Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Steps Down

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 17 NEXT
 

Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Steps Down

Brendan Eich has chosen to depart from his position as CEO at Mozilla.

Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich will be leaving his position in the company. His departure was announced today in a blog post stating that Eich was behind the decision and that he did it for the good of "Mozilla and our community."

While the blog post didn't address the controversy directly, its language would suggest that this may be a response to the Eich's past activism against gay marriage, including a $1000 donation to the California's 2008 Proposition 8 which banned same-sex marriage in the state. These donations were brought into the spotlight when the site OKCupid requested that Firefox users switch browsers to avoid associating with Eich.

Today's blog post, in turn, affirmed that the company "[welcomes] contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views. Mozilla supports equality for all."

Source: Mozilla

Permalink

This is really cool, and especially great considering the number of people in comments of stories about the OKCupid thing saying "Well, not using Mozilla isn't going to change anything, what's the point?"

Well done internet *slow clap* you really pulled together to achieve something utterly meaningless and actually helped give credence to the idea that people who don't fall in line with LGBT beliefs are actively hounded and discriminated against, a fallacy long peddled by those who are actually more damaging to that cause.

It's just so petty. Such a groundswell of anger and blatant self promotion from some sites for what? You got a man fired by throwing a little shit-fit. Good work, you changed the world. I'm sure they will make an inspirational movie about the time the bloggoshpere of Social Justice Warriors assembled and rid a medium sized tech firm of a man who once made a donation. Brendan Eich isn't exactly stood outside of an Elton John show with a "God hates fags" sign, he's not an evangelical missionary trying to get Gay people put to death in Africa

You want to get some deserved righteous anger going? Go and watch "God loves Uganda", go and protest Saudi Arabia or Russia. Go and do anything that takes an ounce of balls you safe, petty little Social Justice warrior circle-jerk.

I'm still constantly amazed when people try to be public figures AND be vocal about their controversial opinions. When has that ever worked out for someone?

I still don't know how I feel about this. The guy was a founder of Mozilla, created JavaScript and has been a CTO for 9 years. Regardless of personally being a dick he was the guy most qualified to do this job. And in terms of internet specific principles, I can get behind open platforms and all that.

On the other hand he was supporting something that has made many millions of people unhappy.

----------------------------
I don't know, I still don't have any conclusions. Is it right that he never works for a company at the level he is most qualified for again? Is it right for a company to hire someone with such damaging beliefs towards other people?

I hate hypes so I thought the whole OKCupid thing was stupid.

But I'm impressed it actually made Mozilla scared to lose costumers.

Alright, good to see public shaming can encourage discriminatory hiring practices in the work place. I guess now Eich has to dissolve into the ether since groups like OKcupid would have him die penniless in a ditch for his personal beliefs.

Yay, fight to end discrimination by encouraging discrimination.

jericu:
This is really cool, and especially great considering the number of people in comments of stories about the OKCupid thing saying "Well, not using Mozilla isn't going to change anything, what's the point?"

Im glad there has been a response from the online community(I actually have started using chrome more this week because of this story) however Im worried that people will confuse this as 'something changing'.

He may no longer be CEO but he still will gain most of the profits from Mozilla,and Id be willing to bet he's still going to 'mentor' whoever does have the new CEO position. This is just a publicity stunt so that people will move on. I still believe it is niave to think that anything we do will cause any real change to this mans personal opinions or to the way he runs his company, we can only raise awareness so that people can make an informed choices about what products they use.

jericu:
This is really cool, and especially great considering the number of people in comments of stories about the OKCupid thing saying "Well, not using Mozilla isn't going to change anything, what's the point?"

Im glad there has been a response from the online community(I actually have started using chrome more this week because of this story) however Im worried that people will confuse this as 'something changing'.

He may no longer be CEO but he still will gain most of the profits from Mozilla,and Id be willing to bet he's still going to 'mentor' whoever does have the new CEO position. This is just a publicity stunt so that people will move on. I still believe it is niave to think that anything we do will cause any real change to this mans personal opinions or to the way he runs his company, we can only raise awareness so that people can make an informed choices about what products they use.

Scrumpmonkey:
Well done internet *slow clap* you really pulled together to achieve something utterly meaningless and actually helped give credence to the idea that people who don't fall in line with LGBT beliefs are actively hounded and discriminated against, a fallacy long peddled by those who are actually more damaging to that cause.

Except this guy wasn't just someone whose ideas "didn't fall in line with LGBT beliefs". He was someone who actively condemned them and donated to a cause that directly affects their rights.

That being said, I do agree that this is pretty harsh, but there's gotta be another way to encourage support for LGBT stuff, rather than overzealous punishment of the opposite.

JimbobDa3rd:
He may no longer be CEO but he still will gain most of the profits from Mozilla,and Id be willing to bet he's still going to 'mentor' whoever does have the new CEO position. This is just a publicity stunt so that people will move on. I still believe it is niave to think that anything we do will cause any real change to this mans personal opinions or to the way he runs his company, we can only raise awareness so that people can make an informed choices about what products they use.

While I have mixed feelings about the whole controversy, I do think that the positive upshot here isn't about changing one person's personal opinion, but making it publicly unacceptable to express and support bigoted positions. We wouldn't let someone who actively and materially supported causes advocating racial segregation, and that's the point we need to get to in social views on sexual orientation as well.

Well....that's pretty fucking disgraceful. Way to push for those equal rights guys.

jericu:
This is really cool, and especially great considering the number of people in comments of stories about the OKCupid thing saying "Well, not using Mozilla isn't going to change anything, what's the point?"

Well...what did it change? I doubt he's due for the bankruptcy barrel anytime soon; I doubt gay rights are going to improve because he stepped down.

SKBPinkie:

Scrumpmonkey:
Well done internet *slow clap* you really pulled together to achieve something utterly meaningless and actually helped give credence to the idea that people who don't fall in line with LGBT beliefs are actively hounded and discriminated against, a fallacy long peddled by those who are actually more damaging to that cause.

Except this guy wasn't just someone whose ideas "didn't fall in line with LGBT beliefs". He was someone who actively condemned them and donated to a cause that directly affects their rights.

That being said, I do agree that this is pretty harsh, but there's gotta be another way to encourage support for LGBT stuff, rather than overzealous punishment of the opposite.

A lot of people who don't like OKcupid's stupid publicity stunt to get a man fired, do not agree with the man's views. I personally think the traditional marriage shit is awful, but this kind of conduct on the part of the LGBT movement and it's advocates is wrong. It's not right to black list someone from having a professional career due to the politics they support, or their personal life.

If it's nothing more then public perception of morality that gives anyone the licensee to enact black lists and make people suppressive persons, then discrimination will not end, it'll just change sides. It's either wrong to do this shit, or it isn't.

Good. Unfortunately, there will be people spouting false equivalences about this, but that's unavoidable I suppose.

All he needed to do was come out and say that what he did was wrong (support oppressive legislature financially) and say he wasn't going to do it again.

Lightknight:
Alright, good to see public shaming can encourage discriminatory hiring practices in the work place. I guess now Eich has to dissolve into the ether since groups like OKcupid would have him die penniless in a ditch for his personal beliefs.

Yay, fight to end discrimination by encouraging discrimination.

Exactly. It doesn't matter if you're good at your job or have created great products. You believe something that other people don't believe, and since those people have power in today's society, the culture of which is powered by outrage and self-created victimhood, you either have to remove yourself from all aspects of public life or be hounded and sued until the day you die, your reputation and any business you have completely ruined.

SKBPinkie:

Scrumpmonkey:
Well done internet *slow clap* you really pulled together to achieve something utterly meaningless and actually helped give credence to the idea that people who don't fall in line with LGBT beliefs are actively hounded and discriminated against, a fallacy long peddled by those who are actually more damaging to that cause.

Except this guy wasn't just someone whose ideas "didn't fall in line with LGBT beliefs". He was someone who actively condemned them and donated to a cause that directly affects their rights.

That being said, I do agree that this is pretty harsh, but there's gotta be another way to encourage support for LGBT stuff, rather than overzealous punishment of the opposite.

I completely agree, this is entirely uncalled for and I'm disgusted that 'this' was seen as the best possible choice.

Thanks OKCupid, thanks radical SJW's, thanks people in the LGBT community who really aren't part of said community but like to claim they are because they're actually SJW's co-opting the movement for their own personal gains, you just kicked a guy out of a job he probably busted his ass for because he disagreed with you.

I'm not going to say that his donation to prop 8 was right and all that shit, but two wrongs here do 'not' make a right. The people who pushed for this should feel ashamed for not coming up with a more reasonable and efficient solution for this problem you had with this guy.

I am extremely bothered that people are so vigilant in this mentality of 'taking people down' that are otherwise completely harmless, especially considering his donation amount and more importantly, the fact that it failed.

This is not the actions or behavior of adults, this is a childish and immature mentality that we SERIOUSLY need to purge from social justice and activism, because until we do it can never be taken seriously again.

tl;dr I'm all for putting people in there place, but pushing for someone to lose their job like this just seems to be going too far. There's gotta be better ways to handle this people...

Alcaste:
Good. Unfortunately, there will be people spouting false equivalences about this, but that's unavoidable I suppose.

All he needed to do was come out and say that what he did was wrong (support oppressive legislature financially) and say he wasn't going to do it again.

That wouldn't have been enough. Internet Social Activists have proven this is the case, especially after whats her name and her reaction to Stephen Colbert's apology. Those may be two different cases, but it's proof positive that the radical mentality outweighs the level headed and calmer activists that probably pushed for his removal from CEO. These people want blood in one way or another and they got it.

Nice to know the mob tactics worked. In the future, please tell me what I'm privately allowed to vote for in order to keep my job. Better still, elections are costly, so better not to bother if we can't respect people's rights to vote for their own desires and values, not our own.

I fully support gay marriage, but this doesn't create support for it. It makes us look like Big Brother out to destroy dissenting thought.

th3dark3rsh33p:

SKBPinkie:

Scrumpmonkey:
Well done internet *slow clap* you really pulled together to achieve something utterly meaningless and actually helped give credence to the idea that people who don't fall in line with LGBT beliefs are actively hounded and discriminated against, a fallacy long peddled by those who are actually more damaging to that cause.

Except this guy wasn't just someone whose ideas "didn't fall in line with LGBT beliefs". He was someone who actively condemned them and donated to a cause that directly affects their rights.

That being said, I do agree that this is pretty harsh, but there's gotta be another way to encourage support for LGBT stuff, rather than overzealous punishment of the opposite.

A lot of people who don't like OKcupid's stupid publicity stunt to get a man fired, do not agree with the man's views. I personally think the traditional marriage shit is awful, but this kind of conduct on the part of the LGBT movement and it's advocates is wrong. It's not right to black list someone from having a professional career due to the politics they support, or their personal life.

If it's nothing more then public perception of morality that gives anyone the licensee to enact black lists and make people suppressive persons, then discrimination will not end, it'll just change sides. It's either wrong to do this shit, or it isn't.

That is such bull, you are hiding what this really is by talking about "traditional marriage". It is about human rights. A CEO who today said, "I'm ok with Black people, I just don't think they should be allowed to marry whites so I've donated a tonne of money to ensure that doesn't happen". "I don't mind Jews, but since their marriage isn't condoned by the Church it's not a real marriage and so should be made illegal, so I've donated a tonne of money to organizations that will ban Jews from being married". I can go extreme cases where we remove other human rights too, but I think these show the point as accurately as possible. If you're ok with individuals in power saying and the above, that's fine but no one on our side of the fence is really going to be swayed by your arguments as they are rather extreme.

On top of that, he wasn't "blacklisted", his company let him go to ensure they don't lose money. That's up to them and is based on economic considerations, meaning that he could not do the work that he was assigned to do as CEO (make them money). To be blacklisted, you first have to be employable and due to a grudge no one hires you. Furthermore, blacklisting would mean that you cannot find work elsewhere. The employers who wouldn't hire him because they are mad at him are very very few number, meaning he could find work elsewhere (though again others won't hire him because he can't do his job as well as other candidates).

Pretty dumb.

I'm gay, I get that people dislike it. I agree with your right to state this dislike, just as much as I agree with others rights to state their fondness of it.

I agree with the freedom for people to say and do whatever they like in a reasonable and non-too-harmful way.

Be it voting against something you dislike, protesting for something you want changed, or sending messages to people you disagree with on twitter.

Harmful is a bit of a grey area, as obviously, there are some people whom are more sensitive than others, so, I tend to draw the line at "Actual physical harm or threats".

Good. He should face the consequences of being a terrible human being.

Morality, politics, business.
They oldest point of origin of social conflict.

Even with such a "graceful" departure, it's still an ugly subject.

Avaholic03:
I'm still constantly amazed when people try to be public figures AND be vocal about their controversial opinions. When has that ever worked out for someone?

He was never vocal. He made a private donation to a campaign. He has not, to my knowledge, never even expressed any of his viewpoints in a public way and his donations were rooted out and then he was set upon by an angry mob. What exactly was his crime? Having a private opinion others felt he didn't have the right not have.

I don't think he is really much of a public figure. He's not a media personality, he's not an activist he was simply a highly qualified individual in charge of a tech company and i think in the privacy of his own mind he has the right to think and support what he wants.

Kyogissun:
[quote="SKBPinkie" post="7.846451.20870001"][quote="Scrumpmonkey" post="7.846451.20869961"]Thanks OKCupid, thanks radical SJW's, thanks people in the LGBT community who really aren't part of said community but like to claim they are because they're actually SJW's co-opting the movement for their own personal gains, you just kicked a guy out of a job he probably busted his ass for because he disagreed with you.

Well, he is a CEO, and if all entertainment media (including video games) have taught us anything, it's that businessmen are the source of all the evil in the world and need to be killed before they can spawn. I mean, you almost sound like working hard and making good products means you get to have more money than other people. That just can't be right... I was taught in high school and college that when people have money and high-powered jobs, it's because they stole and screwed over people to get there.

Dude made a 10k donation(which let's be honest, is a drop in the bucket for a political campaign) 6 years ago(Give or take, I might be recollecting poorly.) and we're holding his belief against him, when he has since not spoken out in a public manner against LGBT community, and some of you expect he should have publicly apologized for having held a discriminating belief during a time where it was considered normal(No less wrong, don't get me wrong.)? If he had made said donation less than a year ago, fine, take him to the cleaners for being a general dick, but come on, seriously?

Ninmecu:
Dude made a 10k donation

Was it 10? I read somewhere that it was 1k but that could've easily been a typo.

Scrumpmonkey:
Well done internet *slow clap* you really pulled together to achieve something utterly meaningless and actually helped give credence to the idea that people who don't fall in line with LGBT beliefs are actively hounded and discriminated against, a fallacy long peddled by those who are actually more damaging to that cause.

It isn't meaningless to show that funding anti-LGBT laws will be frowned upon and even economically punished.

anthony87:

Ninmecu:
Dude made a 10k donation

Was it 10? I read somewhere that it was 1k but that could've easily been a typo.

I might be mistaken, some sources say 10k, others say 1k, hell, if it's 1k, that's even more of a drop in the bucket. I don't agree with the movement, it changes absolutely NOTHING. We as a society have largely moved forward and claimed "LGBT" are just as ok as the rest of us Hetero. But, we still live in a puritan society, which is hilariously awkward from my point of view.

Yuri Albuquerque:

Scrumpmonkey:
Well done internet *slow clap* you really pulled together to achieve something utterly meaningless and actually helped give credence to the idea that people who don't fall in line with LGBT beliefs are actively hounded and discriminated against, a fallacy long peddled by those who are actually more damaging to that cause.

It isn't meaningless to show that funding anti-LGBT laws will be frowned upon and even economically punished.

6 bloody years ago. Different times.

maxben:

th3dark3rsh33p:

SKBPinkie:

Except this guy wasn't just someone whose ideas "didn't fall in line with LGBT beliefs". He was someone who actively condemned them and donated to a cause that directly affects their rights.

That being said, I do agree that this is pretty harsh, but there's gotta be another way to encourage support for LGBT stuff, rather than overzealous punishment of the opposite.

A lot of people who don't like OKcupid's stupid publicity stunt to get a man fired, do not agree with the man's views. I personally think the traditional marriage shit is awful, but this kind of conduct on the part of the LGBT movement and it's advocates is wrong. It's not right to black list someone from having a professional career due to the politics they support, or their personal life.

If it's nothing more then public perception of morality that gives anyone the licensee to enact black lists and make people suppressive persons, then discrimination will not end, it'll just change sides. It's either wrong to do this shit, or it isn't.

That is such bull, you are hiding what this really is by talking about "traditional marriage". It is about human rights. A CEO who today said, "I'm ok with Black people, I just don't think they should be allowed to marry whites so I've donated a tonne of money to ensure that doesn't happen". "I don't mind Jews, but since their marriage isn't condoned by the Church it's not a real marriage and so should be made illegal, so I've donated a tonne of money to organizations that will ban Jews from being married". I can go extreme cases where we remove other human rights too, but I think these show the point as accurately as possible. If you're ok with individuals in power saying and the above, that's fine but no one on our side of the fence is really going to be swayed by your arguments as they are rather extreme.

On top of that, he wasn't "blacklisted", his company let him go to ensure they don't lose money. That's up to them and is based on economic considerations, meaning that he could not do the work that he was assigned to do as CEO (make them money). To be blacklisted, you first have to be employable and due to a grudge no one hires you. Furthermore, blacklisting would mean that you cannot find work elsewhere. The employers who wouldn't hire him because they are mad at him are very very few number, meaning he could find work elsewhere (though again others won't hire him because he can't do his job as well as other candidates).

I don't agreeeeee with this position. I don't support this position. I'm ON your side of the fucking fence in terms of what I think SHOULD happen. I just have the foresight to allow people the right to have stupid opinions, or opinions I don't agree with without thinking it's okay that they get fired for it when it has nothing to do with their job.

ALSO how is this not blacklisting? You accept that it's okay that a man can be publicly shamed and lead to his removal from a job, but you think this can't happen again? Like the next job he takes, what if people continue to hound him? Sure he's got the money to probably just retire, but if you think the behavior here was acceptable when is no longer acceptable?

Absolutely disgusting that he had to go as far as to step down. I hope he can bounce back from this and chalk it up as a lesson learned in the way our current society operates. Seriously, this makes me sick- but the difference is I'm not going to go attack anyone for their beliefs and call for their head, because I know myself and millions of other people all over the world will see this for what it really is.

Scrumpmonkey:
What exactly was his crime? Having a private opinion others felt he didn't have the right not have.

He was publicly outspoken against equal rights.

The Supreme Court ruled that corporations are people and are free to donate funds to political campaigns as their means of free-speech.

Brendan Eich giving money to promote a state law was a form of free and public speech in accordance to the Supreme Court's ruling.

th3dark3rsh33p:

I don't agreeeeee with this position. I don't support this position. I'm ON your side of the fucking fence in terms of what I think SHOULD happen. I just have the foresight to allow people the right to have stupid opinions, or opinions I don't agree with without thinking it's okay that they get fired for it when it has nothing to do with their job.

ALSO how is this not blacklisting? You accept that it's okay that a man can be publicly shamed and lead to his removal from a job, but you think this can't happen again? Like the next job he takes, what if people continue to hound him? Sure he's got the money to probably just retire, but if you think the behavior here was acceptable when is no longer acceptable?

He actively supported oppression. That's more then just having a stupid opinion. He deserves everything he gets.

And again SJW's have ruined a career because why the hell not. Bravo!

Why can't they choose targets that actually deserve it? Tell people to boykott arabian oil or don't spend their vacations in Turkey, these countries discriminate and persecute homosexuals actively and even legally. But wait, that could be considered racist because...no WASP's you can blame, so let's target an honest business man who did nothing bad.

Avaholic03:
I'm still constantly amazed when people try to be public figures AND be vocal about their controversial opinions. When has that ever worked out for someone?

Daniel Cohn-Bendit openly admitted that he molested toddlers while working in a daycare (he called it an "erotic game" when five yaear old girls open his zipper and play around with his crotch) and still has a seat in the european parliament. So I guess you can get away with a lot unless some minority craves attention.

MinionJoe:
He actively supported oppression. That's more then just having a stupid opinion. He deserves everything he gets.

You might wanna look up what oppression means. Not getting an established law changed in your favor because you feel like it does hardly qualify.

Yuri Albuquerque:

Scrumpmonkey:
Well done internet *slow clap* you really pulled together to achieve something utterly meaningless and actually helped give credence to the idea that people who don't fall in line with LGBT beliefs are actively hounded and discriminated against, a fallacy long peddled by those who are actually more damaging to that cause.

It isn't meaningless to show that funding anti-LGBT laws will be frowned upon and even economically punished.

Well it's not meaningless sure. It shows people that your movement is petty, and goes below the belt for going after what people do as private individuals and not as a business. Something typically considered off limits in polite society, and what most people think as irrelevant to a person's performance in their job.

MinionJoe:

Scrumpmonkey:
What exactly was his crime? Having a private opinion others felt he didn't have the right not have.

He was publicly outspoken against equal rights.

The Supreme Court ruled that corporations are people and are free to donate funds to political campaigns as their means of free-speech.

Brendan Eich giving money to promote a state law was a form of free and public speech in accordance to the Supreme Court's ruling.

You're taking a lot of logical leaps to make this man into something he isn't. That's what annys me about all of this, in the grand scheme of things there are bigger issues to tackle. I don't care if you can take three steps to twist his donation into a "Public speech". There are plenty of much bigger issues out there that the LGBT lobby needs to tackle and all of those wouldn't make them look so petty.

This is a PR loss for them. It is counterproductive to shame private individuals in this way.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 17 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