

Response to OkCupid's blocking of Firefox users - sylvinus
https://medium.com/p/5f43d452bd89

======
dj-wonk
Even if Brendan Eich has private views that I disagree with, I don't see a big
problem here, because they are his private views, not those of Mozilla.

Furthermore, people have a right to their own opinions, and I don't want
corporations digging through contribution records to dig up dirt on who
someone gave money to. This seems shameful to me; we're talking about a
country that values free speech.

"He is listed publicly as having donated to a campaign in support of
California's Proposition 8 campaign in 2008, which had sought to ban gay
marriage in the western US state." From:
[http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-26830383](http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-26830383)

Who knows why Mr. Eich gave this donation. Maybe he changed his mind since
then. Maybe not. It should not matter. Correct me if I'm wrong -- and maybe
I've naive -- but Mozilla should not be singled out for every action or
donation that their CEO has taken. (Yes, I realize CEO's are high visibility
people.)

I am happy OKCupid is promoting marriage equality, but I don't like this
particular way of doing it.

~~~
ForHackernews
Free speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism or the repercussions of that
speech.

I think Mozilla is a great organization and I don't like the idea of punishing
Firefox users for Eich's views.

On the other hand, it's 2014 and being against gay marriage is a pretty
retrograde position. If he were against interracial marriage, would we even be
arguing about this? Would he even have been named CEO?

~~~
swartzrock
You must have missed the 2008 part, the same year we elected a president who
was against gay marriage.

~~~
ForHackernews
Honestly, I doubt Obama was ever really against gay marriage, he's just a
politician who panders to whatever position he thought would get him the most
votes.

In 2008, the "moderate" position was to support civil unions, while opposing
full equality. So that's what Obama did. Now, in 2014, the needle has shifted.
Gay marriage has become increasingly mainstream.

------
uvTwitch
I hope this results in people boycotting javascript too; that atrocity has
long outstayed its' welcome.

------
michaelsbradley
Thank you, Sylvain. I don't entirely agree with your line of reasoning but
appreciate you're "stepping up" with this blog post.

~~~
sylvinus
Thanks. As a conference organizer who's trying to welcome everyone to his
events, it feels a bit risky, but ultimately right.

Can you detail what you don't agree on? Happy to have a sane discussion here.

~~~
michaelsbradley
I meant to imply that, according to my own beliefs and perspectives, I am
inclined to judge Eich's actions and position a bit differently than yourself.

However, we both agree that its important to "[move on] and talk about the
Web", and I also agree with several points you raised as to why that's the
case. I also realize that by publishing that blog post, you were potentially
opening yourself up to a fair bit of vitriol, and I respect that you were
willing to do so anyway.

------
im3w1l
I for one want a browser created by people who value free speech and privacy
rather than by people who severely punish the slightest misstep. The fact that
some employees urge him to step down is therefore concerning to me. Will these
people support handing over my data when it suits their ideological whims?
Will they insert backdoors for that purpose?

~~~
exodust
Exactly. Sounds like certain people at Mozilla drummed up a frenzy of ideology
and personal views about something completely unrelated to their business,
their customers, and everything about their product. Okcupid did the same.

When are people going to understand that opposing gay marriage is not opposing
gay people or the rights of gay people? Marriage didn't grow on trees, it's an
artificial ceremony that happens to have associated laws and benefits. It also
happens to have traditions. Marriage has an old fashioned vibe, it's no wonder
so many people want it to remain between men and women.

I'm all for extending those laws and benefits to same-sex couples, and will
even go to their unofficial weddings. But if most people want marriage to
officially remain a man-woman thing, is that so bad? It's about upholding
tradition, it's not a big deal. Human rights are not being suppressed here,
it's just marriage.

------
fvt
When private views become public, one should expect to be "judged" by others,
especially when this person is explicitly enlisting the company he is working
for in such a campaign and is a well-known field activist.

AFAICT he _had_ to tell what company he was working for. On that very moment,
I'm curious to known what went through his mind. Was there any hesitation? Was
he realizing he was bringing Mozilla into this debate?

My personal believes is that whether this was deliberate (bringing Mozilla
explicitly) or not (being "forced" to list his employer), this was a really
bad move you - as a board advisor or investor - will have to deal with and
take public actions against.

------
angersock
The additional damage and injury of OKC's actions here is that they are
directly discouraging the use of perhaps one of the last great free and
unencumbered browsers based on something that doesn't matter technically--and
that a lot of people are going to switch just because of scary and hateful
wording and possibly be hurt.

Had they blocked Firefox users because of a security hole or layout glitch,
that'd be fine--many of us have done the same upon finding somebody hitting
our site with IE6 and requesting that they upgrade.

Had they blocked Firefox because it was a competing product (as Microsoft has
done at times), that'd make sense too, although it's a bit scummy.

The problem though is that they've elected to block a particular browser based
solely on the third-order actions of an employee of that company exercising
their right to free speech.

Legally, sure, they can do whatever they want, but we really ought to hold
them to the same standard we seem to be holding Eich.

Note, for example, that he sent some money into a cause and then the gears of
politics ground and spat out what he'd supported--whereas fully 12% of people
on OKC (according to their statistics) have been denied service on a whim.

Even from a business standpoint, why would you inconvenience 12% of your
customers? That's just silly. Because you can get away with it, because you
are a gatekeeper of part of their social graph? That's just scummy.

This is not how we should be behaving as a community.

~~~
gaadd33
You do know that they haven't denied service to anyone? The bottom of the
notice has a link that says "Continue to OkCupid". At worst they've
inconvenienced someone the same amount an interstitial does on Forbes or a
similar site.

Also is donating money considered "free speech"? Is that how Citizens United
won their Supreme Court case?

~~~
angersock
Ah, interesting. Coverage (as well as the text of the message) made it appear
that it was a full block. I'd edit my original post to reflect this, but am
unable to. Thanks for the information!

And yes, I'm pretty sure that campaign donations are considered free speech.

