Mozilla CEO resigns over anti-same-sex-marriage controversy

Celia Cyanide · Apr 4, 2014

slhuang said:
And in this particular case, in which he resigned instead of being fired -- as I asked above, what should anyone have done differently? You can argue the CEO was forced out by his unpopularity, but are you saying the employees shouldn't have spoken their minds? That idea is far more problematic and terrifying to me than the CEO feeling he should resign.

I really agree with this. A CEO who feels he should resign because the employees don't want him around is not much of a victim. He still left of his own free will. And I don't believe the employees should have to keep their mouths shut just so he doesn't have to know that they don't approve of his actions. And it IS his actions, not just his beliefs.

A while back, there was a controversy about The Susan G Komen foundation refusing to give money to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screenings because PP was pro-choice. It negatively impacted The Susan G Komen brand and made people much less likely to donate. The woman who initiated that policy resigned.

Gregg · Apr 4, 2014

At the time Eich made his contribution he was siding with the majority in California. The turnout for Prop 8 was huge and the vote to ban gay marriage won with over 52% of the vote. Maybe his contribution helped, maybe not.

That was 6 years ago. Attitudes toward gay marriage have changed significantly nationwide since then. I would venture to say that a number of states that have voted to ban gay marriage would vote otherwise today.

kuwisdelu · Apr 4, 2014

Celia Cyanide said:
You don't really have the right to say and do whatever you want and still keep your job. The world doesn't work like that. People are fired all the time for saying and doing things that put their company in a negative light. You can be fired for things you post on twitter. Why should this guy be treated any differently?

I'm suddenly reminded of this image that I saved a long time ago from 4chan...

I assume everyone defending Eich would defend this guy, too?

Roxxsmom · Apr 4, 2014

GailD said:
I find it interesting when people use the term 'bigot'. Wikipedia defines it as, If we call other people bigots, and refuse to work with them because of their views, what does that make us?

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

This becomes an infinite regression of my being bigoted because I'm intolerant of bigotry in others.

Sorry, but I'd have a heck of a time being sanguine about someone who believes I (or people I care about) shouldn't have the same legal rights as everyone else because of who or what we are. Maybe that makes me a bad person, but I see a difference here.

He wants to stop people who are not affecting him or harming him in any way from living their lives.

They want to stop him from stopping them from living their lives.

How are both positions equally bigoted?

Synonym · Apr 4, 2014

Kuwi, your example reminded me of a teacher that was fired, after someone figured out that she also wrote erotica.

Did her writing about sex somehow taint her ability to teach children? No. She was an adult, with a passion to write, and a pen name. Someone managed to tie her to that pen name and her career was ruined. Never was her actual job performance questioned, nor was there any evidence of wrongdoing on her part, while at work.

All it took was one person with an agenda and a whispering campaign. The whispers became a roar that the school board could not ignore. Each one may have been able to rationally understand that it was possible for this woman to separate her day job from her passion to write. However, this was no longer a case of reasonable people making wise decisions. They bowed to the knee jerk outrage of the larger group. So yes, I can certainly defend your example too.

Celia Cyanide · Apr 4, 2014

Synonym said:
Kuwi, your example reminded me of a teacher that was fired, after someone figured out that she also wrote erotica.

Did her writing about sex somehow taint her ability to teach children? No. She was an adult, with a passion to write, and a pen name. Someone managed to tie her to that pen name and her career was ruined. Never was her actual job performance questioned, nor was there any evidence of wrongdoing on her part, while at work.

All it took was one person with an agenda and a whispering campaign. The whispers became a roar that the school board could not ignore. Each one may have been able to rationally understand that it was possible for this woman to separate her day job from her passion to write. However, this was no longer a case of reasonable people making wise decisions. They bowed to the knee jerk outrage of the larger group. So yes, I can certainly defend your example too.

Do you know what 'lolicon' is?

Synonym · Apr 4, 2014

No. I don't. I'll look it up.

ULTRAGOTHA · Apr 4, 2014

Gregg said:
That was 6 years ago. Attitudes toward gay marriage have changed significantly nationwide since then. I would venture to say that a number of states that have voted to ban gay marriage would vote otherwise today.

See and this is the thing people seem to be forgetting. He gave that donation six years ago. There was a stink then, too, and Mozilla did not fire him. He kept his job.

But when Mozilla promoted him to CEO people protested Mozilla's actions, including employees and developers. People uninstalled Firefox and pulled their plugins.

So... are you all (generic, not Gregg) saying I shouldn't tell Mozilla I'm uninstalling Firefox due to their actions in hiring a CEO who donates money to deny my rights? Or that I shouldn't pull my plugin off their platform because they promoted a man known to support the suppression of my neighbor's rights?

He should be allowed to freely express his views without consequences from the government, I completely agree.

But you (generic) seem to be saying that I shouldn't be allowed to freely express my views to Mozilla.

Synonym · Apr 4, 2014

"a genre of manga and anime where childlike female characters are depicted in a sexualized manner or engaged in sexually explicit acts. The equivalent term for the sexualization of or attraction to young boys is shotacon."

Is this what you mean Celia?

Celia Cyanide · Apr 4, 2014

Synonym said:
"a genre of manga and anime where childlike female characters are depicted in a sexualized manner or engaged in sexually explicit acts. The equivalent term for the sexualization of or attraction to young boys is shotacon."

Is this what you mean Celia?

Yes. That is why dude lost his job (assuming he is a real person). It isn't really in the same vein as merely writing erotica.

kuwisdelu · Apr 4, 2014

Synonym said:
"a genre of manga and anime where childlike female characters are depicted in a sexualized manner or engaged in sexually explicit acts. The equivalent term for the sexualization of or attraction to young boys is shotacon."

Is this what you mean Celia?

That is most likely what the original poster meant.

What most people will take it to mean is pedophile.

Celia Cyanide · Apr 4, 2014

ULTRAGOTHA said:
So... are you all (generic, not Gregg) saying I shouldn't tell Mozilla I'm uninstalling Firefox due to their actions in hiring a CEO who donates money to deny my rights? Or that I shouldn't pull my plugin off their platform because they promoted a man known to support the suppression of my neighbor's rights?

Yes, that is what I am wondering, as well. I get that some people seem to think this is not fair, but I'm really not sure what they think should have happened. Should no one have said anything? Should he have chosen to stay, instead of choosing to leave?

kuwisdelu · Apr 4, 2014

1. I generally agree that employees should not be fired for expressing unpopular views.

2. I also realize that is not a realistic expectation of the world for practical reasons.

3. A CEO is not a typical employee.

4. He was not fired. He resigned.

ULTRAGOTHA · Apr 4, 2014

kuwisdelu said:
1. I generally agree that employees should not be fired for expressing unpopular views.

Yup! I agree with all you said.

And six years ago, employee and co-founder Brendan Eich was not fired for not only expressing an unpopular view, but spending $1000 to try to bring about oppression of his fellow-employees and Mozilla developers and their families.

Synonym · Apr 4, 2014

Celia Cyanide said:
Yes. That is why dude lost his job (assuming he is a real person). It isn't really in the same vein as merely writing erotica.

kuwisdelu said:
That is most likely what the original poster meant.

What most people will take it to mean is pedophile.

It isn't? To some, both would be equally horrible.

How many would be outraged to find there is quite a demand for women, who physically 'look' underage, to pose provocatively in schoolgirl outfits? (The photographer is careful to gain proof that these women are indeed old enough, while feeding the fantasy of their clients that they aren't.) Which brings us to the real problem--is this form of anime fantasy, or not? If it is fantasy, is it also a form of creative artistic expression? There's a lot of grey in this comparison, IMHO.

I've derailed the discussion for a moment. Sorry.

Celia Cyanide · Apr 4, 2014

Synonym said:
It isn't? To some, both would be equally horrible.

My only point was that you said you would defend this guy, but I wasn't sure you actually knew what he was fired for.

Synonym · Apr 4, 2014

I had an inkling of the subject, but I couldn't pin down the exact definition for you.

Synonym · Apr 4, 2014

There is some validity to the comment that this $1000 donation happened six years ago. What if Eich stood up in front of everyone in his company and confessed that he'd since had a change of heart, and no longer felt as he did back then? Or if he stood up and said, you know, I did give them $1000. But I also gave $1000 to each of the groups that were opposing that Proposition, because I believe it should be up to the people to decide.

It wouldn't have mattered, because he'd already been declared guilty. We'll never really know if any of those things had happened, since there's no point in him trying to explain.

Lillith1991 · Apr 4, 2014

Not to be glib, but the guy chose to resign instead of cost the company money. He wasn't fired, and as much as I despise his view he has the right to it. Just as employees and people have the right to think he shouldn't be CEO, and exercised that right very effectivly.

I certainly wouldn't want to work for/use a producted endorsed by someone who thinks I shouldn't have the same freedoms a heterosexual person does. Just like I wouldn't want to work for/use a product being endorsed by someone who thought I shouldn't have the same right they do because I'm a Person of color or female.

At the end of the day he made a choice that bit him on the ass, and he chose to resign instead of cost the company money.

Lillith1991 · Apr 4, 2014

Synonym said:
It wouldn't have mattered, because he'd already been declared guilty. We'll never really know if any of those things had happened, since there's no point in him trying to explain.

I respectfully disagree. People may of made allowances for him if that was the case, and he just came out and said so. By hiding it, he damned himself. Maybe not intentionally, no one thinks donnations from a half decade ago will effect their job. But, that doesn't excuse those donnations.

Proof he'd changed or also donnated to pro gay marriage campeings as well could of helped his case in the eyes of thoss people.

raburrell · Apr 4, 2014

Guilty of what? Was there a trial?

As far as it being 6 years ago, yes, it was, and many people have had a change of heart on the subject since then (though I have my doubts about how many people who contributed significant money towards Prop 8 are among them). But it was also a particularly vile and hate-filled campaign.

The campaign’s strategy was to debase gay families as deviant and unhealthy while insinuating that gay people are engaged in a full-scale campaign to convert children to their cause.

If I was working for a guy who'd paid for ads that said things like that about my family, I'm not sure 6 years would be long enough for bygones.

Synonym · Apr 4, 2014

This is all well and good, but how will any of you know if you're supporting a business that's run by a person with views that you find offensive?

One thing is certain, any person that hopes to climb the ladder to the rarefied air of CEO-land will now keep their views to themselves. They might even go so far as to mouth support for the popular cause of the day if it seems expedient.

(ETA to raburrell) Guilty by public acclaim of not being on the correct side of the issue, I suppose.

raburrell · Apr 4, 2014

Synonym said:
This is all well and good, but how will any of you know if you're supporting a business that's run by a person with views that you find offensive?

The views themselves, I don't care about. When they actively support causes that hurt people, I do. As for how, transparent campaign donation records are a good start.

One thing is certain, any person that hopes to climb the ladder to the rarefied air of CEO-land will now keep their views to themselves. They might even go so far as to mouth support for the popular cause of the day if it seems expedient.

No, but it's certainly why they tend to oppose the above.

eta, to your eta: 'guilty by public acclaim' basically means having to own the consequences of your speech, IMO. People should have to own their words.

Alessandra Kelley · Apr 4, 2014

Synonym said:
There is some validity to the comment that this $1000 donation happened six years ago. What if Eich stood up in front of everyone in his company and confessed that he'd since had a change of heart, and no longer felt as he did back then? Or if he stood up and said, you know, I did give them $1000. But I also gave $1000 to each of the groups that were opposing that Proposition, because I believe it should be up to the people to decide.

It wouldn't have mattered, because he'd already been declared guilty. We'll never really know if any of those things had happened, since there's no point in him trying to explain.

As for your first paragraph, there is no sign that Eich did what you speculatively say (I believe such donations are a matter of public record and can be searched).

As for your second paragraph, you are remarkably confident about what does not matter and what there is no point in doing. I imagine we can easily and readily know if any of those things had actually happened, because such donations are a matter of public record.

For example, here's the FEC individual contributions page:
http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/norindsea.shtml

Type in Mr. Eich's name and you can see what political committees he's donated to (Hmm. The Committee to Re-Elect Ron Paul, I see).

Lillith1991 · Apr 4, 2014

Synonym said:
This is all well and good, but how will any of you know if you're supporting a business that's run by a person with views that you find offensive?

One thing is certain, any person that hopes to climb the ladder to the rarefied air of CEO-land will now keep their views to themselves. They might even go so far as to mouth support for the popular cause of the day if it seems expedient.

CEO's and owners of company's which think like this have been voicing their views recently, if you're paying attention it's easy not to support those people.
I do agree though that this man resigning because of pressure is likely to force other people who've done/supported similar things underground.

Mozilla CEO resigns over anti-same-sex-marriage controversy

Joker Groupie

Life is good

Revolutionize the World

Beastly Fido

Joker Groupie

Merovingian Superhero

Joker Groupie

Revolutionize the World

Joker Groupie

Revolutionize the World

Merovingian Superhero

Joker Groupie

The Hobbit-Vulcan hybrid

The Hobbit-Vulcan hybrid

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

Sophipygian

The Hobbit-Vulcan hybrid