Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Mozilla Google The Almighty Buck

Was Eich a Threat To Mozilla's $1B Google "Trust Fund"? 564

Posted by timothy
from the are-you-now-or-have-you-ever-been dept.
theodp (442580) writes "Over the years, Mozilla's reliance on Google has continued to grow. Indeed, in its report on Brendan Eich's promotion to CEO of Mozilla, the WSJ noted that "Google accounted for nearly 90% of Mozilla's $311 million in revenue." So, with its Sugar Daddy having also gone on record as being virulently opposed to Proposition 8, to think that that Google's support didn't enter into discussions of whether Prop 8 backer Eich should stay or go seems, well, pretty much unthinkable. "It is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8," explained Google co-founder Sergey Brin in 2008. "We should not eliminate anyone's fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love." Interestingly, breaking the news of Eich's resignation was journalist Kara Swisher, whose right to marry a top Google exec in 2008 was nearly eliminated by Prop 8. "In an interview this morning," wrote Swisher, "Mozilla Executive Chairwoman Mitchell Baker said that Eich's ability to lead the company that makes the Firefox Web browser had been badly damaged by the continued scrutiny over the hot-button issue, which had actually been known since 2012 inside the Mozilla community." Swisher, whose article was cited by the NY Times in The Campaign Against Mozilla's Brendan Eich, added that "it was not hard to get the sense that Eich really wanted to stick strongly by his views about gay marriage, which run counter to much of the tech industry and, increasingly, the general population in the U.S. For example, he repeatedly declined to answer when asked if he would donate to a similar initiative today." So, was keeping Eich aboard viewed by Mozilla — perhaps even by Eich himself — as a possible threat to the reported $1 billion minimum revenue guarantee the organization enjoys for delivering search queries for Google?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Was Eich a Threat To Mozilla's $1B Google "Trust Fund"?

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 05, 2014 @09:29AM (#46669345)

    to have a miserable life, i.e. to be married.

    • You are joking but (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Arker (91948) on Saturday April 05, 2014 @11:52AM (#46670421) Homepage

      It's actually a serious argument:

      I don't need any more reasons to be against gay marriage apart from the looming prospect of gay divorce. If I'm going to break up with my boyfriend, I don't want to have to pay a price higher than a few broken vases and a call to 911. As far as I'm concerned, if ever there was an argument for the existence of "homophobia," then this is it: "gay marriage" is the revenge of the heterosexuals, who resent and hate us for our gay fun-filled lives and advanced powers of color-coordination. It's a nefarious plot to make us all as boring and unbearable as Andrew Sullivan, and I, for one, will have none of it." -Justin Raimondo

      There are really two different issues here, one is entirely around the meaning of the word marriage and the other has to do with rights taken away and then handed back as privileges - with strings attached.

      The latter is easier to solve in theory - just keep our rights to start with. You may pay taxes and mandatory fees for benefits at work - and then be told you must be in a state-blessed marriage in order to collect those benefits. This is obviously unfair and wrong. But this could be straightened out relatively simply, by not mandating these arrangements in the first place. There is no reason for the system to take money out of your paycheck only to hand it back if and when you file the forms and show the state blessing - it's entirely unnecessary. You should be allowed to keep your money and buy what you want with it, what suits your needs, it should not be a situation where you have all these people, this bureaucracy, all up in your business all the time.

      The first issue is less tractable, I fear people will still be having that argument generations hence. But the wonderful thing is, if you solve the second issue as I have suggested, the first issue just becomes unimportant. Sure, people will disagree heatedly but with the government no longer involved, defining who is right and who is wrong, robbing Peter to pay Paul's bills, there is no longer any urgency to the argument, no political dimension. No one faces loss of their rights or their livelihood over it. It becomes, as it should be, a discussion for church not a struggle to direct the power of the state against those who disagree with you.

  • by Trailer Trash (60756) on Saturday April 05, 2014 @09:35AM (#46669387) Homepage

    They're opposed to Prop 8 yet in 2008:

    http://www.opensecrets.org/pre... [opensecrets.org]

    Remember that Obama was also opposed to gay marriage when Eich was. Doesn't seem to have bothered too many people.

    • by dugancent (2616577) on Saturday April 05, 2014 @09:42AM (#46669431)

      Obama changed his mind, did Eich?

      Either way is has no bearing on this issue as it's a company that can do as they wish. If Google wanted to cut them off for it, it's their right. Mozilla would collapse without google.

      • by ganjadude (952775) on Saturday April 05, 2014 @10:01AM (#46669545) Homepage
        to be fair we dont know, he has never made a statement about it as far as I am aware. he was simply attacked for something he did 5 years ago concerning a bill that was overturned anyway.
        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by mspohr (589790)

          Eich has a long history of donating to candidates and causes which are intolerant of the beliefs of others. From The Guardian:
          "Mozilla's controversial new CEO Brendan Eich made a string of donations to politicians on the fringe of the Republican party a decade before he donated $1,000 to the campaign against equal marriage in California.
          Public records show that between 1991 and 1992, Eich donated a total of $1,000 to Pat Buchanan, then a rightwing Republican presidential candidate. In 1996 and 1998, Eich do

          • by ganjadude (952775) on Saturday April 05, 2014 @10:42AM (#46669837) Homepage
            Thank you for the information but none of that really means anything. Donating to pat buchannon and ron paul? last I checked neither of them were anti gay

            in 1990 having the views that homosexuality and aids went together was the mainstream thought at the time. Many many people in 1990 had the same thoughts, scientists even believed as much at the time

            just for the record as well anti gay marriage != anti gay

            Having said all of that it looks like this guy is a little deeper than I wanted to give him credit for, while I dont personally feel he did anything on the grounds of losing his job over, I can see why others would want to force the man into hiding
            • pat 'the nazi' buchannon? not anti-gay? what planet are you on??

              he's as republican as it gets. and yes, this is relevant as it speaks to eich's character. I was not aware he was a buchannon supporter. that's even WORSE than being anti-gay.

              face he, he does not represent progressive attitudes, which mostly are what exists in the bay area for software and hardware folks.

              his views are hateful and repressive and I'm glad he got kicked out on his ass. very glad when a bigot gets shown the door, so to speak

            • by mspohr (589790) on Saturday April 05, 2014 @10:56AM (#46669949)

              "Thank you for the information but none of that really means anything. Donating to pat buchannon and ron paul? last I checked neither of them were anti gay"
              Did your read these quotes???
              Buchanan said in relation to the Aids outbreak that “our promiscuous homosexuals appear literally hell-bent on Satanism and suicide”. A a few years earlier he said “homosexuals have declared war on nature, and now nature is exacting an awful retribution”. and Linda Smith, who ran for senate in Washington state. McClintock opposes same-sex marriage; as does Smith, who has said that "homosexuality is a morally unfit inclination".
              These people are ignorant bigots who are actively discriminating against others.

              • by ganjadude (952775)
                as I said above, in 1990, that was a prevailing theory that was proven to be false. Anyone should be forgiven for thoughts they had 30 25 years ago dont you agree? Find me one person who in 25 years has NEVER said anything offensive in retrospect and I will eat a bag of rocks
          • And because of that, we should be intolerant of his beliefs? The flat out hypocrisy of this entire affair has been ridiculous.

          • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 05, 2014 @11:55AM (#46670447)

            Those people aren't haters.

            I'M a hater.

            I hate you. All the gay activists, I hate you. I didn't use to. And note I don't hate gay people, just the gay activists (both straight and gay). Because you're now fucking evil. Not because you're gay. Not because of anything you do with your bodies in the privacy of your bedrooms.

            But because you have castigated and caused to be fired ("resigned", my ass) someone because they dared to express themselves via the previously accepted political process by which people in a democratic society decide controversial issues like this. He gave money to a campaign -- a campaign that WON, by the damn way -- and you don't like it, so you hounded him out.

            And now, I hate you. I've uninstalled Firefox, not that that will matter a whit, but I can't stand looking at it anymore, as it is a tool of people I loathe now.

            I used to be against gay marriage, but only in the way I was also against gay-people-falling-into-lion-pits; I liked gay people and didn't want them to go through anything as horrible as marriage. Or lion pits. Now.... go ahead, get married. Suffer, fuckers. (But please don't fall into lion pits; you might land on the lion.)

            So let me leave you with this thought...

            First they came for the Gays, and I did not speak out -- because the Gays had become annoying bastards who never shut up no matter how much they gained, so frankly the fucking assholes had earned it.

            Then they came for the Minorities, and I did not speak out -- because I was tired of paying for so many of them to sit at home and churn out babies, so getting rid of them would improve my life one hell of a lot, not to mention cut down the murder rate.

            Then they came for the Feminists, and I did not speak out -- because they'd told me all my life that they didn't need a damn stinking man to protect them, so I didn't protect them.

            Then they came for me -- and offered me the position of running the death camps where the Gays, Minorities, and Feminists were being exterminated, and I took the job, because hey, they'd told me I was evil all my life... and now I would teach them the true meaning of the word.

          • I get scared as hell when I see people expressing themselves with this kind of tone in public and thinking there's nothing wrong with it.
        • by TubeSteak (669689)

          to be fair we dont know, he has never made a statement about it as far as I am aware.

          He had ~10 days to repudiate his former position and didn't.
          In that time, he's made statements, but all his statements were non-apologies and evasions.

          https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/ [brendaneich.com]

          I can only ask for your support to have the time to "show, not tell"; and in the meantime express my sorrow at having caused pain.

          http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/01/mozilla-ceo-brendan-eich-refuses-to-quit [theguardian.com]

          "So I don't want to talk about my personal beliefs because I kept them out of Mozilla all these 15 years we've been going," he told the Guardian. "I don't believe they're relevant."

          Eich refused to be drawn on whether he would donate to a Proposition 8 style campaign again in the future. "I don't want to do hypotheticals," he said. "I haven't thought about that issue and I really don't want to speculate because it's not relevant."

          "Tolerate my intolerance" was never really a good place to be starting from, but nowadays it's a completely unviable position to take.

          There are still culture warriors out there bemoaning this trend as the end of

          • by ganjadude (952775) on Saturday April 05, 2014 @11:20AM (#46670155) Homepage

            "So I don't want to talk about my personal beliefs because I kept them out of Mozilla all these 15 years we've been going," he told the Guardian. "I don't believe they're relevant."

            If only everyone lived by this creed the world would be a better place. He was correct, his donation in private has NOTHING to do with the job he has been doing at mozilla for 15 years. Why only now do they make a big deal about it?

          • by Oligonicella (659917) on Saturday April 05, 2014 @11:35AM (#46670279)

            He had ~10 days to repudiate his former position and didn't.

            REPENT OR FACE THE FIRE! You seem oblivious that your position is intolerance, which is "a completely unviable[sic] position to take.".

          • by MightyMartian (840721) on Saturday April 05, 2014 @11:43AM (#46670353) Journal

            There seems to be this general idea, expressed in one form or another by the libertarians around here, that free speech ought to mean consequences free speech; that someone can take various socially questionable if not outright bigoted positions, and that no business superior, investor or the like should have any right to mitigate the harm you may cause.

            • by ganjadude (952775)
              I dont think thats what we are saying at all, I think what we are saying is it is fucked up to get someone fired because of their personal beliefs over their ability. If he was good enough to work there for 15 years and he earned the position based on his merit, It is fucked up to fire him for something non job related. If he were gay and the bible thumpers did the same thing they would rightfully be called disgusting, BUT since its the gays doing it, in some peoples eyes it makes it ok.

              you cant want equ
              • Let us imagine that, after being named CEO, it waa learned he had donated money to white supremacist causes and had made racist remarka.. Would you be standing here declaring that it was wring for employees to be demanding his resignation? You seem to be arguing exactly what I stated, that pronouncements in public forums (whether it be in the form of actual statements or in registering support via donations) should be consequence free, that no investor, member of a board, employee should demand or force his

            • by stdarg (456557)

              that someone can take various socially questionable if not outright bigoted positions, and that no business superior, investor or the like should have any right to mitigate the harm you may cause.

              Isn't that what gay activists wanted for a long time? The right to not be fired just because your employers found out you held beliefs and practices they disapproved of, especially if it wasn't affecting your job?

        • by Guppy06 (410832)

          to be fair we dont know, he has never made a statement about it as far as I am aware.

          Fucking summary, second-to-last sentence.

      • by Charliemopps (1157495) on Saturday April 05, 2014 @11:33AM (#46670253)

        Obama changed his mind, did Eich?

        Obama didn't change his mind. He chose the most politically acceptable stance based on the climate at the time. Although I disagree with Eich, I trust him more than I do Obama. When Eichs views are unpopular and it may affect his job, he shuts his mouth. When Obamas views are unpopular and it may affect his job, he lies.

      • by evilviper (135110) on Saturday April 05, 2014 @12:05PM (#46670537) Journal

        Obama changed his mind, did Eich?

        Lovely... So you're saying we get a whole 2-year window to jump on the latest bandwagon, before we get branded as bigots, fired from our jobs, and ostracized by the public at-large?

    • by Lisias (447563)

      Remember that Obama was also opposed to gay marriage when Eich was.

      Do you have some links to back your words? For us, that live outside USA, these facts are not easily verifiable - we lack the context you have while trying to separate what's is real news from what's is pure propaganda.

      • Remember that Obama was also opposed to gay marriage when Eich was.

        Do you have some links to back your words?

        Here is a link [go.com]

        Obama claimed to oppose gay marriage in 2008. But, in 2008, he also opposed prop 8, which tried to overturn gay marriage in California. So he was for gay marriage where it was relatively popular and would gain him votes, but opposed to it where being opposed would cost him votes. In 2012, political calculations showed that dropping his opposition would help more than hurt in the fall election, so he "evolved" his views.

        Obama really isn't comparable to Eich. He never donated to any anti-ga

        • by ganjadude (952775)
          agreed, they are not comparable. one has the power to actually make a difference, and instead plays both sides, to win an election, and the other is a private citizen who donates a whole 1000$ to a prop that simply kept the status quo.
        • The President saying "I'm opposed to gay marriage" does a hell of a lot more work than $1000 given to a losing campaign. Not. Even. Close.

      • by sithkhan (536425)
        I'll do better than a link - how about a video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]
    • by 0xdeadbeef (28836) on Saturday April 05, 2014 @09:57AM (#46669511) Homepage Journal

      Obama said that to get people like Eich to vote for him. After he was elected, he rightly threw them under the bus.

      It must be terrible being bigots on the wrong side of history. No one gives you credit for standing up for what you believe in, all they think about is how you're the kind of douchebag who would take away something that costs you nothing but makes so many people so happy.

      • I could not have said it any better than your 2nd paragraph.

        repeating:

        n the wrong side of history. No one gives you credit for standing up for what you believe in, all they think about is how you're the kind of douchebag who would take away something that costs you nothing but makes so many people so happy.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by squiggleslash (241428)

      With respect, the issue with Eich was co-funding the pro-Prop 8 campaigns, which were objectively homophobic and hate-stirring. His private views about whether gays should be allowed freedom of association aren't so much a problem as the very real judgement and respect issues reflected in his actions.

      Obama did not fund Prop 8 campaigns. He did not dog-whistle with statements saying we needed to "protect children" from "homosexual marriages" (coupled with some plausible deniability but absurd explanation

    • by bricko (1052210) on Saturday April 05, 2014 @10:14AM (#46669633)
      The hypocrisy of two of OkCupid’s co-founders, Sam Yagan and Christian Rudder. We searched the federal campaign-contribution database and found that Yagan gave to two candidates who opposed same-sex marriage: $500 to then-Rep. Chris Cannon of Utah, a Republican, in 2004; and $500 to then-Sen. Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign who also opposed gay marriage at the time. According to Wikipedia, 7,001,084 people voted for Prop 8. Why do any of those people still have jobs? Shouldn’t they all be forced to resign? And why should they have the privilege of living in California at all? I say round them up and move them someplace where they won’t do any harm.” One reason why rich white guys like Eich are being targeted so viciously is that the many black churches who supported Proposition 8 — and, indeed, put it over the top — are out-of-bounds for criticism. Uh oh: 60% of Intel employees who donated in Prop 8 debate supported banning gay marriage. “Exit question: When do we get a list of Silicon Valley donors to Obama’s campaign circa 2008, when he was still formally against traditional marriage? True, he didn’t support Prop 8 or other attempts to legally ban SSM (a strong signal at the time that his stated view was a lie), but the whole point of the equal protection argument against traditional marriage laws is that you can’t reserve ‘marriage’ for straights without implicitly slapping a second-class-citizen stigma on gays. Obama was willing to do that, at least rhetorically. Let’s have the names.”
      • by Guppy06 (410832)

        We

        Oooh, "grassroots!"

        searched the federal campaign-contribution database and found that Yagan gave...$500 to then-Sen. Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign who also opposed gay marriage at the time.

        He also opposed preemptively bombing Iran and didn't choose Sarah Palin as a running mate. Most political candidates don't run on a single issue. Did the campaign check specifically have "Fuck the gays!" written in the memo?

        According to Wikipedia, 7,001,084 people voted for Prop 8. Why do any of those people still have jobs? Shouldn’t they all be forced to resign?

        Depends on if they all hypocritically run companies that claim to strive for diversity.

        One reason why rich white guys like Eich are being targeted so viciously is that the many black churches who supported Proposition 8 — and, indeed, put it over the top — are out-of-bounds for criticism.

        And since it's the only "reason" you listed it's the only reason that matters? Besides, unlike Eich here, "the black churches" (as well as churches of other, less sinister colors)

  • by thegarbz (1787294) on Saturday April 05, 2014 @09:40AM (#46669419)

    I understand the Church seems to think it has a monopoly on marriage as they are they most common institution to perform the ceremony. I also understand that many politicians will read the biblical definition of marriage between a man and a woman. However it is not the government's role to decide who can and can't be together.

    So why not abolish marriages from governments?

    Have the government only recognise civil unions. Treat all civil unions equally. Introduce a reciprocal relationship with the Church's marriage so that any marriage performed by the church ends in a government recognised civil union. Finally provide other non religious methods of registering civil unions.

    Everyone's happy. Except for those in government who think the Church's view that two dudes shouldn't touch each either. But to them I say one of the tenants of modern democracy is the separation of Church and state and go find another job where your bias and lack of impartiality doesn't affect the people who you are supposed to represent.

    • by beelsebob (529313) on Saturday April 05, 2014 @10:02AM (#46669553)

      Because lots of people who are not religious (or of other religions) feel that "marriage" is an important thing in their life, and "civil union" is not. The bottom line is that the church can not, and does not have a monopoly on the word. The government shouldn't give to them.

      • A rose by a different name... is it really so important how you call something? A name should reflect its content, it's not content by itself.

        • by LihTox (754597)

          A rose by a different name... is it really so important how you call something? A name should reflect its content, it's not content by itself.

          Are you addressing the commenters who want to keep government "marriage", or the commenters who want to change it to "civil union"? Seems like your comment could go either way.

    • by ganjadude (952775)
      the problem is neither sides extremest side will go for it

      the religious right will scream and moan that you are taking away their rights and the homosexuals on the far fringe will never accept it unless it is marriage. Ive made this argument many times over (marriage is NOT a "right" in the eyes of the constitution on the same vein as the right to free speech for example" Remove the government from the equation, treat everyone the same when it comes to tax and other government issues (hospitals are used m
    • by blindbat (189141) on Saturday April 05, 2014 @10:05AM (#46669585)

      You don't seem to understand how things work.

      1. It is not just the Church that has a male-female view of marriage; this is found in religions and customs around the world and throughout history.

      2. In America, it *is* the government that decides who can and can't be together, not the church. You get license from the state to marry, you cannot marry close family members, etc. If you live too long with someone, the state considers it a common law marriage and you have real divorce proceedings.

      3. Churches merely perform ceremonies but the state licenses it. Without that state license, there is no marriage regardless of what church you were in.

      4. Now that comes down to your main point: have the government change from being in charge of marriage to only having civil unions and give the word "marriage" over to religion. Many states already have civil unions that function like that already. But that is not enough: people want to be called married when they commit themselves to one another.

      • by devent (1627873)

        1. It is not just the Church that has a male-female view of marriage; this is found in religions and customs around the world and throughout history.

        Irrelevant. Gay couples do not hold the view of male-female view of marriage. Government is also in the business to protect minorities from the majority.

        4. Now that comes down to your main point: have the government change from being in charge of marriage to only having civil unions and give the word "marriage" over to religion. Many states already have civil unions that function like that already. But that is not enough: people want to be called married when they commit themselves to one another.

        That is why the government should stop the whole marriage business. It is too loaded with religious views and personal opinions. For the state it should just be a contract of union between two people. Then people are free to perform any ceremony they like and can call it marriage. Then the churches can reject the ceremony for gay couples if they wish to, an

    • The church doesn't have a monopoly on marriage. The courtroom does. I know someone who was married in a church and then they never got around to filing the legal paperwork. Technically, they're not married (which was a good thing as it made 'divorce' that much easier).

  • Mozilla do Google the favour, not the other way around.
  • Virulently? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dan East (318230) on Saturday April 05, 2014 @09:50AM (#46669475) Homepage Journal

    The link to the text "virulently opposed to Proposition 8" has nothing do with backing the claim that behaved "virulently". Weasel words: score -1 for the summary.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 05, 2014 @09:53AM (#46669489)

    Sealed lips and a medium-sized monetary contribution is "virulent"? Please.

  • by Rambo Tribble (1273454) on Saturday April 05, 2014 @09:58AM (#46669519) Homepage

    ... considering marriage a "fundamental right" would seem a slippery slope. Does an atheist have a fundamental right to be ordained a priest?

    To be clear, I think Eich was scapegoated, but am of the opinion it is unfair to deny marriage to gays. I am only concerned here with what seems to me to be excessively broad definitions and the fallout that may result.

    • Yes, everyone has the right to be ordained a priest. Not of every cult, but everyone's entitled to create his own cult and label himself a priest. There's no set requirement that I'm aware of that could keep you or anyone from calling yourself a priest.

      Myself, I prefer to be a pope. I am actually a discoridan pope. Oh, and while we're at it, so are you now. Enjoy!

    • by alen (225700)

      if he goes to a theology school and gets a phd like most churches require, then yes

  • by Baldrson (78598) * on Saturday April 05, 2014 @10:01AM (#46669541) Homepage Journal

    Sorting proponents into governments that test them [sortocracy.org] is the penetration of the Enlightenment into the social sciences. This allows the social sciences to progress beyond "correlation doesn't imply causation" to perform ethical experiments on human subjects that, because there are experimental control groups, permits much stronger inference of causal laws in human ecologies (human societies) [about.com] than do mere ecological correlations [wikipedia.org].

    So what's not to like about locales, like the Mozilla Foundation or Google or even Silicon Valley, excluding from their midst those who are incompatible with the social experiment that most people want to perform on themselves? After all, it is only by consent of the governed that a jurisdiction can be deemed legitimate.

    Here's the problem:

    In the modern zeitgeist it is considered the moral equivalent of Satanism to practice what is called "the politics of exclusion". Why? Because it "discriminates".

    These fuzzy tropes forget one thing, however -- and it is something that anyone who is involved in technology should understand in their gut:

    It is only by "excluding" various hypotheses that we can "discriminate" between truth and falsehood in the real world.

    But no one wants to admit that their religion might be false -- including those whose religion is the de facto state religion that enforces "inclusion" and prohibits "discrimination".

  • i don't understand (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lkcl (517947) <lkcl@lkcl.net> on Saturday April 05, 2014 @10:03AM (#46669557) Homepage

    i'm sorry but i genuinely fail to see the importance of any of this "personal view" stuff. a technically-competent person who has been with it almost since the beginning: they were the CEO of Mozilla for about a week. someone as technically competent as brendan should have absolutely no difficulty firewalling personal from professional: why do we have to have idiots believe otherwise? could someone therefore please explain to me in simple language what's really going on?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by spike hay (534165)

      What is happening now with gay rights is what happened with racism in the 60's. It used to be perfectly acceptable to espouse racist views. Then, it became very unnacceptable. Do you think most companies would appoint a CEO who openly thinks blacks are mentally inferior to whites? Now the same thing is happening with homophobia. This is a fast change that many are having problems with. You can still be a private homophobe with friends, but you've got to not let it get out if you are a public figure.

      Now, I t

      • by evilviper (135110) on Saturday April 05, 2014 @11:53AM (#46670429) Journal

        What is happening now with gay rights is what happened with racism in the 60's.

        That's utter bullshit. I'm sure blacks in the south would have loved if the only problem they had in the world was not being able to get the tax breaks and entitlements that come from a state recognized marriage.

        Is that was passes for oppression, these days? I'm inclined to go lynch 10,000 homosexuals, just so people would get to see what real discrimination looks like...

        Such a first-world problem, that a group not getting the tax-breaks and incentives (that were always meant as incentives for child-bearing families) passes for discrimination these days.

      • by malkavian (9512) on Saturday April 05, 2014 @12:29PM (#46670739) Homepage

        Where, oh where does he epouse the views that Gays are inferior to non-gay? You're setting up a straw man argument right there.
        This is nothing to do with that at all. What's actually happened as an extension of all the racism laws is that if you're an ethnic minority, you actually get to be recist to everybody, and that's legally ok (affirmative action anyone? It's not positive discrimination of a small group, it's negative discrimination against a majority).
        It seems that everyone seems to be saying "You're white, therefore you're racist".. Yet if your skin isn't white, you can throw around racial epithets and people fight your corner.. After being up in front of a tribunal for calling a co-councilor in Bristol "A coconunt" (brown on the outside, white on the inside, which is apparently a standard parlance in the Black/Ethnic Minority groups, and perfectly acceptable in their eyes, one councillor brown said in her defence, shocked that she was charged with being racist "I can't be racist because I'm black".
        That's the view in the political factions all to often..
        So perhaps that is what's happening with the LGBT scene these days.. They're generally socially accepted these days, the same as anyone else (actually, probably more so than me, because I'm an introvert by nature).. Just when someone isn't happy with it, they get a huge spitting mob behind them.
        Another great example, a Gay couple wanted to stop in a B&B. When they said they wanted a double room together, the old lady running it said no.. She didn't want unmarried people sharing beds under her roof. There was a national scandal, and the landlady was hauled through the courts, and had the national newpapers hounding her (and making her quite ill). What came out at the end of this was that she didn't let _any_ unmarried people, gay, straight, whatever share beds (officially) under her roof as it made her uncomfortable. Everyone else was ok with this, or went elsewhere (she provided alternative places very locally that would cater to this quite happily).. Gay people stayed there and were happy (and she never had objection to that, or asked, or batted an eyelid if it was brought up). It was a Gay couple that decided that her wishes about unmarried sexual behaviour didn't apply to them. They made it all a political showcase, dragging her through the mud, even when it was made plain to them it was about anything but their being gay or not.
        That's the problem with this focussed "anti-homophobia", "anti-racist" thing. It's gone from being a way of stopping very serious discrimination into being a weapon of discrimination against those you have a personal problem with.

      • by _xeno_ (155264) on Saturday April 05, 2014 @01:41PM (#46671213) Homepage Journal

        Now, I think if Eich simply apologized for his Prop 8 support, it would have been quite different.

        It wouldn't have been. How do I know? Because he did, and that didn't stop the criticism.

        He pledged not to change Mozilla's current policies towards LGBT individuals. It wasn't enough, and the OKCupid thing happened in spite of his assurances that nothing was going to change under his leadership.

        Now you're probably right that his personal views didn't change, but he was committed to not changing Mozilla as an organization. It still wasn't enough to stop OKCupid's childish little ploy.

    • too much risk. that's it. he controls the healthcare that the corp would buy for their employees. he controls which things can be in the HC pkg and he controls costs. he can hire and fire. he can make company policy.

      too much power for a bigot and an openly bigot at that.

      we did well by removing such a person from power.

      • by lkcl (517947)

        ok. i understand. there are personal views and there is a naive belief that his personal views will somehow interfere with his legal obligation to enact the articles of incorporation as a Director of a Corporation. to imply that someone is unfit to distinguish between personal and professional (legal obligations) is actually a very very serious accusation to level at someone, for which he could probably demand significant compensation, as well as initiate libel lawsuits against those people making such d

    • I have a suspicion that the whole "Prop 8 support" thing is a smokescreen for the real reason he stepped down. It makes a great bone to support to the LGBT crowd and let's them have a "win."

      However, three members the Mozilla board quit [arstechnica.com] after Eich was named CEO - and they did that before the OKCupid stuff and have said it was entirely unrelated to his support for Prop 8. (Apparently one was planning on quitting after the CEO selection anyway, but the reasons for the other two leaving aren't known.)

      So it's en

  • by Dr. Spork (142693) on Saturday April 05, 2014 @10:07AM (#46669589)

    If I still lived in California I would also have been "virulently opposed" to prop 8, but I hate the idea of judging someone's employability based on how they vote. To suggest that Google would treat Mozilla differently simply based on a single-issue stance of its new CEO is really selling them short. They invest in Mozilla for strategic reasons. (Mozilla isn't some sort of lazy couch-crasher that Google supports because of Mozilla's charming personality.)

    And for that matter, I don't think we should judge products based on the ideology of the people who created them. To save us some time, I'll get straight to a Hitler example, noting that Hitler personally played an important role in the design of the VW Beetle. But hippies can still drive Beetles without thereby supporting Hitler.

    • by Trailer Trash (60756) on Saturday April 05, 2014 @10:54AM (#46669939) Homepage

      To further your point, if they really thought Eich was so bad they would quit using Javascript. But that would come at a *real* cost, unlike hounding him out of his position which can be done for free.

      Makes it all the more pathetic.

    • by devent (1627873)

      It is not about employability, it is about the representation of a whole organization to clients and other stakeholders as the CEO. Mozilla is a non-profit organization, it relies heavily on donations. The choice of who represents Mozilla is of utter importance, and to have a CEO like Mr. Eich that supports a law that is suppose to discriminate about 10% of the population is not an advantage. The very appointment of Mr. Eich as the CEO was a mistake in the fist place. Maybe it was done only because of his t

  • by rabtech (223758) on Saturday April 05, 2014 @03:39PM (#46672035) Homepage

    Eich was not fired. He chose to resign. Maybe he did so because he cares about the foundation and didn't want to be a distraction. Maybe he was told he'd better resign or they would lose their funding and have to lay everyone off. We don't know, but the insinuations of the original story are out of line for implying so. The truth is we just don't know.

    This isn't some free speech issue or some form of inquisition trying to purge the unbelievers.

    Eich chose to wade into a controversial issue by making political donations (after all, a conservative majority of SCOTUS claims money == speech). Those "free speech" statements offended a bunch of people and he chose to resign rather than drag the non-profit Mozilla foundation through an ordeal over it.

    Anyone in a leadership position is certainly free to make any statements or support any political cause they want. Employees, customers/donors, etc are also free to loudly complain or refuse to associate with the organization if they disagree. That comes with the territory. We wouldn't give Eich a pass if he were sending checks to neo-Nazi organizations. A leader always takes a risk that they'll piss people off by taking a stance. He was CTO of Mozilla at the time, he knew what the consequences could be and made the donation anyway.

    A few decades ago it was accepted that blacks and whites shouldn't intermarry. Even some people who campaigned for civil rights still held such a view. If Eich were donating to a group promoting a constitutional amendment to outlaw interracial marriages almost none of you would be wringing your hands over free speech. Everyone would laugh at him for being a dumbass and move on with their lives.

    Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. Even if someone faces no offical sanctions for speaking out, they can certainly be excluded socially, even to the point of being driven out of the organization. That's how human group dynamics have always worked since we were grunting at each other and throwing pointy sticks.

    Furthermore, technology has always been intertwined with personalities, politics, and the like. Only very rarely is it always 100% about the pure technology. You can write the best code in the world but if you can't play nice with others you run the risk of your code languishing in obscurity.

    Social norms are changing; you can change with them, you can keep your mouth shut about it, or you can fight for the status quo. Each of those courses of action has risk associated with them. Eich chose to fight for the status quo, then chose to stick by his guns when it pissed a lot of people off, including a lot of the very people his organization depends on to contribute money and code from their own good will! That has consequences and it always has.

"It's ten o'clock... Do you know where your AI programs are?" -- Peter Oakley

Working...