
OkCupid's CEO Donated to an Anti-Gay Campaign Once, Too  - ghosh
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/04/okcupid-ceo-donate-anti-gay-firefox
======
akiselev
TLDR (from article): "OkCupid's co-founder and CEO Sam Yagan once donated to
an anti-gay candidate. (Yagan is also CEO of Match.com.) Specifically, Yagan
donated $500 to Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah) in 2004, reports Uncrunched. During
his time as congressman from 1997 to 2009, Cannon voted for a constitutional
amendment banning same-sex marriage, against a ban on sexual-orientation based
job discrimination, and for prohibition of gay adoptions."

So donating to a campaign for a constitutional ammendment prohibiting gay
marriage is the same as donating to a politician with a broad array of other
policies? Anti-republicanism aside, how is this even remotely the same thing?

~~~
epaga
It's remotely the same thing because it's about him supporting politics that
many sharply disagree with.

It shows the hypocrisy of grabbing pitchforks and torches and pushing out a
brilliant mind just because you disagree with his views on marriage which are
the same as 51% of all of California.

My proposal: put down the pitchforks, pick up the coffee cups and talk and
reason instead of pressure and bully.

~~~
akiselev
> It's remotely the same thing because it's about him supporting politics that
> many sharply disagree with.

You're talking about a nation with a blanket two party system, the world's
largest economy, and an extreme tendency to involve itself with global
affairs.

I have an extreme aversion to voting for Republicans just due to the socially
conservative views, but when the democratic candidates vocally support total
global surveillance there's just no other choice. Supporting a candidate _does
not_ mean you support their every vote and as in all things with life, you
just have to make compromises.

~~~
joelrunyon
> Supporting a candidate does not mean you support their every vote and as in
> all things with life, you just have to make compromises.

Funny how this works for candidates that you vote for but not for CEOS of
products you use.

~~~
akiselev
What are you talking about?

It worked for the CEO of Mozilla too. Their community just made different
compromises.

------
jamesaguilar
Correction: he donated to an anti-gay _candidate_. Also, people care more
about your current position than what you believed half a decade ago.
Obviously OkCupid's CEO has come around on this position (if indeed he ever
was anti-gay). Or he is putting on the public appearance of having come
around, which for activism's purpose is sufficient.

If Eich had come out in support of gay people during this fiasco (for example,
saying something as simple as, "I was wrong, I'm sorry, if I had it to do
again, I would not donate to that campaign"), I'm willing to bet that the
calls to remove him would have dropped in volume by a _substantial_ margin.
This isn't apples to apples, and it's not even apples to oranges. It's apples
to pick up trucks.

~~~
zorpner
Seriously. Eich not only failed to apologize in any meaningful manner (which I
get is being spun by people as Integrity, Bro), but seemed to fail to even
realize that the viewpoint he endorsed was so widely reviled by Mozilla's
supporters.

The public is more than willing to forgive and understand if people are
willing to explain their point of view, but he wouldn't even stoop to that.

~~~
zaidf
Absolutely nothing good could come out of him trying to explain his views or
his donation. It is _good_ that he hasn't apologized out of pressure. He
should only apologize if/when he actually has a change of heart on his
position; not because an Internet mob holds him at gun point.

~~~
zorpner
Whether or not you agree with it, this is the exact opposite of how an
actually appropriate CEO appointee would behave.

~~~
zaidf
I'll take an inappropriate CEO over an appropriate CEO that is willing to lie
to the public just to pacify them and to keep his job.

------
lern_too_spel
He donated to an anti-gay candidate, not to a campaign specifically against
gays. This is akin to saying somebody an Iraq war supporter for paying US
taxes.

Still, Cannon sounds like a reprehensible person, and I would be interested to
hear Yagan's reason for helping to re-elect him.

~~~
epaga
No - the point is not "Let's hear Yagan's reason for donating" \- the point
is: why are we making political opinions an issue for tech CEOs?

Do we really want a world where where CEOs' personal political donations (from
years past!) are sifted through to find the latest faux pas so we can pressure
them to answer for themselves?

~~~
matthewmacleod
Not "political opinions," but "active participation in political movements."

And do you think tech is somehow exempt from this? It's hardly uncommon for
CEOs to be subject to pressure because of their political views; doubly so in
situations like this where they perform a significant non-commercial role.

So I'm actually pretty happy that CEOs are subject to public scrutiny.

------
proksoup
Totally exactly the same thing. Candidate whom is anti-gay === targeted anti-
gay legislation

~~~
judk
Candidate was broadly anti gay. Prop 8 was a single specific marriage
question. So no, not the same. Candidate was worse.

~~~
matthewmacleod
Does not follow. It's Utah, so his opponent could have been much worse…

------
fleitz
The whole thing is so stupid to begin with, many of the people complaining
about Eich are avid Obama supporters, someone who in 2008 was also campaigning
against gay marriage, citing the exact same bigoted faith.

Everyone has a great hair splitting reason for why Eich is a horrible
motherfucker for donating $1000 to prop 8, while Obama and Yagan are national
heros for doing something ever so slightly different.

~~~
lern_too_spel
Obama didn't campaign against gay marriage. In fact, he stated his opposition
to Proposition 8. [http://m.sfgate.com/news/article/Obama-opposes-proposed-
ban-...](http://m.sfgate.com/news/article/Obama-opposes-proposed-ban-on-gay-
marriage-3278328.php)

His opponent was a supporter of Proposition 8, making Obama clearly the lesser
evil on that issue.
[http://www.usnews.com/news/campaign-2008/articles/2008/06/27...](http://www.usnews.com/news/campaign-2008/articles/2008/06/27/mccain-
supports-efforts-to-ban-gay-marriage)

------
matthewmacleod
This is a disingenuous headline - Yagan donated to a candidate who was anti-
gay (anti everything, really!) and NOT to a specific campaign designed to
strip rights from people. There's a difference here.

This was obviously a PR stunt, in the sense that OKCupid would not have
participated if they thought it would bring about negative reactions. But
let's be realistic - at least 50% of anybody who's ever donated to a
politician's campaign in the US has "donated to an anti gay campaign once", if
that's the qualifier. And it's much harder to point a finger and say "you are
demonstrably opposed to gay rights" when Yagan's company is making a public
statement in support thereof - however hypocritical you perceive that to be.

------
joelrunyon
This outlines the absurdity of what happens when you have to take down leaders
just because their entire world view doesn't outline with yours.

Is it hypocritical of Yagan? Sure. Does it mean he's unqualified to do his
job? Probably not.

This post from Arrington's original article is on point

> 5\. Is it absurd to judge Yagan as a person based on a single donation,
> years ago, to a politician well known for waging war on gays? Yup. But that
> is precisely what Yagan and OkCupid did to Eich...How can a man orchestrate
> and support a boycott of Mozilla over Eich and yet donate to a hateful
> politician like Chris Cannon? How do you square that?

~~~
Natsu
There are much better reasons not to use OKCupid than this silly fiasco. I'll
let the post by OKCupid that they later removed explain:

[http://static.izs.me/why-you-should-never-pay-for-online-
dat...](http://static.izs.me/why-you-should-never-pay-for-online-dating.html)

~~~
joelrunyon
If you think this is about just OKCupid, you're mistaken.

It's about what happens when you start applying micro-judgments arbitrarily
that have no discernible relation to their qualifications that that have
measured impacts on their livelihoods.

------
joelrunyon
Here's the original post unearthing this from Uncrunched -
[http://uncrunched.com/2014/04/06/the-hypocrisy-of-sam-
yagan-...](http://uncrunched.com/2014/04/06/the-hypocrisy-of-sam-yagan-
okcupid)

------
tunesmith
For progressive libertarians, hasn't Chris Cannon has been on the wrong side
of many social issues, and on the right side of many privacy and internet
issues?

~~~
Camillo
Like Brendan Eich, you mean?

------
realpolitik
The point is not whether the act of supporting an anti gay marriage ballot
measure is equivalent to voting for an anti-gay candidate - it isn't.

Rather, if Eich's small silent contribution to Prop 8 was such an unspeakable
transgression that Yagan felt compelled to freaking mobilize a mass corporate
boycott, then how in good conscience could he ever have elected a man with
much more explicitly hateful views to represent him in Congress?

~~~
fleitz
Actually two candidates against gay marriage, he also gave to Obama.

So what we should be saying is that Yagan only supports candidates who oppose
gay marriage.

Seriously though, why not take a swing at eharmony's CEO? That guy makes Eich
look like a bear.

~~~
joelrunyon
Because he didn't come out & have an opinion on this debate?

------
clhodapp
Given that Americans live under a (generally) two-party system, which forces
us to make a lot of "lesser of two evils" type choices, I don't think it's
fair to hold anyone to all of the beliefs of political candidates that they
support.

Edit: Also, we may not know about all of the political actions of those
candidates, rather offering support based on their stances on a the few issues
we currently think are most important.

------
mbillie1
It's not terribly shocking to learn that OkCupid's obvious publicity stunt
against Brendan Eich was merely a publicity stunt.

------
__alexs
Despite the differences in what happened this is still very disappointing. I
hope he handles the situation better than Eich did whatever his politics are.

------
spikels
"There's a sucker born every minute"

You have just been pwnd by Barry Diller and Sam Yagan.

