

OkCupid Pulls Firefox Blocker - malrase
http://www.cnet.com/news/okcupid-pulls-firefox-blocker/

======
lukifer
On the one hand, Brendan Eich is entitled to his political views, and they do
not inherently preclude him from being a great CEO.

On the other hand, a non-trivial portion of the population, particularly the
next generation, see opposition to gay marriage as morally repugnant, the way
most people now view anti-miscegenation laws.

I don't think this is going to go away. Mozilla will continue to suffer a
minor but significant attrition of mindshare over this issue as long as he
remains at the helm, regardless of his merits as a leader or as a human being.

~~~
acjohnson55
I've got to disagree. At the end of the day, there aren't a whole lot of
"substitute goods" for Mozilla the same way as there are for, say, Chick-
Fil-A. Unless people within Mozilla oust Eich or fork the organization, the
world may just have to deal with it. I wish Brendan Eich had different points
of view, but I'm certainly not prepared to ditch Firefox over the situation.

But I'm also I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of someone emotionally
closer to the situation than myself. I'm a black guy in an interracial
relationship. It's tough to say how I'd feel if Brendan Eich had donated to an
anti-miscegenation campaign. I'd probably feel pretty shitty about it. But I
don't think I'd stop using Firefox on that basis alone.

~~~
hadoukenio
> But I don't think I'd stop using Firefox on that basis alone.

Maybe it's because you are not LGBT? Given that you're black, would you stop
using Firefox if he had donated to the KKK?

~~~
Xylemon
As someone who identifies as Bisexual and has been invovled with a few gay
relationships, I have no intention of ditching Firefox nor do I plan to stop
supporting Mozilla. While I don't agree with Eich's personal beliefs on the
matter of same sex marriage, it's his PERSONAL belief. It seems he has and
still wants personal matters distant from Mozilla or Firefox or anything else
related to his career. Everyone will disagree with you on something, doesn't
mean you should always shame them for an opinion.

~~~
cluthe
The problem is that he donated money to support a law that discriminates
against people. It's not a private personal opinion that isn't harming anyone,
his personal belief has directly contributed to discrimination. Beliefs are
never truly personal and private, what people believe affects their behavior
and interaction with others.

~~~
paulhauggis
"Beliefs are never truly personal and private, what people believe affects
their behavior and interaction with others."

It's true. If I find out that a CEO is an atheist and voted on laws that went
against the rights of Christians, I would probably want him fired too.

~~~
cluthe
Sure, if a CEO supported and donated money to a law that would stop Christians
from being able to get married like everyone else then i would hope they are
publicly criticized and pressured to defend their beliefs and the actions they
have taken as a result of those beliefs. I wouldn't say they should be fired
but they should be made to feel that actions taken to discriminate against
others can have social consequences in both your personal and professional
life.

~~~
paulhauggis
"I wouldn't say they should be fired but they should be made to feel that
actions taken to discriminate against others can have social consequences in
both your personal and professional life."

Well, it worked. The CEO has resigned today.

I would like to see one instance of the HN (or should I say, the US left)
community going on the side against discrimination but regarding something
against their personal beliefs.

I won't hold my breath.....

Why should I respect your freedom of choice..when you can't respect mine? We
live in a world now where if I say or do something that is against the US
left, I have a chance of getting fired and or having my livelihood or career
ruined.

This is evil.

~~~
cluthe
Discrimination isn't subjective, either something is discrimination or it
isn't. It would require cognitive dissonance to be someone who is opposed to
discrimination while holding a personal belief that supports discrimination.

There is a difference between respecting your freedom of choice and respecting
your actual choice. If your belief is repulsive to your peers and
discriminatory then you need to realize there are going to be consequences for
holding that belief and acting on that belief when it comes time to try to fit
in with society. Your freedom of choice does not give you freedom from all
consequences of that choice. On the other hand LGBT people are NOT free to
choose to marry the person they wish if laws like the one Mr Eich supported
exist.

If you stand against discrimination and apply social pressure to the people
who choose to continue to support discrimination then you are, in fact, on the
side AGAINST discrimination.

------
jawns
One thing I was struck by, when I read yesterday's Gizmodo report[1], was how
haphazardly the decision was made to add the Firefox blocker message to the
site.

OKCupid founder Christian Rudder essentially said that they made the decision
in a hurry, in the span of about 36 hours, and had no concrete plan about what
they would do next.

In fact, when Gizmodo asked him what outcome he expected, he said, "I don't
have a good answer for you."

Let's step aside, for a minute, from the divisive social issue that inspired
the stunt, and consider what this says about OKCupid's ability to make
business decisions.

If I'm IAC, OKCupid's owner[2], should I really have confidence in Rudder and
other OKCupid decision-makers if this is the way they make far-reaching, very
public business decisions?

"Hey, let's slap something together and see what happens!"

I think that it is possible for a business to make a bold stand on social
issues, even if it means calling out another business for its conduct. But if
you're going to do it, you'd better have thought it out well and have a game
plan.

OKCupid did not ... and that says a lot about the people in charge there.

[1] [http://gizmodo.com/why-okcupid-took-a-stand-against-
mozillas...](http://gizmodo.com/why-okcupid-took-a-stand-against-mozillas-
anti-gay-ceo-1556185712)

[2] [http://iac.com/brand/okcupid](http://iac.com/brand/okcupid)

~~~
esrauch
More likely the reality is that the reason they went ahead with it is because
they knew they would get a bunch of PR for it and a corresponding spike in
signups.

That isn't the sort of thing you can come out and say in a gizmodo interview.

------
ChrisGaudreau
It's been curious to me from the beginning that this has been treated as a
free speech issue. Free speech is a legal question. If a group of people
boycott you, they aren't impeding on your right to free speech. In fact, they
are merely exercising their own right to free speech.

As a CEO, you have the right to support slavery. As a worker, you have the
right to quit in response to those views.

~~~
esrauch
Free speech is a larger concept in America than the legal protection,
specifically that people with alternate viewpoints should be respected even if
you disagree, and that a marketplace of ideas is a good thing for society.

~~~
cluthe
This isn't exactly true. Free speech just means you need to respect someones
RIGHT TO VOICE their viewpoint. There is a difference between respecting
someones right to free speech and respecting the actual person and/or their
viewpoint. If the viewpoint someone expresses is repulsive you are under no
obligation to respect that person or their viewpoint. Criticizing bad ideas
and calling people out on them and applying social pressure to those people
for their bad ideas is what makes the market place of idea's work, it stops
bad harmful ideas like racism and LGBT discrimination from propagating.
Criticizing someone and saying you don't respect that person anymore because
of their ideas is not the same as disrespecting or taking away their right to
free speech.

------
borplk
The thing is, everyone has their opinions. It just happens that his donation
was revealed.

Ok, suppose a new guy comes along, he could have donated a million dollars to
... I don't know .. an even worse cause. How would you know?

That's why we have laws and protections against each other's opinions (however
imperfect they may be).

