just deleted/deactivated his Twitter account, @BrendanEich.

~~~
agumonkey
I hope it's his decision and not some misguided hack. Probably too many angry
comments to be useful anymore anyway.

------
adwf
I've posted this elsewhere, but in one of the many dupes that got buried, so
I'll repost it here:

I really think it was inevitable once people started complaining about his
political background. The whole appointment had become about the gay rights
issue rather than about where he would lead Mozilla in the future.

No one really thought he was suddenly going to turn Mozilla into an anti-gay
rights organisation, but standing down is still the decent thing to do. It
lets Mozilla focus back on their mission and carry on without controversy.

In a way it's a little sad though. I was kinda hoping that he'd say he'd had a
change of heart since prop8 and renounce his views. Maybe that's just the
optimist in me though...

------
ChuckMcM
I don't suppose anyone knows if he has a severance package? Doesn't seem like
he is being forced out for 'cause' and the celebrity of his departure at
Mozilla could easily damage his ability to be employed as a CEO elsewhere.

------
jim1313
He was on the side of the majority of _California_ , this wasn't a vote in
Texas or India. Even the mainstream Democrats were against Gay marriage a
couple years earlier.

Many anti-abortion proponents consider abortion a form of murder, which is a
more serious issue. But I don't see campaigns against CEOs who support
abortion.

Comparing his view with racism is ridiculous. He's not for discriminating
against homosexuals, just for keeping marriage as it's been. Can the growing
polygamist movement immediately discredit everyone opposed to them as bigots
also?

~~~
bashinator
If we were trying to keep marriage "as it's been", then I would have gotten a
dowry, had a couple concubines on the side, and my wives would have been
considered my personal property.

------
vectorpush
Eich had the freedom to donate his hard earned money to an anti-gay cause.
LGBT supporters had the freedom to make blog posts and tweets about their
opinions on the matter. Eich had the freedom to stand by his position. Mozilla
had the freedom to designate its CEO.

Why the outrage? The system worked. The only group that had it's freedom
threatened was the group of individuals targeted by the prop 8 law. Denizens
of the internet could have spared Eich their ire if they were so inclined.
Eich could have apologized if he were so inclined. Mozilla could have stuck by
Eich if they were so inclined. Everybody acted in their own interest and
Eich's resignation is a consequence of that fact.

------
bp123
It's a shame he couldn't reconsider his oppressive stance on gay rights, which
would have allowed him to accomplish the goals with Mozilla. Oh well.

------
myers
Here's my question: What was the board thinking to put him in place? It's not
as if Eich won a contest just by inventing one of the most widely distributed
programming languages, there were folks who decided he was the best to lead
Mozilla forward. How did they go so wrong?

------
pbreit
Would any of the admins (or anyone) care to elaborate on why all the Eich-
related posts are being deleted?

~~~
yaur
Most likely because they are not remaining civil very long. Time for pending
comments?

------
lupatus
The solution to his network problem is probably something bizarre, like URbit
([http://www.urbit.org/](http://www.urbit.org/)).

~~~
malnourish
Was your account hijacked? I feel like this comment is unlike the rest of your
comments.

~~~
lupatus
Nope, but thanks for the concern. I just have diverse interests, and think
that the URbit project is quite strange and, as a result, sort of wonderful,
IMO. For example, the algebra grammar for the Nock VM is fascinating for me.
Moreover, I'm thinking of even using the C# port of Nock as a basis for
bringing the rest of the project over to the Windows platform. My children
take up a lot of time though.

------
pastProlog
I'm not that surprised that the mind warped enough to create something like
Javascript is also warped enough to have some weird backwoods Christian
fundamentalist fear of homosexuals.

Good riddance.

------
evertonfuller
Keyboard social justice warriors won then. Sad day. Best of luck to Mozilla.
And to America.

~~~
evertonfuller
Loving all the downvotes.

