[PpEY4fu85hkQpn]

"politics" is one way to describe him donating a large sum of money to a bigoted anti-gay cause and losing the trust of his employees.

[lelanthran]

Yeah, but ... It was a political effort.

It was a movement that used the existing mechanism to promote a law they wanted, not a mob trying to get their way by shouting down others.

You may not like how the process works, but it works the same for everyone. Trying to smear the ones you don't agree with as not legitimate doesn't work, because it's the process that you're smearing.

[komali2]

I don't think this comment is internally consistent. I don't see any difference between "using the existing mechanism to promote a law" and "shouting down others to promote a law."

It sounds like your biggest priority in determining ethicality is legality: did anything illegal happen in the "cancellation" of the Brave founder? (I know nothing about this event, I'm just commenting within the context of this short conversation).

If not, how then are you determining one method being better than another?

[wpm]

Bigotry is not a legitimate political position, no.

[matheusmoreira]

Yes. Politics. Stuff that's irrelevant to the development of Firefox. Which is the only thing Mozilla should be focusing on given how far behind they are.

[speedgoose]

Perhaps people don’t like to support people actively working against their rights.

By using Firefox you support Mozilla, so you support the CEO financing political campaigns you don’t agree with. The CEO is a special role that represents Mozilla.

It’s simple, the guy had to go.

[ummonk]

A cause on which the majority of Californian voters agreed with him at the time.

[FrontierPsych]

But was he doing a great job on Firefox before being fired?