
Brendan Eich becomes Mozilla CEO - bevacqua
https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/mozilla-news/
======
anon1385
I guess 2 years is long enough for most people to have forgotten the brief
storm about his homophobic political activities. I wonder if this appointment
would have been made 18 months ago when that was still fresh in people's
minds. I can't help thinking that it doesn't really fit with the image Mozilla
tries to present of themselves.

[http://tommorris.org/posts/2550](http://tommorris.org/posts/2550)

~~~
chimeracoder
When looking to effect change, one has to build coalitions, which sometimes
means picking battles.

Eich apparently does not believe that I deserve the same rights that he does,
but if he is a champion of other values I hold, does that mean I should write
him off entirely?

While I might prefer someone in a position like his to share all my political
views, that's not really feasible. The ones that are relevant to his position
as CEO of Mozilla are his views on privacy, software freedom, etc.

It's especially relevant to note that this is a donation he made "privately"
as an individual (it's public due to financing laws, but it's not the same as
(e.g.) giving the keynote address at a NOM event.)

I happen to disagree with his views on Proposition 8, but unless they
translate into discrimination in the workplace (which is an addressable
problem in itself), I might be willing to support his work in one field while
separating myself from his personal viewpoints in another field.

~~~
fingerprinter
If he was a developer, architect or something else like that, I'd generally
agree.

However, he is now CEO. Imagine just how many people he'd alienate inside
Mozilla by basically saying "I don't think you should have the same rights as
me".

This is _not_ just another political topic, no matter how people would like to
frame it that way. This is about treating people the same. You can _still
think_ that homosexuality is wrong and support gay marriage. But someone who
goes so far as to say no to gay marriage is basically saying they view that
group of people as less than another group of people and should have less
rights.

This is unacceptable.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_This is about treating people the same._

Gays and straights are treated the same - both are free to marry people of the
opposite sex. Gays may prefer not to do that, but they do have the legal
right.

As for finding your preferences are not legally favored, that happens to lots
of people. I prefer to have no fixed address, which is NOT a legally favorable
preference to have (try opening a bank account, etc). I prefer not to buy
insurance covering procedures I will never need [1].

Are laws preventing me from satisfying my preferences on these matters all
unacceptable? If Eich favored Obamacare or "Know Your Customer" banking laws,
would that also be unacceptable?

[1] Supposing that I lived in the US.

~~~
Crito
I swear, _every single_ argument against gay marriage is just a refurbished
argument against interracial marriage. These arguments were bullshit then, and
they are bullshit now. You should be ashamed of yourself.

~~~
tommorris
To be fair: "they'll adopt kids and turn them gay" doesn't really have a
parallel in the interracial marriage debate, as far as I can tell.

~~~
haberman
Yes, or slightly more charitably: "kids benefit from having both male and
female role models at home." I struggle with this a bit.

~~~
tommorris
That's not an argument against gay marriage, that's an argument against gay
parenting (and to stop that, you need a national ban on turkey basters).
Except it's kind of a rubbish argument against gay parenting:

That some state of affairs X in a family is best for children is not an
argument that not-X should be forbidden.

Children do better if they have rich parents, who can afford to buy them a
wide variety of toys, give them a better education, buy them private tutors
and books and plenty of other resources to give them a head-start in life.
That doesn't mean that the rest of society shouldn't be allowed to raise
children even though those children will be raised in a suboptimal fashion.

If - and it is a big, complex, still-being-debated-by-social-scientists type
of if - parenting by opposite-sex biological parents is the gold standard,
that doesn't mean that people who still get to silver or bronze shouldn't also
be able to parent.

~~~
haberman
For the record, I am an unequivocal supporter of gay marriage, and I have
always voted for it.

The only thing that makes me at all uncomfortable about it is the possibility
that it sets a norm where it is considered prejudiced and discriminatory to
even ask the question of whether same-sex couples are the best for children.

For example, it is pretty well accepted that having two parents is better for
children than just one (all else being equal; abusive two-parent relationships
are obviously worse). No one would argue that single parenting should be
illegal. But it's not taboo to say that having two parents is probably better
for kids than having just one. (Though of course many people have superstar
single parents and turn out great.)

Likewise I would never argue that gay parenting should be illegal. I just
don't want to see it become an ostracizable offense to ask the question,
without agenda, of whether same-sex parent situations are the best for kids.

~~~
hkphooey
Yep, political correctness is stifling open debate.

For some strange reason, nobody wants to discuss polygamous marriages, and
whether they should be legal or not. It would be the height of hypocrisy to
support gay marriage but not allow multiple consenting adults to form a
similar union. Yet to even raise the issue invites ridicule.

Another thing, I've often heard gay people use the derogatory term "breeders"
to slur heterosexual couples with children. Why is this ok? Why doesn't anyone
stand up and say this is wrong?

~~~
haberman
> For some strange reason, nobody wants to discuss polygamous marriages, and
> whether they should be legal or not.

To me this is not hypocritical, because I do not see a contingent of people
saying "we are living in healthy polygamous _de facto_ marriages and wish to
have the state recognize them." I don't think you can reason about this in a
logical vacuum, it's about observing what actually happens in reality.

> Another thing, I've often heard gay people use the derogatory term
> "breeders" to slur heterosexual couples with children.

I've only ever heard this term used in fun. Any term used in a genuinely
derogatory way is not ok by me.

~~~
hkphooey
> I do not see a contingent of people saying "we are living in healthy
> polygamous de facto marriages and wish to have the state recognize them."

So the minority should not have any civil rights?

In the US there are currently two different TV shows both featuring a man and
his five "wives" and all their kids, and they all seem well adjusted and
happy. Yet the law does not allow the man to be married to all of them. One of
them has been fighting this stuff in court in Utah.

Why do people support gay marriage but not polygamous marriage? Why aren't
there activists on street corners handing out leaflets and asking for
donations to help minorities in Utah?

There is obviously some kind of double standard going on here and I'm going to
go out on a limb here and say that it is simply human nature at work. Gay
people who want to get married only care about their own situation and are
simply not interested in polygamous marriages.

So it is somewhat hypocritical to expect the majority, who are not gay, to
care about gay marriage when the debate is not truly about civil rights,
because if it were, the campaign would also be fighting for the rights of
polygamous families.

I'd like to see the discussion take place and not be dismissed out-of-hand.

~~~
haberman
> So the minority should not have any civil rights?

I said nothing of the sort. Maybe the reason you are not seeing the discussion
you want is because you put people on the defensive by misinterpreting their
words.

~~~
hkphooey
What exactly did you mean by "contingent"? I interpreted what you wrote as
meaning that since there aren't a vocal group of polygamous families making
themselves seen and heard, it was somehow okay to ignore them because they
were so insignificant.

Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying, but I think my point still stands:
that the marriage equality campaign is not really about equality for everybody
because it does not include minority* groups like polygamists.

*Although in many cultures polygamy was the norm for hundreds and thousands of years and only recently been banned.

~~~
haberman
> since there aren't a vocal group of polygamous families making themselves
> seen and heard

Good so far.

> it was somehow okay to ignore them because they were so insignificant.

It's not about "ignoring" anybody because of their "insignificance." It's
about legislating around what is healthy, on the whole.

I haven't done a lot of research into polygamy, but my sense based on the
little I _have_ been exposed to suggests to me that in many cases where it
occurs it is, in practice, an unhealthy power dynamic.

A good comparison for this is the age of consent. Sexual relationships with
minors are illegal because in many/most cases they involve an unhealthy power
dynamic. Now there are exceptions (and the rules are pretty arbitrary in that
a 17/18 year old couple is a completely different thing than a 15/30 year old
couple). But on the whole this is good and important.

Now I could be completely off on my understanding of polygamy in practice. But
I have a lot more information about what LGBT relationships are like in real
life and therefore feel far more conviction that they are healthy and should
be fully accepted. Show me people in healthy polygamous relationships who want
to see them state-recognized and I am open to changing my mind.

The "healthyness" of them is important, not only to protect vulnerable people
from unhealthy power dynamics, but because if legalized, the state would need
to become involved in all sorts of questions like what happens when a
polygamous marriage is dissolved. What if just one person leaves? How does
custody/property work in all of these cases? What if there are disagreements
about power of attorney among remaining spouses when one spouse is in the
hospital? The legal aspects of marriage get complicated quickly when there are
more than two participants. Unless society has a good understanding of what
these polygamous relationships mean and how they function, it would be pretty
hard for the courts to decide what is "fair" in these difficult cases.

These are the reasons I don't think you can reason about this in a logical
vacuum. You can't just extrapolate and say "well if you can marry one man, the
stat is being unjust if you can't also marry two." Life and laws aren't a
logic puzzle. They are based on our understanding of the human condition and
our ideals about a fair/just society.

------
drawkbox
Excellent choice, Mozilla is killing it with WebGL + asm.js right now among
many other things. Probably the best Firefox and Mozilla has ever been so far.
As a game developer targeting WebGL/asm.js what they are doing is awesome,
almost like a new console. Both Unity and Unreal have their engines running
well on it. Mozilla is the new game developers favorite, Chrome is nice as
well but needs something like asm.js optimizations.

~~~
scrollaway
I hope they reconsider putting more funding and efforts behind Persona. In the
list of things that the web needs, it's pretty high.

~~~
doesnt_know
They have already "handed it off to the community" so they can focus on other
things. It won't be getting more funding or effort from Mozilla.

edit: I just reread and realised you said "reconsider" and not "consider".
Implying you already knew this, sorry.

Here is the blog post in case anyone missed it anyway:
[http://identity.mozilla.com/post/78873831485/transitioning-p...](http://identity.mozilla.com/post/78873831485/transitioning-
persona-to-community-ownership)

and on HN:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7362613](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7362613)

~~~
Osmose
> It won't be getting more funding or effort from Mozilla.

Correction: There aren't any more employees being paid to develop Persona.
Mozilla is still paying for the infrastructure, and the community (which
includes paid employees like myself who want to work on Persona on the side)
is still working on it. I actually got a pull request merged just yesterday
(my first!). There's also ops/IT staff who will be helping to deploy and
respond to service disruptions.

<hope>We could very well find that after Firefox Accounts is up and running
that focusing employees back on Persona is the right thing to do.</hope>

------
Zikes
Wow, I almost can't tell if I'm on Hacker News or Tumblr. Brendan Eich made a
mistake 6 years ago, let all of us Social Justice Warriors break out the
pitchforks and show him the true meaning of tolerance!

Honestly he's never made any impassioned rants on the subject, never spoken
out against gay marriage, never reportedly acted out against any homosexuals
in any way. He only made one small donation to what was, at the time, a very
popular political campaign.

Maybe he was misguided, or misunderstood the reality of what Proposition 8
would mean. The campaigns were certainly filled with misinformation that
suckered in a huge number of Californians. I know we technophiles like to
think we're cut from a better cloth than that, but there are days we're just
as gullible as the next.

We're all guilty of lapses of morality at some point in our lives. Hopefully
we learn from those mistakes. Hopefully Brendan will, as well.

~~~
raldi
What the high-rated HN comments are _not_ calling for:

* Eich to be stabbed with a pitchfork

* His family to be threatened

* Protests outside his home

* Harassing phone calls

* A Firefox boycott

* His termination

* His demotion

What the HN comments _are_ doing:

* Quietly acknowledging that the donation happened

I think it's a far cry from a witch hunt.

~~~
leoc
> What the HN comments are doing:

> * Quietly acknowledging that the donation happened

With all due respect, this is not an accurate summary. What many comments
including the original comment have been doing is seriously broaching the idea
that an anti-Prop. 8 vote is a serious grounds to disqualify someone from
being Mozilla CEO. Sometimes a bit coyly, in a "nice car, shame if something
happened to it" manner, but that's immaterial.

~~~
burntroots
The funniest part is everybody's chatting about this like they actually have a
say in who gets to be the CEO of Mozilla.

~~~
mindslight
That is _the_ essence of Commu^h^h^h^h^h"Democracy".

------
chimeracoder
I'm curious how common the CTO→CEO transition is.

The only other one that stands out in my mind is Etsy, though I know there are
others I'm missing.

In any case, congratulations are in order. I don't know much about Eich, but
I'm a huge fan of the work Mozilla's done. Their focus on privacy and
unrestricted software becomes more relevant by the day, so I have high hopes
for this change.

~~~
raldi
It also happend at Justin.tv / Twitch:
[http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/29/after-a-hot-start-justin-
tv...](http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/29/after-a-hot-start-justin-tv-spins-off-
socialcam-its-instagram-for-video/)

------
clarkevans
I hope Brendan restores Mozilla's Persona project.

State of the art _federated_ authentication is overly complicated by solutions
bundling enterprise features such as resource authorization and directory
services. These additional features should be factored out since they can be
layered.

By contrast, BrowserId's parsimonious take on federated authentication (via an
email handle) is refreshing.

~~~
dangoor
Persona was only recently de-funded, while Brendan was already in charge of
Engineering.

I don't think it was because of a lack of belief in Persona and the value of
pursuing federated identity. I would guess that it came down to priorities.

------
potch
I work for Mozilla. I support Brendan as our CEO. I strongly, vehemently
oppose his views on gay marriage. I personally won't tolerate any CEO-level
chicanery on our internal and external policies of tolerance, though I do not
expect any. I am not alone in this feeling amongst the staff. I think his
leadership is good for the organization and its goals. This cognitive
dissonance will likely make me even more diligent in ensuring Mozilla is an
equitable place to work.

------
ianbicking
A bunch of people here seem to be wondering whether this will mean a
substantial change to Mozilla's strategy. This seems very unlikely – Brendan
has been on Mozilla's steering committee for many years, and involved in many
key decisions in the past year. I expect him becoming CEO means _more of the
same_ – if you like what Mozilla is doing, then you should be happy, and if
you wish it was doing something else then you should probably look elsewhere.

~~~
edtechdev
It means pigs will fly before Firefox supports alternative languages like Dart
or Typescript, since JavaScript is his baby. I'd be surprised if asm.js even
continues to be supported, he's argued so strenuously against the idea of
javascript as assembly, even though there are now almost 100 other languages
that compile to javascript: [https://github.com/jashkenas/coffee-
script/wiki/List-of-lang...](https://github.com/jashkenas/coffee-
script/wiki/List-of-languages-that-compile-to-JS) and Google, Microsoft, and
Facebook (hack) are all sticking to languages that use types.

~~~
ianbicking
He has always _very_ actively supported ASM.js. He's also stepping away from
involvement in JavaScript standardization efforts so he can focus on his new
position, so this will actually decrease his involvement in those specific
areas. None of that probably helps native Dart support at all – there's
probably close to zero champions for that sort of thing at Mozilla regardless
of Brendan.

------
curiousAl
Brace for incoming (revived) controversy[1].

1\.
[http://projects.latimes.com/prop8/donation/8930/](http://projects.latimes.com/prop8/donation/8930/)

~~~
mikeash
Which controversy you've now made much more likely by bringing it up. Thanks a
whole lot.

~~~
nsmnsf
I agree, knowing that homophobes are in public places of power is a good
thing.

Eich shouldn't be able to enter a room without being berated, until he
concedes and gives up his bigotry.

~~~
sehr
Being equally bigoted towards bigots without even _attempting_ to understand
their viewpoints is a bit odd don't you think?

~~~
dublinben
Nobody is trying to make it illegal for him to get married. Who is being
bigoted towards him in any way?

~~~
sehr
_Eich shouldn 't be able to enter a room without being berated, until he
concedes and gives up his bigotry._

Seems somewhat intolerant of different opinions to me

~~~
nsmnsf
I am absolutely 100% intolerant of anyone opposed to gay marriage (or civil
unions for straight couples/gay couples, same end result).

~~~
sehr
Congratulations? I'm not exactly sure if that's something you're proud of, but
good luck with it I suppose.

~~~
lern_too_spel
I guess you support people who spend their money oppressing others? I'm
against it. It's nothing I'm particularly proud about. It's just common human
decency.

~~~
sehr
_I am absolutely 100% intolerant of anyone opposed to gay marriage_

Is what I responded to. If you choose to argue against a strawman, that's your
business but I won't have anything to do with the perversion of others'
arguments for the sake of making a point.

~~~
lern_too_spel
This whole thread has been about Eich's actions specifically. You're shifting
the argument to pretend it's just about his opinions. Now where do you stand
on his actions, or do you want to keep dodging the issue and play around with
false equivalences?

------
dhimes
MODS: This would be a damn fine thread to try out that new comment widget pg
was talking about the other day.

------
sos3
I think Mozilla is making a mistake. I've met Brendan several times and I
don't think he'll be a good CEO. His political views are not aligned with
Mozilla's views as a company and that might come up as an issue at some point
later.

~~~
adl
I'm curious about this statement, what political views does he hold that you
think are not aligned with Mozilla's? (besides his known contribution to
proposition 8)

------
pekk
It makes sense, given that Mozilla's purpose as an organization seems to have
primarily become the promotion of the Javascript language

~~~
pcx
I beg to differ. Mozilla is making substantial contributions to Web as a whole
and Firefox has never been better.

~~~
pekk
... where the metric for contributions and better is filtered through the idea
that web apps should only run on Javascript

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
What else should they run on? Dart?

------
fidotron
This is good, but also somewhat inevitable.

It's interesting that all announcements play up the interim CEO's involvement
in Firefox OS. I have felt for a long time that it's going after the wrong
target in Android, and should instead go up against Chrome OS. Will be
interesting to see how the priorities change, if at all.

~~~
fabrice_d
Mozilla is not going "against" others for the sake of it. We build what we
feel is better for the web and its users, and we do it where we think we stand
a chance of being successful at a large scale.

As for proposing an alternative for ChromeOS, I'm mentoring a GSoC project to
turn firefox OS into a Desktop Environment (see
[https://wiki.mozilla.org/Community:SummerOfCode14#Firefox_OS...](https://wiki.mozilla.org/Community:SummerOfCode14#Firefox_OS_.2F_Boot2Gecko))
which could be a first step in this direction.

~~~
nsmnsf
> Mozilla is not going "against" others for the sake of it.

Brendan Eich is, though, apparently.

~~~
mercurial
Yes, yes, proposition 8. There is a big fucking thread up there if you want to
partake in more cheap shots.

------
seivan
One reason to use [https://etalio.com](https://etalio.com) instead of Mozilla
Persona is that Ericsson CEO is not a homophobe.

------
avenger123
This might be a good thread to turn on the new commenting feature.

~~~
debacle
New commenting feature?

~~~
snsr
All comments will be censored until up-voted by multiple users with 1000+
karma. These pending comments will only be visible to the same subset of
users.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7445761](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7445761)

~~~
debacle
That's a very...interesting way of solving that problem. Thanks for the
information.

------
atotic
I've read this comment thread a few days ago, and was disappointed that the
discussion has focused on Brendan's contribution to prop 8. Just want to get
this off my chest:

I've known Brendan, I've code-reviewed some super scary changes he was
checking in. I've watched him do cartwheels.

He is a very smart guy, one of the few I've met who is clearly superior to me
(Hi Guha!). He is also part of a tribe foreign to me, deeply religious
computer geeks.

I believe (have no 1st hand knowledge), that Brendan contributed to prop 8 as
part of a church drive. His contribution has offended many, but it not part of
his core beliefs.

I also believe that he gets Internet's potential more than just about anyone.
My passion is open Web, and Brendan leading Mozilla is great news. He knows
what really matters, he is passionate, and he will fight for it.

------
Osmose
The weekly public Mozilla Project meeting has some discussion from the
executive team about the change and will have Q/A later on:
[https://air.mozilla.org/the-monday-
meeting-20140324/](https://air.mozilla.org/the-monday-meeting-20140324/)

------
sigvef
Gary Kovacs stepped down last summer, does this mean that Mozilla has been
without a CEO for almost a year?

~~~
rubiquity
What it means that Brendan Eich has probably been fulfilling the CEO role for
at least 6 months or so and this announcement is most likely just a formality
due to everything running smoothly.

At first I wasn't sure how I felt about this announcement, but then I realized
I've actually been quite happy with what Mozilla has been up to for the past
year or so, and I imagine that's been under a lot of influence from Eich.

------
WoodenChair
I'm guessing this is another hurdle in the Dart VM ever making its way into
FireFox.

~~~
Nyubis
Interestingly enough, it seems like he doubts support from Safari and IE
sooner than Firefox: [http://www.infoworld.com/d/application-development/what-
java...](http://www.infoworld.com/d/application-development/what-javascripts-
inventor-really-thinks-about-google-dart-185045)

~~~
WoodenChair
Yeah I read that a long time ago. That article is really dated...

------
theorique
On the one hand, he's homophobic, but on the other hand, he's a great
technologist. I guess they sort of balance out, right?

~~~
jaibot
I'm guessing that his non-straight-people-shouldn't-have-the-same-rights-as-me
side is sufficiently outnumbered within Mozilla that he won't rescind any of
the equal opportunity/friendliness stuff the organization provides.

~~~
theorique
Agreed ... bringing that into the workplace would probably contravene a bunch
of laws as well as HR regulations. Even though he may be CEO, he's neither
above the law nor the rules.

------
yeukhon
I am actually quite surprised he took the position.

I wonder if Jay is actually leaving Mozilla since Li Gong is now the COO.

That being said, I think Brendan is now put on a major test.

If instead Brendan doesn't believe in abortion, would we still have this
conversation? The split among pro-live and pro-choice is just as bad as pro-
gay and non-gay. And among pro-choice there is a split on what constitutes a
good reason to abort and what is not.

A good CEO should ensure the company is sustainable and well. One way is to
accept and respect differences. If Mozilla employees think gay workers should
receive X benefit that non-gay workers already been receiving and they
petition Mozilla and Brendan to take action, Brendan and his team will have to
work toward that goal. That's their job (well mostly COO I guess). Otherwise
employees will lose faith in the organization and talent will be lost.

If he truly values Mozilla and his hard work at Mozilla, he will not hesitate
to make Mozilla more friendly and more open and transparent. But he _doesn 't_
have to change his belief to be a CEO. He, in his personal space, at his
house, he can do whatever he wants and say whatever he wants.

I don't work for Mozilla and I don't ask around to find out who is gay and who
is not. I don't know whether gay workers feel welcome at Mozilla or not. Just
saying.

~~~
zobzu
Yeah, I dont think his positions on non-technical matters really _matter_ that
much in this case. It doesn't mean hes going a good or bad CEO because of his
beliefs in a totally different subject.

As long as one doesn't affect the other, everyone is entitled to his opinion.
That's why we vote on stuff...

------
mavdi
Good man. Certainly deserved both ways.

~~~
nsmnsf
> Good man

...

I can't even. I'm so incredibly disgusted.

------
quesera
Looking forward to learning his opinion of "user-enhancing" advertising as
part of the Firefox application.

------
booop
Congrats to Eich!

And, has everyone here gone insane? Personally I hold Eugenic racist
homophobic neo-nazis to a higher regard than those who view forgiveness and
moving on as something that should never be done.

~~~
hashbanged
1) Who said anything is unforgivable? This is a straw-man and a false
dichotomy. 2) People usually expect some kind of apology and atonement before
forgiveness. Quick google search didn't find anything, got a link? 3) Way to
call people calmly being upset about someone donating to prop 8 on the
internet basically worse than racist, homophobic, neo-nazis.

------
ndesaulniers
Do I smell IPO? :P

~~~
vitno
I was gonna scoff at you. then I looked at who you were and I was like _rolls
eyes_ oh /n...

~~~
ndesaulniers
For everyone not in on the internal joke, the reference was to this clip:
[http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4578856/mozilla-ceo-on-the-
la...](http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4578856/mozilla-ceo-on-the-latest-
version-of-firefox/#sp=show-clips)

------
l33tfr4gg3r
So scripted ;)

------
wahnfrieden
Please re-title this as "Mozilla News" as per the guidelines, thanks.

------
charlieh
I would lay long odds that upwards of 90% of the U.S. citizens taking Eich to
task on this thread voted for Barack Obama.

So being opposed to gay marriage disqualifies you from being the CEO of a tech
company, but not from being President of the United States.

That's a...convenient...position. Just not a rational one.

Personally, I don't think the government (and certainly not the _Federal_
government) has any business being involved with marriage in the first place,
other than providing a registry for the contracts and a court system to
enforce them.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
Voting for Obama doesn't mean you agree with his (former) stance against same-
sex marriages.

Donating to Proposition 8? That does.

------
Eleutheria
Hey Brendan, I have a wish.

I want to have an eleutheria@firefox.com account from where I can access the
Firefox Cloud with email, docs, pics, chat, apps, games, etc.

That's all I ask for.

