Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Isaac Hill
Systems Analyst????
Posts: 547
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:35 pm UTC
Location: Middletown, RI

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Isaac Hill » Tue Apr 08, 2014 9:26 pm UTC

The problem isn't that Eich was living by Eich's religious beliefs. The problem is that Eich was working to pass a law forcing everyone to live by Eich's religious beliefs. That impedes my religious freedom to not be Eich's type of Christian.

If Eich's belief that gay marriage is wrong only led him to personally avoid gay weddings, not try to prevent them from taking place, I'd be far more sympathetic to him.

MI -I'm pretty sure Heisenberg isn't advocating any type of law, just hoping to convince people to choose not to boycott of their own free will.
Alleged "poems"
that don't follow a rhyme scheme
are not poetry

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Heisenberg » Tue Apr 08, 2014 9:48 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Rather, someone's donations were used to determine if he deserved a job as the CEO of the Mozilla Corporation. And I for one am *completely* comfortable with the political speech and monetary actions of a CEO being used to determine whether that person is fit to remain CEO.

If that were the case, why was he promoted to CEO in the first place? This donation has not only been public knowledge, it made the news 2 years ago. So if the board felt his donations made him unfit for the job, why was he given the job in the first place?
Because they didn't know at that time that there would be public outcry as a result of those donations?

Are you really not understanding this?

So... not what you said before, at all. The board knew about his donation. They didn't care and thought he'd be a good CEO. Then when a dating website started to organize a minor boycott, that's when they flipped their shit and fired him over the thing they knew about and didn't think would impact his running of the company.
MartianInvader wrote:What exactly is Heisenberg advocating here? A law that would force people to continue using a product if the only thing that's changed is their perception of an employee? Or a law that prevents companies from firing an employee if that employee's employment is hurting their business? Or some way of preventing a CEO from stepping down?
None of those things. I'm saying that the board made a major error in judgement when they promoted and immediately forced out Eich. If they thought his politics would make him a bad CEO, they should never have promoted him. If they thought he was a good CEO despite his politics, they shouldn't have forced him out. A company that punishes its employees anytime they receive a little public pressure is a shitty company.

Zcorp
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 3:14 am UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Zcorp » Tue Apr 08, 2014 9:55 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:None of those things. I'm saying that the board made a major error in judgement when they promoted and immediately forced out Eich. If they thought his politics would make him a bad CEO, they should never have promoted him.

I don't think anyone here would disagree that the board shouldn't of promoted a bigot that acts on his bigotry to be the CEO of their company. Especially considering the companies ideals. It seems to me they made a mistake and quickly fixed it.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26818
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Apr 08, 2014 10:03 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:So... not what you said before, at all. The board knew about his donation. They didn't care and thought he'd be a good CEO. Then when a dating website started to organize a minor boycott, that's when they flipped their shit and fired him over the thing they knew about and didn't think would impact his running of the company.
They made an error in judgment when they assumed his donation wouldn't have any negative consequences for their company, looks like.

A company that punishes its employees anytime they receive a little public pressure is a shitty company.
Say it with me one more time:
The CEO.
Is not.
The same.
As a regular employee.

Is not the same.

Not the same.

The next time you trot out that same straw man whinge about "employees" being punished as though this is the same as canning the janitor for the cable news channel he prefers, I'm just going to assume that you're not actually reading this thread at all.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Apr 09, 2014 12:50 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:And I don't much like the idea of my donations being used to determine if I deserve a job or not.
I don't like that idea either, but as with Heisenberg's point, I can't believe you honestly still believe that's what's happening here.

Rather, someone's donations were used to determine if he deserved a job as the CEO of the Mozilla Corporation. And I for one am *completely* comfortable with the political speech and monetary actions of a CEO being used to determine whether that person is fit to remain CEO.


Meh, in my experience, CEOs get away with a shitton more than normal people. If something is deemed acceptable cause to fire the powerful, I have difficulty believing it will never be used on those without power.

Yeah, sure, lobbying against gay marriage is a pretty terrible stance, and definitely the kind of viewpoint I wish to see die out...imagine if this sort of hostility became pervasive. Imagine if it were considered normal for the NRA to get random people who maybe, once, said something nice about gun control fired. This happens in the political arena, absolutely...and that's fine. It's directly relevant there. But many jobs aren't terribly relevant to random political issue x(and mozilla isn't strongly in the marriage business or anything). I'm not overly fond of a world in which employers end up essentially dictating political speech issues to employees.

1) Opposing Eich does not imply "siding with" Yagan.
2) Yagan's donation was half as much as Eich's, and matched by a later donation to Obama's campaign (I'm not saying this completely makes up for it, but it is conceivable to see that as less bad than donating only to a cause I oppose).
3) Yagan, like the previously mentioned CEO of HP, seems to have changed his tune on gay marriage in the intervening decade, whereas Eich has not indicated any such change of heart.


1 is the most important of the lot, IMO. It is perfectly rational to acknowledge both parties as imperfect. I can definitely see the appeal of the hypocrisy charge in general, though. While it shouldn't apply to everyone commenting, certainly when discussing the individuals involved, it's kind of amusing.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10547
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Apr 09, 2014 12:55 am UTC

But you can bet your ass that if a low level employee had done something embarrassing enough to potentially cost millions, that low level grunt would be canned like corn. The fact that on this rare occasion a CEO can face the same fate as the grunt is reassuring, not alarming.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26818
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Apr 09, 2014 12:58 am UTC

And that's the reason the low-level grunt's political views are far less relevant than the CEO's: the low level grunt is unlikely to get enough publicity for it to matter in the slightest to the company.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Apr 09, 2014 1:01 am UTC

I'm curious why people think OkCupid or the public were the first to get outraged over this? Mozilla employees were the one's that brought this issue to bear first.

If that doesn't convince you he was a poor fit to be CEO, I'm not sure what will.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Carlington
Posts: 1588
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:46 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia.

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Carlington » Wed Apr 09, 2014 1:18 am UTC

The amount of saying the same thing back and forth that's taking place in this thread is beginning to make my head hurt. Some new points have been made, and we've cleared up the fact that nobody actually believes it's a freedom-of-speech issue, so that's good. The main issues now seem to be "I don't understand the difference between a CEO and a janitor, they're both employees" and "If he was so ill-suited to the role of CEO, who put him there in the first place?" The former of these has been addressed ad nauseum now, so I'm going to leave it alone and jump straight to the latter.

Now, I'm going to approach this by way of analogy. Let's say, for example, that I apply for a job. One of the stated requirements of the job is that I dress and style myself professionally and conservatively. So, before applying for the job, I go and get a proper haircut, I have a good shave, and I put on a suit. Since I meet the requirements for the job well, I'm hired. Now, let's say that after two years of doing my job well and nothing else, I get a septum piercing, dye my hair green, and grow a beard. I feel that it's reasonable for me to be fired, or at least told to shape up, since it's not drastically affecting the company. Do you agree? Further, to bring ourselves closer to the truth, let's make the company a big business corporation, and let's make my job liaising with potential clients and giving a good first impression. Now, since I've undergone this radical punk transformation, clients who meet with me are deciding not to pursue our business. Further, existing clients with whom I'm responsible for maintaining an ongoing rapport start to lose interest in partnering with our business. I could potentially cost the company millions of dollars, and it's because I'm acting in a manner that our clients find disagreeable. Now, it's really reasonable to fire me. I'd be surprised if I were even able to get a job in the industry again afterwards.

Dial a couple of those factors up to 11, and make a couple of tweaks to the details, and you've got what happened to Brendan Eich - only, he wasn't fired, he stepped down before it could get that far. He was the CEO of a company. Furthermore, he was the CEO of Mozilla. Part of his job description is "Keep shareholders and users of our product happy. Present a public face that is as agreeable as possible to our user base." He did something that alienated a large number of people in the user base, and they threatened to take their business elsewhere, potentially costing the company millions. It is not unreasonable that he should be removed from his position, by some means. In fact, you could argue (and I would argue) that the company had a responsibility to its shareholders and to its user base to take action, lest they find themselves in a position where they cannot provide the services promised to their users, nor are they providing the promised benefits to their stakeholders.
Kewangji: Posdy zwei tosdy osdy oady. Bork bork bork, hoppity syphilis bork.

Eebster the Great: What specifically is moving faster than light in these examples?
doogly: Hands waving furiously.

Please use he/him/his pronouns when referring to me.

mike-l
Posts: 2758
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:16 am UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby mike-l » Wed Apr 09, 2014 2:31 am UTC

Carlington wrote:Now, I'm going to approach this by way of analogy. Let's say, for example, that I apply for a job. One of the stated requirements of the job is that I dress and style myself professionally and conservatively.
...

Now, let's say that after two years of doing my job well and nothing else, I get a septum piercing, dye my hair green, and grow a beard.


Not really a good analogy though, better would be that after being hired, someone in the public finds a 2 year old photo of you on Facebook with piercings and died hair, and this gets you fired. Oh and your boss new about the photo when hiring you and new that it was available for the public to find. And your boss's colleagues and other employees new about it and told him not to hire you because of it.

I don't think it was unreasonable that he was fired, but your analogy really doesn't fit.
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26818
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Apr 09, 2014 2:43 am UTC

Except that's complete bullshit as an analogy, because those old photos won't cost the company millions of dollars.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11265
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Wed Apr 09, 2014 2:54 am UTC

I think we're at the point in the thread where Group A, 'People who understand the issue', are oppressing Group B, 'People who are trying not to understand'. Oppressing them, simply for voicing their opinions.

You monsters.

User avatar
Carlington
Posts: 1588
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:46 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia.

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Carlington » Wed Apr 09, 2014 3:05 am UTC

mike-l, my analogy is actually a better fit than you make it out to be. A two year old Facebook photo doesn't have that much bearing on who I am or how I present myself in the present. However, publically holding a homophobic viewpoint, and never recanting that viewpoint, does have an effect on the person Eich is, and how he presents himself in the present. Also, you've nicely skipped over the part where his viewpoint is only relevant to his job because it's causing the company he controls to lose business. This is not "some punter in the public finds out he did a bad thing once", this is "there's reason to believe he holds an opinion that a lot of his userbase finds disagreeable, and now they don't want to do business with him, as is their prerogative, and since his job is mostly getting people to want to do business with him and he's now doing a shit job of it, we should probably get somebody else to do that job."
Kewangji: Posdy zwei tosdy osdy oady. Bork bork bork, hoppity syphilis bork.

Eebster the Great: What specifically is moving faster than light in these examples?
doogly: Hands waving furiously.

Please use he/him/his pronouns when referring to me.

mike-l
Posts: 2758
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:16 am UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby mike-l » Wed Apr 09, 2014 3:06 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Except that's complete bullshit as an analogy, because those old photos won't cost the company millions of dollars.

Sorry, when I said 'better analogy' I meant only that the timeline of the actions are more in line. His analogy was where an employee basically dupes their employer and changes their behaviour after being hired, which is nothing like what happened here. And the context of it was Carlington addressing whether he should have been hired in the first place. To be clear, I don't think dying your hair green is in any way comparable to actively campaigning to deny rights to a large minority, and I have absolutely no issue with Eich being forced out. I think maybe the board was dumb to hire him in the first place, but that shouldn't stop them from realizing their mistake and fixing it.

Carlington wrote:mike-l, my analogy is actually a better fit than you make it out to be. A two year old Facebook photo doesn't have that much bearing on who I am or how I present myself in the present. However, publically holding a homophobic viewpoint, and never recanting that viewpoint, does have an effect on the person Eich is, and how he presents himself in the present. Also, you've nicely skipped over the part where his viewpoint is only relevant to his job because it's causing the company he controls to lose business. This is not "some punter in the public finds out he did a bad thing once", this is "there's reason to believe he holds an opinion that a lot of his userbase finds disagreeable, and now they don't want to do business with him, as is their prerogative, and since his job is mostly getting people to want to do business with him and he's now doing a shit job of it, we should probably get somebody else to do that job."

You're right. My analogy is terrible. But that's because (and I mean no insult by this) it was based on a bad analogy. There is a huge difference between changing your behaviour and facing the consequences of it, and being hired with that behaviour completely known and then being forced out because of it. This is in no way to say he shouldn't have been forced out. But it has no relation whatsoever to your analogy, which I say again, you claimed was in response to "If he was so ill-suited to the role of CEO, who put him there in the first place?"
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Apr 09, 2014 4:16 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:But you can bet your ass that if a low level employee had done something embarrassing enough to potentially cost millions, that low level grunt would be canned like corn. The fact that on this rare occasion a CEO can face the same fate as the grunt is reassuring, not alarming.


I suspect that the standard of costliness on the part of the grunt is much lower than millions of dollars. Much, much lower.

And yeah, it probably already happens to some degree, we just don't hear about it because a random grunt getting fired doesn't make the news much.

The particular analogy is...fuzzy. I'm going to ignore the analogy and just stick to the original issue. I don't think that homophobia is always, necessarily costly. I mean, it's basically never a plus, but didn't it turn out to not really hurt Chik-fil-a all that much? And that seemed like a much more corporate applicable thing(being a current event, rather than something from a coupla years back). And involving bigger numbers. Lotsa publicity. Sales increased.

While it's useful information from a customer perspective to know "hey, this dude is a jackass" for sure, I think the assumption of costliness is much fuzzier than it is portrayed.

Edit: I also think people would be a whole lot more outraged if a conservative organization had done the exact same thing to someone because they donated to a pro-gay marriage cause. This indicates a serious "the end justifies the means" mentality. That's...worrisome.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26818
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Apr 09, 2014 4:59 am UTC

It's not an end justifies the means mentality, just like it almost never is when people make that claim to try to dismiss something as Machiavellian or whatever you're trying to do.

It's just a mentality that the means in this case led to a better end than the same means would in your hypothetical. So however good or bad you think the means are, there's no getting around the fact that the hypothetical situation is still the worse one overall.

(And I think something like this is usually the case when accusations are made of ends justifying means. It's not that the ends justify any means one might use, but rather that ends and the means to reach them have to be considered together, since neither happens in isolation.)
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Diadem » Wed Apr 09, 2014 8:42 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Edit: I also think people would be a whole lot more outraged if a conservative organization had done the exact same thing to someone because they donated to a pro-gay marriage cause. This indicates a serious "the end justifies the means" mentality. That's...worrisome.

So what? Sometimes the end does justify the means. Sometimes, it does not. If my goal is to build toy train collection, going to stores to buy toy trains is a perfectly acceptable means, while breaking into my neighbor's apartment to steal his collection is not. That seems fairly self-evident, so I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say here?

Your two scenarios are not equivalent. In one, you are doing something for a good cause, in the other, for a bad one. Of course people will be outraged if you do something for a bad cause. What else did you expect?
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby leady » Wed Apr 09, 2014 9:29 am UTC

Except of course that your view of good vs bad in that debate is manifestly just subjective preference. I think there is a need to explain why redefining a term is "biggotted" in the first place as opposed to something more clear (bus seats for instance), show a material level of impact to the affected group and explain why trampling over the religous perspective isn't itself biggotted. All this is asserted in this thread as a given, it is not.

I also find it interesting that this thread has gone on for 5 pages and yet those quite happy to silence dissenters for thought crimes have yet to ask about motivations once.

he may have recanted his views personally, they may never even have been his views (the when in rome effect). Its not even that unlikely that as a privacy advocate he might just be like me and as soon as dogs were loosed on him, he refused to explain on principle (the f**k you its none of your business effect)

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Ormurinn » Wed Apr 09, 2014 10:11 am UTC

I found this interesting;

Image

Now, this is only firefox users, and ones using the firefox feedback tool - maybe Mozilla doesn't care about the opinion of users as much as content creators using it's devkits (who as a group might wildly diverge from general opinion).

Still, it's an interesting facet of the "traditionalist CEO bad for business" angle.
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

User avatar
Carlington
Posts: 1588
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:46 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia.

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Carlington » Wed Apr 09, 2014 10:15 am UTC

...all of which are probably not going go over well with the public, and thus all of which mean he is not doing his job properly. Also, nobody is happy to silence dissenters for thought crimes, and that strawman is so tired. It's not even funny anymore, it just leaves us standing slack-jawed, thinking "Have they still not come up with anything else to say yet? Were they not listening when we told them that's not what's happening here?"

Also, ninja'd by Ormurinn: That graph...is really confusing. What's it trying to convey? Because it's doing a really bad job of it.
Kewangji: Posdy zwei tosdy osdy oady. Bork bork bork, hoppity syphilis bork.

Eebster the Great: What specifically is moving faster than light in these examples?
doogly: Hands waving furiously.

Please use he/him/his pronouns when referring to me.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Apr 09, 2014 11:34 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:It's not an end justifies the means mentality, just like it almost never is when people make that claim to try to dismiss something as Machiavellian or whatever you're trying to do.

It's just a mentality that the means in this case led to a better end than the same means would in your hypothetical. So however good or bad you think the means are, there's no getting around the fact that the hypothetical situation is still the worse one overall.

(And I think something like this is usually the case when accusations are made of ends justifying means. It's not that the ends justify any means one might use, but rather that ends and the means to reach them have to be considered together, since neither happens in isolation.)


What effect? The prop 8 battle is long since over and done with. What of virtue has been achieved here?

Diadem wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Edit: I also think people would be a whole lot more outraged if a conservative organization had done the exact same thing to someone because they donated to a pro-gay marriage cause. This indicates a serious "the end justifies the means" mentality. That's...worrisome.

So what? Sometimes the end does justify the means. Sometimes, it does not. If my goal is to build toy train collection, going to stores to buy toy trains is a perfectly acceptable means, while breaking into my neighbor's apartment to steal his collection is not. That seems fairly self-evident, so I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say here?

Your two scenarios are not equivalent. In one, you are doing something for a good cause, in the other, for a bad one. Of course people will be outraged if you do something for a bad cause. What else did you expect?


Everyone thinks their cause is the good one. The religious folks who dislike gays will of course think their cause is good, and yours bad. If all that is needed to justify an action is an end you feel is good, well...that justifies doing basically anything.

And I'm not sure what the end actually is here, 'cept "punish him for having the wrong views". It's not as if a pile of folks can now get married or not get married as a result of this.

Re:graph, I'm also not sure what's being conveyed here.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby leady » Wed Apr 09, 2014 11:36 am UTC

How is it a strawman if its a pretty accurate description of what happened? (the threat of the dogs of PC being unleashed to kick up a media stink as a viewpoint control mechanism) Not to mention that silencing in this manner has been actively supported as desireable by several people in this thread?

Its not illegal, its not objectively wrong, but it should leave a nasty taste in anyones mouth like the opposite scenario would

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Apr 09, 2014 11:59 am UTC

Ormurinn wrote:Now, this is only firefox users, and ones using the firefox feedback tool - maybe Mozilla doesn't care about the opinion of users as much as content creators using it's devkits (who as a group might wildly diverge from general opinion).

Still, it's an interesting facet of the "traditionalist CEO bad for business" angle.
Can you explain what the graph is showing, or perhaps, link to it's source? It looks like it's 'users reporting satisfaction with Firefox', but I'm curious how you distinguish 'gay protests' vs 'Christian protests'?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Ormurinn » Wed Apr 09, 2014 12:13 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
Ormurinn wrote:Now, this is only firefox users, and ones using the firefox feedback tool - maybe Mozilla doesn't care about the opinion of users as much as content creators using it's devkits (who as a group might wildly diverge from general opinion).

Still, it's an interesting facet of the "traditionalist CEO bad for business" angle.
Can you explain what the graph is showing, or perhaps, link to it's source? It looks like it's 'users reporting satisfaction with Firefox', but I'm curious how you distinguish 'gay protests' vs 'Christian protests'?


It's from a Christian blog I found whilst researching some stuff for a post I was going to write. People rating themselves either happy or sad with firefox, on mozillas website. The 'gay protests' vs 'Christian protests' annotations are presumably from the blogger - I would assume based on the dates.

Theres obviously a small bump around the okcupid boycott/media firestorm, then a massive one on the day Eich's resignation was announced
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Apr 09, 2014 12:17 pm UTC

Oh, so it's not assuredly Christian protests at all. I would also be interested to see (although I don't think it'd be possible) how many users scoring happy/sad as a function of first time reporting. Or indeed, first time using Firefox.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26818
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Apr 09, 2014 12:28 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:It's not an end justifies the means mentality, just like it almost never is when people make that claim to try to dismiss something as Machiavellian or whatever you're trying to do.

It's just a mentality that the means in this case led to a better end than the same means would in your hypothetical. So however good or bad you think the means are, there's no getting around the fact that the hypothetical situation is still the worse one overall.

(And I think something like this is usually the case when accusations are made of ends justifying means. It's not that the ends justify any means one might use, but rather that ends and the means to reach them have to be considered together, since neither happens in isolation.)


What effect? The prop 8 battle is long since over and done with. What of virtue has been achieved here?

Diadem wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Edit: I also think people would be a whole lot more outraged if a conservative organization had done the exact same thing to someone because they donated to a pro-gay marriage cause. This indicates a serious "the end justifies the means" mentality. That's...worrisome.

So what? Sometimes the end does justify the means. Sometimes, it does not. If my goal is to build toy train collection, going to stores to buy toy trains is a perfectly acceptable means, while breaking into my neighbor's apartment to steal his collection is not. That seems fairly self-evident, so I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say here?

Your two scenarios are not equivalent. In one, you are doing something for a good cause, in the other, for a bad one. Of course people will be outraged if you do something for a bad cause. What else did you expect?


Everyone thinks their cause is the good one. The religious folks who dislike gays will of course think their cause is good, and yours bad. If all that is needed to justify an action is an end you feel is good, well...that justifies doing basically anything.

And I'm not sure what the end actually is here, 'cept "punish him for having the wrong views". It's not as if a pile of folks can now get married or not get married as a result of this.

Re:graph, I'm also not sure what's being conveyed here.
Yes, no shit everyone thinks their cause is the good one, and everyone is happy when their cause is advanced and unhappy when it's impeded (or when the opposing cause is advanced). That's not hypocrisy. That's not a double standard. That's not the end justifying the means.

What point do you think you're making? So far, you're just stating the obvious as though you've forced us into the amazing new realization that opinions are subjective.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

aoeu
Posts: 325
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 4:58 pm UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby aoeu » Wed Apr 09, 2014 1:34 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:It's not an end justifies the means mentality, just like it almost never is when people make that claim to try to dismiss something as Machiavellian or whatever you're trying to do.

It's just a mentality that the means in this case led to a better end than the same means would in your hypothetical. So however good or bad you think the means are, there's no getting around the fact that the hypothetical situation is still the worse one overall.

(And I think something like this is usually the case when accusations are made of ends justifying means. It's not that the ends justify any means one might use, but rather that ends and the means to reach them have to be considered together, since neither happens in isolation.)


What effect? The prop 8 battle is long since over and done with. What of virtue has been achieved here?

Diadem wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Edit: I also think people would be a whole lot more outraged if a conservative organization had done the exact same thing to someone because they donated to a pro-gay marriage cause. This indicates a serious "the end justifies the means" mentality. That's...worrisome.

So what? Sometimes the end does justify the means. Sometimes, it does not. If my goal is to build toy train collection, going to stores to buy toy trains is a perfectly acceptable means, while breaking into my neighbor's apartment to steal his collection is not. That seems fairly self-evident, so I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say here?

Your two scenarios are not equivalent. In one, you are doing something for a good cause, in the other, for a bad one. Of course people will be outraged if you do something for a bad cause. What else did you expect?


Everyone thinks their cause is the good one. The religious folks who dislike gays will of course think their cause is good, and yours bad. If all that is needed to justify an action is an end you feel is good, well...that justifies doing basically anything.

And I'm not sure what the end actually is here, 'cept "punish him for having the wrong views". It's not as if a pile of folks can now get married or not get married as a result of this.

Re:graph, I'm also not sure what's being conveyed here.
Yes, no shit everyone thinks their cause is the good one, and everyone is happy when their cause is advanced and unhappy when it's impeded (or when the opposing cause is advanced). That's not hypocrisy. That's not a double standard. That's not the end justifying the means.

What point do you think you're making? So far, you're just stating the obvious as though you've forced us into the amazing new realization that opinions are subjective.

The fastest way to assure that people will get fired for holding your political views is advocating for people to get fired for political views. In this thread we even have many esteemed internet commentators vying to achieve political dominance by outspending the (granted, for now, ex-) CEO of a half-a-billion-a-year-revenue company. Oh, the level of self-awareness of people.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby leady » Wed Apr 09, 2014 1:48 pm UTC

I think the point is that there are some political positions that even if you don't believe in objective ethics, the overwhelming majority of people will side with it being subjectively wrong.

The obvious type of example is that you are down to say 5% of folks (the crazy ones) if you advocate "group X can be assaulted in the street legally"

What this is a dispute of usage of a specific term to widen its current definition, without (in most cases and I would assume California) actually providing any material rights - its an issue of social normalisation. Further its one that splits the population pretty much down the middle. Silencing dissentors over a nomenclature change seems highly disproportionate and does look a paper thin distance from doing it based on mainstream party political belief.

That would be why its getting the flak

mike-l
Posts: 2758
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:16 am UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby mike-l » Wed Apr 09, 2014 3:15 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote: I also think people would be a whole lot more outraged if a conservative organization had done the exact same thing to someone because they donated to a pro-gay marriage cause. This indicates a serious "the end justifies the means" mentality. That's...worrisome.


It's only "ends justify the means" if the outrage was over things that they consider ok in this case. Eg if someone got all up in arms that 'you shouldn't be fired over political speech' in one case but not the other. More likely though people would simply be upset because it's an indication that the views of the company are drastically out of line with their own, and there is nothing wrong or hypocritical about that
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Belial » Wed Apr 09, 2014 3:27 pm UTC

mike-l wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote: I also think people would be a whole lot more outraged if a conservative organization had done the exact same thing to someone because they donated to a pro-gay marriage cause. This indicates a serious "the end justifies the means" mentality. That's...worrisome.


It's only "ends justify the means" if the outrage was over things that they consider ok in this case. Eg if someone got all up in arms that 'you shouldn't be fired over political speech' in one case but not the other. More likely though people would simply be upset because it's an indication that the views of the company are drastically out of line with their own, and there is nothing wrong or hypocritical about that


Precisely. While I would be upset in the situation Tyndmyr describes, I wouldn't be upset because we should all be able to work together regardless of beliefs. I'd be upset because that company is a bunch of homophobes.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26818
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Apr 09, 2014 3:38 pm UTC

aoeu wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:It's not an end justifies the means mentality, just like it almost never is when people make that claim to try to dismiss something as Machiavellian or whatever you're trying to do.

It's just a mentality that the means in this case led to a better end than the same means would in your hypothetical. So however good or bad you think the means are, there's no getting around the fact that the hypothetical situation is still the worse one overall.

(And I think something like this is usually the case when accusations are made of ends justifying means. It's not that the ends justify any means one might use, but rather that ends and the means to reach them have to be considered together, since neither happens in isolation.)


What effect? The prop 8 battle is long since over and done with. What of virtue has been achieved here?

Diadem wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Edit: I also think people would be a whole lot more outraged if a conservative organization had done the exact same thing to someone because they donated to a pro-gay marriage cause. This indicates a serious "the end justifies the means" mentality. That's...worrisome.

So what? Sometimes the end does justify the means. Sometimes, it does not. If my goal is to build toy train collection, going to stores to buy toy trains is a perfectly acceptable means, while breaking into my neighbor's apartment to steal his collection is not. That seems fairly self-evident, so I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say here?

Your two scenarios are not equivalent. In one, you are doing something for a good cause, in the other, for a bad one. Of course people will be outraged if you do something for a bad cause. What else did you expect?


Everyone thinks their cause is the good one. The religious folks who dislike gays will of course think their cause is good, and yours bad. If all that is needed to justify an action is an end you feel is good, well...that justifies doing basically anything.

And I'm not sure what the end actually is here, 'cept "punish him for having the wrong views". It's not as if a pile of folks can now get married or not get married as a result of this.

Re:graph, I'm also not sure what's being conveyed here.
Yes, no shit everyone thinks their cause is the good one, and everyone is happy when their cause is advanced and unhappy when it's impeded (or when the opposing cause is advanced). That's not hypocrisy. That's not a double standard. That's not the end justifying the means.

What point do you think you're making? So far, you're just stating the obvious as though you've forced us into the amazing new realization that opinions are subjective.

The fastest way to assure that people will get fired for holding your political views is advocating for people to get fired for political views. In this thread we even have many esteemed internet commentators vying to achieve political dominance by outspending the (granted, for now, ex-) CEO of a half-a-billion-a-year-revenue company. Oh, the level of self-awareness of people.

Okay, but you're moving the goalposts again. No one here has argued that there will never ever in all eternity be any negative consequences whatsoever from this or similar actions.

It may not have been the best way to go about things, but that doesn't mean it was unreasonable or hypocritical.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10547
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Apr 09, 2014 4:03 pm UTC

On a side note, is there an app or something that lets you know which companies to boycott for what reasons?

Like, if you want to avoid homophobic companies, it will list those, but if you want to avoid "pro-gay" companies, it lists those too? You check off 'living wage' or something and it will list all brands that use a significant amount of labor below a 'living wage' such as Walmart or McDonald's. And so forth.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Apr 09, 2014 4:06 pm UTC

You might check the BBB. I also remember seeing an app that rated a bunch of companies based on environmental friendliness, worker wages, politics, etc., but I'm always a bit skeptical of things like that. Organic yo.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

mike-l
Posts: 2758
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:16 am UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby mike-l » Wed Apr 09, 2014 4:15 pm UTC

That's sometimes hard to classify. Is Mozilla pro-gay marriage for firing their anti-gay marriage CEO over financial ramifications? Are they anti-gay marriage for appointing a long time major player in their organization as CEO who happened to be anti-gay marriage?

Short of using corporate funds to donate to political campaigns or advertising themselves, it's kind of hard to ascribe a view point to an entire brand
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26818
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Apr 09, 2014 4:35 pm UTC

There is an app (at least for Android) called "Buycott", which will tell you the network of ownership companies have and which allows user-defined campaigns based on whatever you like.

Then you can scan the barcode of a product and have the app tell you what companies profit from it, and whether any of your subscribed campaigns include those companies.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10547
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Apr 09, 2014 4:50 pm UTC

I'm always skeptical of anything labelled 'organic' or 'natural'. But that's in part because I am in love with GMO because it could solve virtually everything.

I really wish that someone would try to rename coal as 'organic natural energy' out of spite.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Apr 09, 2014 6:41 pm UTC

mike-l wrote:That's sometimes hard to classify. Is Mozilla pro-gay marriage for firing their anti-gay marriage CEO over financial ramifications? Are they anti-gay marriage for appointing a long time major player in their organization as CEO who happened to be anti-gay marriage?

Short of using corporate funds to donate to political campaigns or advertising themselves, it's kind of hard to ascribe a view point to an entire brand


*shrug* I mostly use chrome. Did before and after this particular thing, because I'm fond of it. Public/work computers excepted, obviously.

But yeah, I wouldn't necessarily assume that an entire corporation holds monolithic beliefs on something. It's one thing if the corporation itself has thrown in heavily with a given side...then yeah, there's a corporate viewpoint to chat about.

But one can't assume that the whole company believes x, any more than it's reasonable to assume that America freaking loves golf because Obama played golf once a coupla years back.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Apr 10, 2014 7:30 pm UTC

I figured people knew this already, but based on the past page or so... I guess not.

http://www.citizengo.org/en/6212-take-no-zilla-pledge
Together, let our statement be heard: “We do not support companies that do not support freedom of speech and conscience rights”


I find #NoZilla to be just as insane as the original Okcupid protest. But the number of protests against Firefox has grown over the handling of Brendan Eich.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby Izawwlgood » Thu Apr 10, 2014 7:40 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:But the number of protests against Firefox has grown over the handling of Brendan Eich.
Maybe because people keep making the mistake the NoZilla group is doing; mincing 'freedom of speech' with 'ramifications for actions'?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10547
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Brendan Eich steps down as Mozilla CEO

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Apr 10, 2014 7:49 pm UTC

Free speech is the ability to march down Main Street wearing a Klan robe. Free association is the ability to fire the person wearing Klan robes.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests