OKCupid Asks Firefox Users To Support LGBT Rights, Switch Browsers

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

OKCupid Asks Firefox Users To Support LGBT Rights, Switch Browsers

Firefox logo

OkCupid is protesting Brendan Eich's promotion to Mozilla CEO by reminding Firefox users of his anti-LGBT views.

Anyone visiting the dating website OKCupid may discover a little more than questionnaires about relationship preferences. When accessing the website from Firefox, the page now encourages visitors to switch browsers before continuing to the main page. The reason has nothing to do with technical problems, and it's no April Fool's prank: According to OKCupid, it's to oppose Brendan Eich's promotion to Mozilla Corporation CEO. While Eich is best known for his work on Mozilla and JavaScript, he's also infamous for donating $1000 to California's Proposition 8 campaign, supporting an amendment that defined marriage as solely between a man and a woman.

"Politics is normally not the business of a website, and we all know there's a lot more wrong with the world than misguided CEOs," the message reads. "So you might wonder why we're asserting ourselves today ... we've devoted the last ten years to bringing people-all people-together. If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly 8% of the relationships we've worked so hard to bring about would be illegal.

"Equality for gay relationships is personally important to many of us here at OkCupid. But it's professionally important to the entire company. OkCupid is for creating love. Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure."

Firefox users can still access the main page, but first need to scroll past the message, links to alternative browsers, and background information on Eich. And OKCupid isn't the only company upset with Eich's promotion: App developers are among those boycotting Firefox, while some Mozilla employees have started calling for Eich's resignation.

For anyone who doesn't have a Firefox browser installed, we've posted the message below in full and will keep you posted on any updates.

Hello there, Mozilla Firefox user. Pardon this interruption of your OkCupid experience.

Mozilla's new CEO, Brendan Eich, is an opponent of equal rights for gay couples. We would therefore prefer that our users not use Mozilla software to access OkCupid.

Politics is normally not the business of a website, and we all know there's a lot more wrong with the world than misguided CEOs. So you might wonder why we're asserting ourselves today. This is why: we've devoted the last ten years to bringing people-all people-together. If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly 8% of the relationships we've worked so hard to bring about would be illegal. Equality for gay relationships is personally important to many of us here at OkCupid. But it's professionally important to the entire company. OkCupid is for creating love. Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure.

If you want to keep using Firefox, the link at the bottom will take you through to the site.

However, we urge you to consider different software for accessing OkCupid:

Google Chrome
Internet Exploder
Opera

Thank you,
OkCupid

Background on Mr. Eich and Mozilla
In 2008, Mr. Eich supported the passage of California's Prop 8, a statewide initiative to ban gay marriage, with a $1000 donation. Granted, his contribution is now six years in the past, and people can change. But Mr. Eich's boilerplate statements in the time since make it seem like he has the same views now as he did then. Mozilla recently promoted him to CEO, hence the issue only now coming to our attention. His donation was known to Mozilla at the time of his promotion, and, furthermore, CEOs are rewarded based on their company's performance. The CEO is the visionary for a company and its products. We are sad to think that any OkCupid page loads would even indirectly contribute towards the success of an individual who supported Prop 8-and who for all we know would support it again. We wish Mozilla's institutional commitment to freedom and openness were better reflected by their choice of leadership.

Source: OKCupid

Permalink

...And what about those who seek to not give a shit? Must we embrace the spam of LGBT? I suppose nowadays you're either with them or against them.

i like firefox and i don't want to change but i don't support that anti gay nonsense

Urg, on one hand, the company that made my browser is run by an asshole.

On the other hand, ew Google.

Yeah, I'll stick with Firefox until Mozilla as a whole does something stupid.

SourMilk:
...And what about those who seek to not give a shit? Must we embrace the spam of LGBT? I suppose nowadays you're either with them or against them.

yeah, kinda. if you're not fighting for justice, or at least taking the smallest measure possible by using a different browser, then you are a part of the problem. what if there was laws in place that specifically targeted you and prevented you from marrying who you wanted, for whatever reason they saw fit to enforce. the world is larger than you, and you need to think beyond just what effects you, because one day it might. it's kinda the whole idea behind that "first they came for the..." poem from world war 2.

I am gay and I will continue to use Firefox until someone can offer me a better browser, I don't give a shit about the politics of their CEO.

JazzJack2:
I am gay and I will continue to use Firefox until someone can offer me a better browser, I don't give a shit about the politics of their CEO.

I made the switch to chrome a while ago and haven't looked back. Firefox is just too...bulky.

As far as the attitude of "ugh it doesn't involve me" - Imagine if you were persecuted constantly for something you couldn't control and people had that attitude towards you? Yeah. It fucking sucks.

Internet Exploder

That's seriously what the button says, I've seen screenshots of it.

That said, it's a private citizen donating to something he supports, doesn't affect how well Firefox works. It's not like it suddenly doesn't work if you're gay, it's just a man who has different political beliefs than some people. Not gonna hate on someone for having different political views, hate is not usually a good thing.

martyrdrebel27:

SourMilk:
...And what about those who seek to not give a shit? Must we embrace the spam of LGBT? I suppose nowadays you're either with them or against them.

yeah, kinda. if you're not fighting for justice, or at least taking the smallest measure possible by using a different browser, then you are a part of the problem. what if there was laws in place that specifically targeted you and prevented you from marrying who you wanted, for whatever reason they saw fit to enforce. the world is larger than you, and you need to think beyond just what effects you, because one day it might. it's kinda the whole idea behind that "first they came for the..." poem from world war 2.

So because the CEO of a company holds personal beliefs contrary to your own, you should just demand that he resign and that the company be boycotted? Is FireFox going to suddenly become openly anti-gay because this man is in charge? Is the Mozilla homepage going to display a big banner "NO HOMOS ALLOWED!"? No? Then I'd prefer finding a better reason to boycott them, thank you very much. If you ask me, a company should be boycotted because of it's business practices, not due to the political/personal beliefs of the people in charge.

Boycott the Westboro Baptist Church because they're just a cover for a hate group.
Boycott the cake store that openly refused to make a wedding cake purely because the couple was gay.

When you boycott a company based purely upon the personal beliefs of the person in charge, I believe you're being hypocritical. You're discriminating against the company purely because the person in charge holds a different belief than yours. You're essentially using the exact same argument that the Bush administration used for those people protesting the war: "If you're not totally in support of this war, you might as well be rooting for the terrorists." Sorry, I didn't realize that I was no longer allowed to have a personal opinion. Just because someone disagrees with boycotting a company based on the CEO's personal beliefs does not mean they agree with or condone said beliefs. Just because I'm not out on the streets demanding gay-rights doesn't mean I believe that gays shouldn't have rights.

In short, this excerpt sums things up quite nicely:
"Politics is normally not the business of a website, and we all know there's a lot more wrong with the world than misguided CEOs." You have the right to vote, you know, and that's how such things as gay-rights are solved...not by switching web browsers.

JazzJack2:
I am gay and I will continue to use Firefox until someone can offer me a better browser, I don't give a shit about the politics of their CEO.

Thank you!

hmmm, pro gay rights here. but dont know if a CEO with biggotted point of view 6 years ago is enough for me to switch. Boilerplate statements aint really enough either

Alcaste:

I made the switch to chrome a while ago and haven't looked back. Firefox is just too...bulky.

I wouldn't use chrome even if google fucking paid me to.

As far as the attitude of "ugh it doesn't involve me" - Imagine if you were persecuted constantly for something you couldn't control and people had that attitude towards you? Yeah. It fucking sucks.

Erm I know that feeling all to well but what relevance does it have here? He isn't persecuting me, he is expressing an opinion that is different from mine, and frankly I don't give a shit if the CEO of a software company has unsavoury opinions on my sexuality all I care about is their software.

...nah

I like Firefox and I'm not inconveniencing myself just for some bullshit slacktivism that will have no effect, for a cause I could not care less about.

Gay people have been able to get married in my country since yesterday or the day before anyway... So even if I did give a shit about gay marriage then I don't see why I'd have to do anything.

RJ 17:

martyrdrebel27:

SourMilk:
...And what about those who seek to not give a shit? Must we embrace the spam of LGBT? I suppose nowadays you're either with them or against them.

yeah, kinda. if you're not fighting for justice, or at least taking the smallest measure possible by using a different browser, then you are a part of the problem. what if there was laws in place that specifically targeted you and prevented you from marrying who you wanted, for whatever reason they saw fit to enforce. the world is larger than you, and you need to think beyond just what effects you, because one day it might. it's kinda the whole idea behind that "first they came for the..." poem from world war 2.

So because the CEO of a company holds personal beliefs contrary to your own, you should just demand that he resign and that the company be boycotted? Is FireFox going to suddenly become openly anti-gay because this man is in charge? Is the Mozilla homepage going to display a big banner "NO HOMOS ALLOWED!"? No? Then I'd prefer finding a better reason to boycott them, thank you very much. If you ask me, a company should be boycotted because of it's business practices, not due to the political/personal beliefs of the people in charge.

Boycott the Westboro Baptist Church because they're just a cover for a hate group.
Boycott the cake store that openly refused to make a wedding cake purely because the couple was gay.

When you boycott a company based purely upon the personal beliefs of the person in charge, I believe you're being hypocritical. You're discriminating against the company purely because the person in charge holds a different belief than yours. You're essentially using the exact same argument that the Bush administration used for those people protesting the war: "If you're not totally in support of this war, you might as well be rooting for the terrorists." Sorry, I didn't realize that I was no longer allowed to have a personal opinion. Just because someone disagrees with boycotting a company based on the CEO's personal beliefs does not mean they agree with or condone said beliefs. Just because I'm not out on the streets demanding gay-rights doesn't mean I believe that gays shouldn't have rights.

In short, this excerpt sums things up quite nicely:
"Politics is normally not the business of a website, and we all know there's a lot more wrong with the world than misguided CEOs." You have the right to vote, you know, and that's how such things as gay-rights are solved...not by switching web browsers.

JazzJack2:
I am gay and I will continue to use Firefox until someone can offer me a better browser, I don't give a shit about the politics of their CEO.

Thank you!

the whole discussion and approach changes when we're dealing with corporations. as consumers, we only matter to them if we effect their bottom line. in order to discourage future propagation of intolerant views.

RJ 17:
When you boycott a company based purely upon the personal beliefs of the person in charge, I believe you're being hypocritical.

People who make this argument completely miss the fact that boycotting, or even outright hating someone, for their personal beliefs, which they can change, and the actions they take based on those beliefs is a lot different than boycotting or hating someone for who the way they were born. There's no hypocrisy here. And I always get the feeling that when people say there is that they're really just afraid of taking a stand on something and probably actually believe that the solution to every problem is some compromise between differing views.

Sorry, but hating people for how they were born is always wrong if how they were born is causing you no direct harm except for whatever imaginary harm you've concocted in your own brain. And declaring that that is unacceptable and refusing to deal with those who think that way isn't hypocrisy. It's called having a sense of morality that isn't completely broken.

martyrdrebel27:

the whole discussion and approach changes when we're dealing with corporations. as consumers, we only matter to them if we effect their bottom line. in order to discourage future propagation of intolerant views.

Alright then tell me this, if we (as consumers) boycott Firefox based on the opinions of one man within the company, what good will it do?

The most is could do is have the CEO removed which is simply pointless and will do nothing to help gay rights.

Ughhhh this gets more annoying every time. Look I know you want something to fight for; I know you guys want to feel like you're a part of something important to history. And I know that being involved in something that will actually be seen as important and great in the eyes of history is hard to do (die in a war, invent a cure for something, ext).

So I understand that "the people who supported civil rights" is a very appealing role to cast yourself in, because it's a title you can attain without having to actually do anything but bitch to people.

The problem is that the LGBT "rights" movement is pretty much 100% over and done with in America. The main part that's left is to pick-off and pick-on anyone who still acts like an asshole to anyone who isn't heterosexual. But that's not Rights, that's just asshole-demoralization.

And Same-Sex Marriage isn't an issue of rights either, it's just a good idea that should probably happen. But it is not the be-all end-all final puzzle piece to topple "homophobic oppression", it's not even in the top 40 of most critical problems to solve in American Politics, and it is NOT such an important, deal-breaking invention that not approving it it warrants the scorn and rejection of everything you have done in your professional or personal life.

Seriously it's reprehensibly disgusting that people act like not agreeing with the invention of same sex marriage is like legalizing genocide or something.

Really now, while many individuals, houses and groups of people still reject the ethics of homosexuality and are often dicks about it, American culture and society at large is now abundantly tolerant, almost always accepting, and often downright embracing of the LGBT. Yet now you're going around boycotting and completely shutting off from society anyone who doesn't sign on to switching the structure up to accommodate it.

SourMilk:
...And what about those who seek to not give a shit? Must we embrace the spam of LGBT? I suppose nowadays you're either with them or against them.

sure but you'd be as equally as bad as the people who remained silent when black people were deemed "lesser" people in the mid 50's or any other group of individual being openly discriminated against because of reason X

and to me and i assume many others is far worse than actually voicing an opinion

Phrozenflame500:
Urg, on one hand, the company that made my browser is run by an asshole.

On the other hand, ew Google.

Yeah, I'll stick with Firefox until Mozilla as a whole does something stupid.

I have to ask, is it Google you dislike or Chrome itself?

Because if it's just Google I would recommend Comodo Dragon, a Chromium based browser without any of Google's 'features.'

What is this shadow complex again? I'm sorry but I don't really care how big an ass the guy running a BETTER AND FREE WEB BROWSER is. People are allowed whatever views they'd want or I'd never listen to anyone that votes republican.

SourMilk:
...And what about those who seek to not give a shit? Must we embrace the spam of LGBT? I suppose nowadays you're either with them or against them.

No, you don't. You're free to use a different website. Its not like Ok Cupid is donating money towards legislation that would strip you of your rights or anything.

martyrdrebel27:
it's kinda the whole idea behind that "first they came for the..." poem from world war 2.

"First they came..." by Martin Niemoller, a German priest who was imprisoned for his anti-Nazi views.

SourMilk:
When you boycott a company based purely upon the personal beliefs of the person in charge, I believe you're being hypocritical. You're discriminating against the company purely because the person in charge holds a different belief than yours. You're essentially using the exact same argument that the Bush administration used for those people protesting the war: "If you're not totally in support of this war, you might as well be rooting for the terrorists."

No, no, no, wrong for tons of reasons.

Besides being reckless hyperbole, there's a significant difference between being apathetic and actively trying to ban a people group you don't like from doing something. The new CEO of Firefox isn't a person who just hasn't publically taken a side - he's taken a side against a group of people. If somebody runs a business and is smart enough to not voice their political opinions anywhere that isn't either in the privacy of their home or in a voting booth, they're are opening themselves up for criticism, just like anybody else. Is it not reasonable to not want to support somebody who has a opinion that is harmful to me or my business? And I say "my business" because thats the exact case with OK Cupid - less gay -> less OK Cupid profiles -> less profit. Honestly I don't even know if Ok Cupid is being genuine here because they have a business-related motive for fighting against anti-gay legislation.

UltraHammer:
The problem is that the LGBT "rights" movement is pretty much 100% over and done with in America.

Untrue, especially not the "T" part. Its still legal to discriminate against gay people in service, housing, and employment in the majority of states, and there's enough states without transgender protections that, if we assumed each state voted as the laws are respectively written, that they could make a federal amendment allowing the discrimination of transgender people.

The main part that's left is to pick-off and pick-on anyone who still acts like an asshole to anyone who isn't heterosexual. But that's not Rights, that's just asshole-demoralization.

Here's the thing though - they're not just assholes, they're assholes voting on the rights of others. And yes, even though you say later in your post that it isn't a matter of rights, it is - marriage is a right as recognized by the federal Supreme Court, over forty-five years ago, on the matter of interracial marriage, saying that such a prohibition violated the 14th Amendment.

Seriously it's reprehensibly disgusting that people act like not agreeing with the invention of same sex marriage is like legalizing genocide or something.

Equivlant, no. Same thing but a different extent, yes. They're both acts where you refuse to recognize the rights of another human being.

Really now, while many individuals, houses and groups of people still reject the ethics of homosexuality and are often dicks about it, American culture and society at large is now abundantly tolerant, almost always accepting, and often downright embracing of the LGBT. Yet now you're going around boycotting and completely shutting off from society anyone who doesn't sign on to switching the structure up to accommodate it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't boycotting the method that people used in the civil rights era to get businesses to treat people equally, regardless of their race?

See, here's the thing - they're a business. They're not being "shut off from society", they're losing customers. Thats what a boycott is - saying "Hey, I won't stop giving you any of money until you stop treating me like crap."

JazzJack2:
Alright then tell me this, if we (as consumers) boycott Firefox based on the opinions of one man within the company, what good will it do?

The most is could do is have the CEO removed which is simply pointless and will do nothing to help gay rights.

Sure it would. It sends the message that people won't buy your product if you support anti-gay legislation. Ergo, less likely to donate money for the cause of making anti-gay legislation.

martyrdrebel27:
the whole discussion and approach changes when we're dealing with corporations. as consumers, we only matter to them if we effect their bottom line. in order to discourage future propagation of intolerant views.

And that's a fair enough point, but you're not taking a stand against a company or business, you're taking a stand against one person's personal beliefs and using the company that person runs as a punching bag. The question is this: do you believe that boycotting Mozilla will change HIS stance? No? Then why bother?

This would be different if Mozilla had openly anti-gay policies. THEN you'd be boycotting in order to affect a change in said policies. But to think that this one man is going to say "Gee, everyone's switching browsers. Guess that means I should open my mind and be more tolerant and accepting towards homosexual marriage" is just absurd.

Vivi22:

RJ 17:
When you boycott a company based purely upon the personal beliefs of the person in charge, I believe you're being hypocritical.

People who make this argument completely miss the fact that boycotting, or even outright hating someone, for their personal beliefs, which they can change, and the actions they take based on those beliefs is a lot different than boycotting or hating someone for who the way they were born. There's no hypocrisy here. And I always get the feeling that when people say there is that they're really just afraid of taking a stand on something and probably actually believe that the solution to every problem is some compromise between differing views.

Sorry, but hating people for how they were born is always wrong if how they were born is causing you no direct harm except for whatever imaginary harm you've concocted in your own brain. And declaring that that is unacceptable and refusing to deal with those who think that way isn't hypocrisy. It's called having a sense of morality that isn't completely broken.

Discrimination is discrimination, my friend, I don't care if it's regarding someone's life choice or regarding something they were born with.

Case in point: discrimination based on religion. You're not born Catholic, Muslim, or Jewish. You might be born into a Catholic, Jewish, or Muslim household, but when you're old enough to make your own decisions you can be any religion that you want. By your logic, because religion is a personal belief choice, it's perfectly fine to disagree with and openly hate people of other religions for not believing the same as you.

But this is all outside the point at hand: the boycott serves no purpose because it's not going to change the CEO's personal belief. As I said, if you're boycotting a company because they do have openly anti-gay policies then fair enough, the company itself is what needs to be changed. In this case, the company doesn't need to change, you just don't like the guy that's running it.

martyrdrebel27:
yeah, kinda. if you're not fighting for justice, or at least taking the smallest measure possible by using a different browser, then you are a part of the problem. what if there was laws in place that specifically targeted you and prevented you from marrying who you wanted, for whatever reason they saw fit to enforce. the world is larger than you, and you need to think beyond just what effects you, because one day it might. it's kinda the whole idea behind that "first they came for the..." poem from world war 2.

While this is (technically) true, not every God-damned thing has to be a fucking crusade against injustice. Sometimes a person just wants to look at funny cat pictures and bitch about video game endings he didn't like well after said bitching is relevant.

Besides, if using a FREE NON-PROFIT web browser were so important, which one do you use? Internet Explorer, the browser that forces coders to do backflips for a single page to look half-decent? Chrome, part of the company that is actively trying to take over the tech industry and has supported some very anti-free-internet laws? Or are you going hipster and not getting half the functionality of the web pages simply because you don't want to support the big guys?

And if using Firefox makes me an anti-gay hater homophobe, then fuck it I'm going whole hog. Next time you see me I'll be posting from my laptop using Firefox, using the Wi-Fi at the Chik-Fil-A I'm eating at, and finishing the erst of the Ender's Game series.

SourMilk:
...And what about those who seek to not give a shit? Must we embrace the spam of LGBT? I suppose nowadays you're either with them or *your the Nazi party*.

Fixed it for ya...

Oc, im glad that people feel the same way, this feels like its going into the social justice thing, and really its discriminating against someone because they have different ideals then you.

MarsAtlas:

Sure it would. It sends the message that people won't buy your product if you support anti-gay legislation. Ergo, less likely to donate money for the cause of making anti-gay legislation.

Except;

A) The company that produces the product in this case doesn't support anti-gay legislation, a member of the company does.

B) The opinions of an individual within a company should have no bearing on your view of the company if his or her opinions are not relevant to the company and he/she is not forcing them through said company and last time I checked Mozilla Firefox was a browser and so the political opinions of it's members (not matter how horrid these opinions are) are not relevant.

Like I said it would achieve nothing, woo you'd get a guy fired for having unsavoury opinions that no bearing on his job, wow that'd be another great step for freedom!

how many people work at mozilla? i dont think this CEO is the only person working there, and i dont believe the entire corporation shares his views, on top of that i dont think the people who work there all agreed to put that guy on top

i dont see how this boycott helps at all

SourMilk:
...And what about those who seek to not give a shit? Must we embrace the spam of LGBT? I suppose nowadays you're either with them or against them.

I don't get the attitude here. They literally say "if you don't want to switch browsers, that's fine." You come off as far more hostile than the people you're complaining about.

Alcaste:

As far as the attitude of "ugh it doesn't involve me" - Imagine if you were persecuted constantly for something you couldn't control and people had that attitude towards you? Yeah. It fucking sucks.

But...It does involve him. He specifically said he was gay.

Xan Krieger:
It's not like it suddenly doesn't work if you're gay, it's just a man who has different political beliefs than some people.

Political views that one might validly not want to support fiscally. Which does not, by the way, translate into hate.

RJ 17:
So because the CEO of a company holds personal beliefs contrary to your own, you should just demand that he resign and that the company be boycotted?

It happens all the time for non-LGBT reasons. Is it different here because he's a homophobe?

You have the right to vote, you know, and that's how such things as gay-rights are solved...not by switching web browsers.

Voting isn't the only form of political pressure employed on companies or even governments. Again, I'm part of the "if you don't want to change, fair play" crowd, but this sort of justification is inane. And, I might ad, it's totally reasonable to not wish to fiscally support someone who gives or has given money to causes you object to.

Incidentally, but making something socially untennable, by costing people and/or companies money fiscally, we do impact social policy and even laws. By railing against this, you're railing against the same system that got blacks and women recognition, because these movements didn't happen by just waiting around for laws to be made. People made protests and demonstrations. They voted with their wallets and their mouths. They lived by example.

Before anyone asks, I supported the right of Chick Fil-A and their consumers. I supported the right of Duck Dynasty fans to their little tantrum. I support the Westboro Baptist's Church right to demonstrate in whatever shitty way is constitutional. I hold these beliefs all-around: if you do not like something, you do not have to support it. Even if I think it's stupid. It's also their right to be as homophobic, intolerant, or stupid as they want. I don't have to, nor will I, ever offer financial support to the above groups. Still, they have the right to their bigotry, and we have the right of self-determination, to act on it in whatever way we see fit (provided we do not harm them nor take their rights away).

I say this against my self interest as a member of the LGBT community. But the principle of free speech only works if we protect unpopular speech. At the same time, free speech is not freedom from consequences, as we as a people have the right to boycott or organise against someone in the same way Jackass: the CEO took part in a campaign against gay marriage.

JazzJack2:

The most is could do is have the CEO removed which is simply pointless and will do nothing to help gay rights.

Well, you know, except make such statements and actions socially unacceptable, which would make it harder for someone to openly oppose gay rights in the public market.

Eve Charm:
What is this shadow complex again? I'm sorry but I don't really care how big an ass the guy running a BETTER AND FREE WEB BROWSER is. People are allowed whatever views they'd want or I'd never listen to anyone that votes republican.

Who said he wasn't allowed to have whatever views he wanted?

JazzJack2:

MarsAtlas:

Sure it would. It sends the message that people won't buy your product if you support anti-gay legislation. Ergo, less likely to donate money for the cause of making anti-gay legislation.

Except;

A) The company that produces the product in this case doesn't support anti-gay legislation, a member of the company does.

Yes, but not just a member, but the head of the corporation, one of its many spokepersons.

B) The opinions of an individual within a company should have no bearing on your view of the company if his or her opinions are not relevant to the company and he/she is not forcing them through said company and last time I checked Mozilla Firefox was a browser and so the political opinions of it's members (not matter how horrid these opinions are) are not relevant.

Sure it should. They become a spokesperson for their organization, their business, their employer. Would you seriously not think less of an organization if the person in charge stated that the Holocaust didn't happen, and its supposed existence is a fabrication of the Zionist-Occupied Government?

People do think more, or less, of an organization or business because of their spokespersons. Maybe not you, but many people, perhaps the majority (I have no evidence to substantiate that its the majority, just saying possibly) are effected by it because they don't want to support that person.

Phrozenflame500:
Urg, on one hand, the company that made my browser is run by an asshole.

On the other hand, ew Google.

Yeah, I'll stick with Firefox until Mozilla as a whole does something stupid.

Well he's just a CEO, the guys who actually make the stuff that makes the browser work are evidently not too happy with him.

And...egugh. I mean I use chrome on this machine, but I use Firefox on my laptop.

And this is actual action and money spent on anti-gay rights, not just a bigot spouting opinion...

Oh well I'll adjust my laptop later, not using it right this moment.

Zachary Amaranth:

RJ 17:
So because the CEO of a company holds personal beliefs contrary to your own, you should just demand that he resign and that the company be boycotted?

It happens all the time for non-LGBT reasons. Is it different here because he's a homophobe?

Apparently it is, considering the fact that people aren't boycotting because of company policy but rather someone's personal beliefs.

You have the right to vote, you know, and that's how such things as gay-rights are solved...not by switching web browsers.

Voting isn't the only form of political pressure employed on companies or even governments.

That's just it though: they're not putting political pressure on a company or government. The purpose of putting political pressure - i.e. boycotting - on a company or government is to change the policy of said company or government. There's no such policy to be changed for Mozilla. Mozilla is not an openly anti-gay company. As such they're putting pressure on a man to change his own beliefs, not the company to change its policies. That's the problem I have here. It's Chic-Fil-A all over again.

Eve Charm:
What is this shadow complex again? I'm sorry but I don't really care how big an ass the guy running a BETTER AND FREE WEB BROWSER is. People are allowed whatever views they'd want or I'd never listen to anyone that votes republican.

Who said he wasn't allowed to have whatever views he wanted?

The people that are arguing for and wanting to boycott Mozilla, apparently. As I said, they're not attacking the company or it's policies, they're attacking this man's personal beliefs.

A whole 1000 dollars for prop 8?

What does that cover these days? a spread in a newspaper?

When I read that, I actually laughed.

That being said, as others have already stated... I'm not switching to shittier browsers as a token gesture in futility.

I'm glad to see the whole world hasn't gone "Chrome Crazy" as I thought it had.

I don't understand the appeal of that terrible... terrible browser.

Um, how about, NO.

Chrome is shit.
IE is, well, IE.
Opera ain't much better.

It's like that whole fiasco with Chic-Fi-La.

Unless the company is ACTIVELY doing something (SEE: Hobby Lobby's war on women and non-Christians) bad...
What a CEO/any-other-employee does...is none of my concern.

Zachary Amaranth:

Well, you know, except make such statements and actions socially unacceptable, which would make it harder for someone to openly oppose gay rights in the public market.

Pressuring people out of employment because they hold controversial opinions sounds pretty fucking despicable, at least to me anyway.

But hey if we are going to attempt to ostracize people we disagree with I guess I should boycott any company that employs a Tory supporter, I mean what their idelogy has done to the poorest in my country is far worse than what someone simply saying they disagree with my right to marriage does to me. Of course that does mean I'll have to totally avoid interacting with 40% of the population which will be pretty hard, perhaps I should just take the adult option and you know realise that the majority of people in the world are going to hold at least one opinion that you find reprehensible and you're simply going to have to accept that.

MarsAtlas:

Yes, but not just a member, but the head of the corporation, one of its many spokepersons.

Right a spokeperson for a software company, not a political party, until he starts using his job as a CEO to spout of his political opinions (or until someone recommends me a better browser ) I will continue to use Firefox and I won't give a shit what their employees do or think in their spare time.

Sure it should. They become a spokesperson for their organization, their business, their employer. Would you seriously not think less of an organization if the person in charge stated that the Holocaust didn't happen, and its supposed existence is a fabrication of the Zionist-Occupied Government?

If it didn't affect the product then no I would not.

People do think more, or less, of an organization or business because of their spokespersons. Maybe not you, but many people, perhaps the majority (I have no evidence to substantiate that its the majority, just saying possibly) are effected by it because they don't want to support that person.

Your point being? we are discussing whether people should or should not find the personal views of a CEO relevant to the company as a whole and so to simply state that some people do find it relevant isn't an argument as to why I should.

Well, it kind-of sucks that the new Mozilla CEO is a bigot. However, until the man starts making contributions to anti-gay organizations under the company name I'll be fine with continuing to use Firefox. Other than being invested in Firefox, it seems like lots of other parties that are more responsible for Firefox (app developers and Mozilla employees) share my sentiments.

Zachary Amaranth:

SourMilk:
...And what about those who seek to not give a shit? Must we embrace the spam of LGBT? I suppose nowadays you're either with them or against them.

I don't get the attitude here. They literally say "if you don't want to switch browsers, that's fine." You come off as far more hostile than the people you're complaining about.

Yes but that comes with a political spiel and an extra step to scroll past and click through. I use Firefox, and personally I'd be pretty ticked if websites I go to start nagging me about my choice of web browser over some loosely related political reason, regardless of whether I agree to it or not. What if other sites started redirect you when logging in with Chrome warning of privacy concerns over Google? What if they did it with Microsoft over anti competitive practices?

Points is there's a very good reason why web pages don't or shouldn't do this sort of thing.

SourMilk:
...And what about those who seek to not give a shit? Must we embrace the spam of LGBT? I suppose nowadays you're either with them or against them.

Sadly it has become this.

ON TOPIC: My natural response is "Who cares? Mozilla is the best browser and their CEO's opinion does not change the browser into homosexual hating machine. So why should we care?"

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here