Mozilla CEO resigned

Related:

After Eich resigns, conservatives slam Mozilla—and call for boycott

article:

ars writer:

Will we soon see the day in which each faction in a political battle backs only its “own” technical products—one side using only Google, the other using only Bing—based on the personal views of the CEOs?

My response:

I hope so and I hope it spreads to affect all big corporations.

It would be ideal if corporations started being viewed more like human institutions than some amorphous safe haven for rotten behavior all in the name of people being able to hide behind non-human, corporate non-accountability via an artificial wall of paperwork and legalese. The wall between themselves and greater society needs to come down. Bring down the wall.

Besides, corporations asked for this.

Corporations wanted to be treated like people with free speech rights, etc. - They got it.

Corporations wanted to be treated like people and be able to make unlimited donations to candidates in campaign ads, etc. in order to drown out the speech of average Americans. - They got it.

Corporations wanted to be treated like people and be able to sue for libel, etc. - They got it.

Well, you got what you asked for, corporations. We are now going to pick you apart and see what kind of “people” you really are, just like we should have been doing in the first place.

It’s time for all these people (corporations) to understand that there’s a line drawn in the sand on many issues. Just like all other public people, it’s time for you to choose a side and deal with the benefits and potential consequences from choosing those sides.

If you, as a corporation, want to attack civil rights, we will come at you like any other person deserves.

Welcome to the bed you made, corporations. Congrats, you’re “people” now! You got it.

[evil grin]

3 Likes

I can see why people who not want him in it (heck, I didn’t care for it either) but once he was hired, being forced out by a public inquisition is a bit extreme and doesn’t speak well for people either.

Why is it OK to say you’d prefer he didn’t be the CEO while within this same thread you said it was a cowardly act, etc. to voice that opinion? Shouldn’t you be keeping your opinion to yourself just the same? Or, is the free speech moratorium over now that he’s stepped down? What if you’re damaging this bigot’s future employment by piling on the consensus that he shouldn’t have been the CEO at Mozilla?

I’m not sure free speech hypocrisy speaks well for people either.

I say allow people to be wrong and to learn from it. It takes patience and lots of tongue bitting.

So if you think it’s wrong to ask that a bigot CEO steps down, why aren’t you patiently biting your tongue in this case? Shouldn’t you just allow us to be wrong and learn from it?

Martin Luther King’s “I bite my tongue” speech he secretly gave to his cat while alone in his kitchen did wonders for civil rights.

3 Likes

Brendan was not forced to resign. I’ve actually heard the board members discuss this and they were very clear that not only was he not forced to resign but he chose to leave at this point rather than discuss potential other roles that were offered once he said he was going to resign.

This isn’t one of those corporate things where he was forced out but we’ll all pretend he wasn’t. He was very clearly not forced out by the board, by their own statements. I’d quote them directly but the presentations were done to staff.

That said, Mozilla did post a FAQ about this.

5 Likes

This is factually untrue. I know it is untrue by statements I’ve personally heard from board members. It is untrue based on the FAQ that was posted by Mozilla yesterday. No “apology” was ever demanded of him by the board. So, citation?

1 Like

@cowicide and @albill Stop replying to each other.

1 Like

http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/fivethirtyeight/2013/03/01/poll-finds-record-support-for-same-sex-marriage-in-california/

This article is from a year ago, but I presume this trend is continuing at a similar rate. It looks like a number of people have evolved in their position on SSM since 2008, such that prop 8 would presumably have failed badly if it had been proposed now. It seems to have been pretty difficult up to this point to change people’s minds, so why now? Of course there have been a number of factors (internet activism, force of numbers, increasing visibility, it’s become a shibboleth of being a reasonable person, growth of equality laws etc.), but I wouldn’t be surprised if Modern Family has played quite a significant role. Many opponents of gay marriage don’t know any gay couples personally, so it’s easy to base your views on how fundamentally different you feel gay couples are from straight couples. This is a show that isn’t overly preachy but shows a normal couple who have differences and normal couple problems that people can relate to. This is the closest many people have come to getting to know a gay couple not “being gay” (campaigning, criticising, forwarding the “gay agenda”), but rather having the same struggles, squabbles, worries, victories and problems with family that everyone else has. It’s easy to argue with statistics or talking points, but meeting real (or realistic; it is just a tv show) people is very disarming.

I didn’t say he can’t contribute, I said if he’s gonna contribute he has to live by his actions. I personally would do anything I can to fuck the career of someone with such offensive views … that’s my right as well.

I don’t care when the contribution was, especially since it was only 5 years ago. I also find it entirely ridiculous that anyone could defend financially contributing to restricting the freedoms of people whose choices have no effect on you. What does it matter if gay people get married? It’s not like stopping gay marriage will stop homosexuality and it’s not like gay marriage won’t eventually be legal everywhere in the developed world.

It’s a losing battle being fought by assholes who can’t accept that society isn’t here to be shaped by their shitty opinion. They need to learn that they should butt out of people’s personal lives or their own personal lives are fair game to be laid bare for all to judge.

Your last point is very odd. Who would be expecting you to recant your pro-gay marriage views? Why would explaining that supporting the rights of people to make choices about their own lives be difficult?

1 Like

My apologies, I was mislead by poor wording in The Verge’s coverage 2 days ago, it was Hampton Catlin who was calling for him to apologize when he refused to. Upon rereading the article to find the citation i realized that the sentence I had read was ambiguously worded but the proceeding paragraph pointed it to being Catlin, not the board.

I’m glad they posted that to clear some of these lingering questions up. That either hadn’t been posted, or I was not yet aware of it, when I made that comment. But thank you for posting the link to that, it is helpful. I don’t see anything on the FAQ as to whether or not they asked him to issue an apology, I don’t even see the word apology mentioned, but I’ll concede that they probably didn’t seeing as I’d misunderstood the source I was pulling that tidbit from. cheers.

4 Likes

You sure about that?

What is inclusiveness?

In Cnet’s interview with Eich, from a few days before his resignation, Eich gives an indication what he means, by talking about working with people in Indonesia who oppose same-sex marriage:

We have a strong Indonesian community. We’re developing Firefox OS to go into market there. I have people there on the other side of this particular issue. They don’t bring it into Mozilla when they work in the Mozilla community. I met a lot of them at Mozcamp 2012 in Singapore. They don’t have quite the megaphone in that part of the world. But the Mozilla mission and our inclusiveness principles really must matter to include them too.
{…}
Do you think we should judge executives by their political beliefs?
Eich: For Mozilla, it’s problematic because of our principles of inclusiveness, because the Indonesian community supports me but doesn’t have quite the megaphone. We have to be careful to put the principles of inclusiveness first.

So, for Eich, inclusiveness means being careful not to alienate people who want to suppress the rights of others; whereas many of us see inclusiveness as a matter of supporting and extending the rights of those who have been and are excluded. I am fairly certain there are gay people in Indonesia.

Whose voice is more deserving of inclusion? The oppressed, or the oppressors?

1 Like

It is simple really, to be truly tolerant we must not tolerate intolerance.

“We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.” -Karl Popper

1 Like

Things went a LOT smoother behind the scenes for MLK once he got the cats on board, though. No mean feat, either. Cats hate speeches.

1 Like

Cats hate speeches.

Not to mention you’ve got to herd them together in the first place.

You sure about that? https://medium.com/p/7645a4bf8a24

And the real tragedy here is that Mozilla would have sorted this out satisfactorily if it hadn’t been sensationalized by the media and turned into an internet witch hunt.

He spewed the well-worn “witch hunt” talking point. Credibility on topic… lost.

Also, David Flanagan seems like yet another person who thinks the real tragedy is that people used their free speech rights to ask a bigoted, public leader to step down. Right… blame everyone else except the bigot’s actions while ignoring the real tragedy of how this bigot contributed to the loss of civil rights for Americans.

Like many who attack those who used their free speech rights to ask this bigoted CEO (who attacked civil rights) to step down, David Flanagan’s sense of ethical priorities is pretty screwed up. And, that’s tragic.

2 Likes

Speaking of…

2 Likes

Just the CEOs of “tolerant” and “progressive” organizations.

So is any company entitled to ask for the resignation of an employee whose actions off the job are not in accord with what that company sees as its world view??

1 Like

Maybe not any employee. The CEO should probably be somebody who believes in the company’s message, though.

3 Likes

Presumably that’s a response to all the grief he’s got himself recently for being a dirty sellout.

2 Likes

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.