
Mozilla under fire: Inside the 9-day reign of fallen CEO Brendan Eich - McKittrick
http://www.cnet.com/news/mozilla-under-fire-inside-the-9-day-reign-of-fallen-ceo-brendan-eich/
======
natural219
At the end of the day, society-at-large has a choice about what kind of value
judgments it applies to whom in our society. Around the time of Eichgate, one
of the most popular sentiments was that a commitment to a political freedom of
speech did not guarantee freedom from the social fallout of said speech. The
detractors were absolutely right -- you can say what you like, but the social
consequences of your speech are yours to reap.

That said, I wonder if the mass-mob of people calling for Eich's head really
understood the full reprecussions of what their witchhunt meant for how
leaders are selected in the tech world, if you're thinking about the general
question of "which individuals should be qualified as leaders in major tech
companies?" I personally suspect society is much worse off by applying social
justice criteria to unrelated leadership positions that are attempting to
improve a completely separate area of society (technical transmission of data
across a standard-driven medium).

Given our current fetishization of "majority-is-right" morality in the US,
however, I suspect this subtelty is lost on most of the mob.

~~~
rmc
Yes, that sounds like a feature. People who work against gay rights will not
be able to work. This is a good thing IMO.

~~~
gaius
In 30 years you will go from a free thinking liberal to a reactionary dinosaur
_without changing a single opinion_. When you find yourself out of step with
"the kids", remember this.

~~~
1stop
Unless you hold more general opinions about "always being progressive". The
left of 1950 are still just as left in 2014.

~~~
gaius
I doubt it. Marxists are Marxists, but I wonder how many of them were into gay
marriage etc, in the 1950s.

~~~
notblahbl4hblah
So the only way for a position to be correct is for it to have been widely
seen as right and important by a large group for a long time? Obviously the
number of people interested in gay rights was smaller in the fifties than it
is now.

Are you one of those moldbugian jackhats? This kind of simplistic thinking
smacks of their pseudo-intellectualizing...

~~~
gaius
Correct IS "widely seen as right by a large group". People in the 1950s were
not evil or stupid, they were much as people are now: well-meaning and sincere
in their beliefs. Their correct is not our correct, but in context, it's not
"worse" than ours. If you'd been an adult then, you'd have beliefs in tune
with the zeitgeist too.

~~~
notblahbl4hblah
You are assuming that your views wouldn't change over time. Ideas aren't
static. You said that one would end up being reactionary over time when the
new ideas disagree with your own...but that assumes that yours wouldn't
change...

------
leorocky
It's too bad and everyone lost out in the end. I was also angered by the
donation, and disappointed in what had up until then been a personal hero of
mine, but even then I still respected Brendan Eich for his many contributions
to not only web technology but my own life through Mozilla products and
JavaScript.

He could have done many things differently. He could not have taken the CEO
position. He could have had a change of heart about his donation. There was
also a bit of weirdness in his defense during the storm that struck me as tone
deaf. In the end he stuck to his conviction, which might be admirable if his
position wasn't about limiting the rights of others.

I don't mind having leaders who respect people of all walks of life and the
argument that criticizing intolerant individuals in leadership positions is a
form of intolerance is a specious argument. Yet in the end we still lost a
great person doing good things on behalf of everyone. Life is weird that way,
it's not all black and white.

~~~
dodyg
Ousting Brendan Eich as CEO of Mozilla is a big mistake.

People who opposes gay marriage are not evil. This was the law of the land in
the US since for ever until recently. For people to turn on him in supporting
his belief is despicable.

I am glad the tide is turning everywhere that gay marriage is being
implemented widely but punishing people for their political actions is a
dangerous slippery of slopes.

Gay marriage issue is winning by changing people's mind one by one. There are
tons of people that previously oppose to it. Heck even Obama 'evolved' on this
issue. Are we going to revenge on them as well? (

What's next? Shall we fire pro-choice candidate as well? How about purging
people that vote (Democratic/Republican) party?

We must stop ousting people on a single issue.

~~~
te_chris
He never 'evolved' though. It says right there in the article, he never
articulated a change of heart/mind, just that he was sorry he offended anyone
- the ultimate non-apology, apology.

~~~
dodyg
He does not have to. It is his personal belief. We must not force him to
renounce his believe in exchange for his job.

~~~
ralfn
It wasn't about his personal belief. He actively donated. He picked a side in
what is still an ongoing globalized war for human rights.

Secondly, freedom of speech does not entail freedom of societal consequences
of speech. It just means the government can't punish you for being an asshole.
It doesn't mean anyone is forced to hang out with assholes. Nor are we forced
to use products of which appearantly funds end up trying to oppress other
human beings. The answer to moral criticism of corporatism is always 'vote
with your wallet'. Now you are saying we are not allowed to do just that? That
we must treat every company equally irregardless of their political actions?
(actions yes, not opinions)

Also, the exact position of gay marriage in the US is completely irrelevant --
that notion alone testifies a misplaced arrogance. Mozilla operates in a very
large globalized world. A world where in many countries gays are still
oppressed -- and i don't mean in the you-cant-get-married-way but in the we-
are-going-to-kill-you way.

This is a large globalized war for human rights, and he picked sides. That has
consequences. Here's a question: what if he contributed to Al Queda? He didn't
fly those planes -- it's just freedom of speech, right? He should be able to
be CEO of Mozilla, right? What an assholes we are if we would stop using
Firefox because of that, right? I realize it's a straw-man argument. His
actions are not on the same level. But it proves that the notion that
political actions should be free of consequence is plain wrong. The whole
point of political actions is that you want something to change. People who
believe that change is for the worse, are free to fight you with any legal
means including voting with their wallet or refusing to work for somebody who
they perceive to be their moral enemy.

Yes, that makes a person less qualified for certain types of jobs. It made
sense for Mozilla to fire him for financial reasons -- but i kind of hope,
moral reasons played a part as well. And he did choose to stick with his guns,
so he lost a standoff he chose to be in.

~~~
Zancarius
> This is a large globalized war for human rights, and he picked sides. That
> has consequences. Here's a question: what if he contributed to Al Queda? He
> didn't fly those planes -- it's just freedom of speech, right?

I think this is why it's difficult to have a _sensible_ discussion on the
matter, because the overwhelming stench of hyperbole frightens off everyone
else but the flies.

