They should be protesting the fact that he's the person responsible for JavaScript. (Hey, don't forget to tip your waitress and try the veal!)
More seriously, there's the open question as to whether a career technologist is the right person for the CEO slot, especially since he appears to still be in the trenches when it comes to projects like Rust.
Beyond that, this is a cautionary tale for potential CEOs -- within reason, you can give money to politicians and money to foundations, but once you start giving money to specific political causes you're risking a firestorm, and rightfully so. While MoCo isn't exactly a Chik-Fil-A or Hobby Lobby, this is the sort of the thing that causes PR flacks to either wake up in a cold sweat (if they're employees) or start planning the color of their new Aventador (if on agency contract).
In related news, I seem to recall that it's technically against the law for the king or queen of England to be a Catholic. But at least no one in this latest Inquisition / Reformation analogue is being systematically imprisoned or executed for what they believe in and who they've donated to. So the world has made SOME progress.
Meh. Prop 8 passed the people's vote with 7,001,084 Californians voting in favor of it and 6,401,482 voting against. Are we to start boycotting every company that employs one of those 7 million people?
I'm glad it was made right in the end and I hope at least some of those 7 million people have changed their opinion... but I don't think we need to keep dwelling on it.
Welcome to Hacker News, bastion of intellectual freedom, where large number of people will now argue that you should be deprived of employment because you donated money to certain unpopular political campaigns.
Next steps include: calling for the resignation of anyone who voted Republican in a recent election.
I think it's perfectly reasonable for developers to "keep dwelling" on someone telling them they should have less rights because of who they've chosen to love.
I doubt that vehement hatred of 7 million people's views will sway them to the cause either. It's just a bit hard to convince people to respect your beliefs while dancing atop their own--narrow-minded or otherwise.
If this were any other company I don't think this would turn any heads. However, much of Mozilla's ethos and community support is built on ethical rather than capitalistic foundations. It's hard to reconcile thoughts on a company that seems to so value freedom in some areas but not in others [1].
[1] Inferring what Mozilla values based on the opinions of its CEO is not particularly fair, but then again I'm not sure it's unfair either.
Judge Mozilla on the actions of the organization, and the staff while performing their official roles.
What the staff does in other spheres of life, with their own time and money, is their own concern. It's a freer society, and a more pro-freedom organization, that grants individuals the widest range of actions and opinions when away from their official responsibilities.
The CEO position isn't "mascot" or "most popular" or "dear leader". (Those are cult-of-personality failure modes for a professional organization.) It's lead administrator, with specific on-the-job duties which involve essentially no electoral politicking nor meddling in employees' lives.
I think the not in "but not in others" is over-qualifying.
Saying that Mozilla does not value gay rights because of 1000 dollars, donated once, indirectly associated with Mozilla is a crazy given how much they actually spend directly on supporting the cause yearly.
I'm not saying that a care package for 1.000 dollars negates Eichs contribution. But you can't say they don't value gay rights either.
Even if Mozilla started actively discriminating against people and campaigning against minority rights I would have no problem taking the code and starting a forked version. IMO that's what's so great about FLOSS, if you disagree with how something is managed you can ignore the people who created it and start your own version along with other people who agree.
So I wouldn't really be worried about the current state of affairs. If people want to boycott then they can do that, but I doubt it will have much effect unless Eich starts going insane, in which case Google will probably cut their funding. In that case we can all start hacking on Iceweasel and forget about it. Yay for free libre open source software!
Agree. To me, Mozilla is much more than a company. It's more like family. It's purpose is to set a high moral ground and place values over anything else. With that in mind appointing someone whose moral standing is questionable, makes this decision hard to accept.
I guess it was silly of me to imagine mozilla as something larger than life/more than a run of the mill company.
No, I think for any major or known company this would turn a lot of heads. Any CEO that has ties to homophobia or whatever you want to call it is going to get talked about. But, I will say given the kind of culture Mozilla seems to support, it is an odd choice.
It has to do with our money (via Google ad revenue) going to a corporation headed by someone who cared enough about harming us to spend $1,000 to do so. All I can says is that when I see this from people we otherwise respect, I feel like I'm physically reliving a kick to the ribs from high school.
I'd consider it more if Prop 8 hadn't been overturned. But as it stands, he hasn't used his personal platform to speak on the subject or use Mozilla's resources to do so. If that changes, I'll reevaluate.
"what the fuck has an affair to do with their political views?"
Uh, integrity? If a politician won't keep probably the most solemn vow they've ever made, to the person they were most committed to in their life, in front of all the other people they care about most, why the fuck do you think they'll keep some fucking campaign promise to you and a bunch of other faceless citizens they've never met to make your lives better, instead of taking a backhander from some lobbyist to fuck you all over instead?
And if they're not going to keep their campaign promises (yeah, yeah, no need to point out the incredible naïvety of that particular "if") then why should you let them stay in a position of power that they can use to better themselves at your expense? Boot them out, get the next one in, and keep doing it until they learn the lesson that we fucking demand better.
I don't know what kind of world you want to live in, but one where we've already given up and don't even try to maintain a pretense of holding our politicians to account for their honesty isn't the one I'm going for.
It may be more emotional than logical, but I personally would find it very difficult to work for someone who would deny me the right to marriage because I'm an atheist.
tolerance is a two way street. would it be OK for conservative muslims to protest a gay CEO? no. in a democracy and in a world with many differing points of view at some point you just have to tolerate each others beliefs, regardless of how much you oppose them, and just get along.
edit: and now my words are being twisted. I never said being gay was a belief. what one person thinks of a proposed law is a belief.
edit edit: tolerance is not "I am OK with the gays but will never freely associate with one of them" nor is "I am tolerant of his views on gay marriage but I hate him and will never have anything to do with him".
tolerance is" I hate what you think/belive/lifestyle/god/wear but I won't hold it against you". my sister frequently nurses racists who are very rude to her. she tolerates then as gives them as good care as she gives anyone else. that is tolerance.
welcome to democracy. people have different opinion. they have different religious beliefs and different upbringing. just get along people.
Nobody's saying Eich can't donate to whatever causes he wants. But free speech has consequences, and one of them is people not associating with you when you do shitty things. He did a shitty thing and Mozilla is endorsing his shitty thing with its own actions and so people don't really want to get chummy with them.
That's not intolerance, that's freedom of association.
But I think you already knew that.
EDIT:
> tolerance is" I hate what you think/belive/lifestyle/god/wear but I won't hold it against you".
This is the nonsensical redefinition of "tolerance" that I notice is increasingly preached by those who realize their regressive opinions are increasingly considered unacceptable by a growing majority. It does not reflect the actual definition. It is dishonest.
Tolerance is respecting your right to have your regressive, hateful opinions. And I would never suggest that Eich does not have the right to have them. Even to donate money to those causes. But that also means I have the right to avoid using products that benefit him because I do not want to give patronage to people who would do as he does. You don't get a get-out-of-jail-free card about being reprehensible just because you really firmly believe something.
He spent his own money to try to make me a second class citizen. Am I supposed to "tolerate" it when someone has actively tried to take away my rights?
Sure, I'll tolerate his views, he can believe whatever he want. I honestly don't care... except for the fact that he took the first shot by donating money to actively screw people like me over.
I'm trying to keep this in perspective with all the massively positive things that Mozilla has done over the years. I've used Firefox all the time, proclaimed the value of Mozilla to others, and even donated to Mozilla. Regardless, I'm having a hard time getting past this. I started up Firefox this morning, and almost immediately, I felt dirty. I closed it and switched over to Chromium.
I can't buy the argument that it's just his personal political opinion and that the type of inclusion that Mozilla wants to have requires a large ecosystem of diverse opinions. Perhaps on issues like income inequality, taxation, foreign policy. Hell, if this was about him being a massive gun-rights advocate, I could see myself budging on not letting it bother me like this.
Sorry, but human rights are human rights, and contributing to a effort to deny a group of people a right that everybody else enjoys based simply on their sexual orientation, gender, ethnicity, or culture is as disgusting a human behavioral trait as it comes. It needs to rooted out from our collective human identity.
I don't necessarily want to see Eich removed. His contributions to free and open source software are incredibly significant and deserve praise. However, simply pointing out Mozilla's health care policies isn't going to cut it. Without anything more significant, an apology or something, I'm just going to see Firefox and Mozilla as tarnish under a shade of bigotry. It's not a purposeful perspective, or something I will enjoy, but I can't just let this slide away like it's nothing.
Will you boycott every company that has an employee that has belief that isn't yours? Isn't that the definition of intolerance? One of those things, I guess, can't tolerate the intolerant =).
Gosh. I’m really upset not by the news about Eich as the new CEO, but about learning that such an idol in my life is anti-LGTB. I really hate this kind of situations.
I am very sorry that some people are upset with the political opinions of other people.
Now can somebody get this political bullshit off the front page of HN? Please? Nothing productive can come from a logical and reasonable conversation with people who are, by definition, very upset. Half the posts here are "hell yeah!" and the other half are baiting arguments from others who feel impassioned by the issue. Not a good topic.
This issue is uncomfortably political for HN, but I feel like I should chime in to say that HN is clearly not split down the middle about support for Eich's political position. I haven't seen a single comment defending it.
I'd like to urge everyone to consider whether it's a good idea to comment on this story. If you voice an opinion in support of Eich, obviously that's going to be a liability in the future. But voicing an opinion against him is also a liability - there is no telling how the zeitgeist might change ten or twenty years from now. I think it's best to voice no opinion at all - and I hope this comment is not misconstrued as support for any particular position.
I understand why people could get offended about this. But as I understand it most who oppose this have a religious reason to do so. Now religion is as deeply person and important to a person as is the right to marry. So where do we draw the line on what we allow others to think, believe or support?
As a for instance my Aunty is vegan and is offended that I or any one else would ever eat meat. And I know eating meat is much less of an issue, but I support her right to oppose the eating of meat. She has would vote against my ability to eat meat. But my response would not be to attack her as a person but simply vote in the opposite direction.
On the other end I can see why a Jewish person living in Nazi Germany would have attached Hitler and the Nazi party at any chance they got.
I think people would be much more serene if they stopped idolizing certain programmers, computer scientists and tech people in general as demigods. As influential, intelligent and wise as they may be, they are quite fallible, and their political views are very likely to be a volatile mess, like most other people.
If it's any consolation, there has yet to be a cult tech figure who is a neo-Nazi/white nationalist or anything of the sort. Or am I wrong?
The world would be a much better place if we could learn to separate the artist's work from the artist's personal deeds and opinions. Otherwise you'd probably be unable to enjoy anything made before the 20th century.
I don't support gay-marriage either ... I've said it before and I'll repeat it again (if necessary). My religious beliefs hold that marriage is between a man and a woman, and I choose to follow my religion because it's something I feel deeply about. Asking me to compromise my religious beliefs or be called homophobic (I'm not), full of hatred (I'm not) or even biased (I'm not) just isn't fair.
I've got friends that live an alternative life-style, and I can discuss this sanely with them. We don't have to agree on everything to be friends and we certainly don't agree on whether their lifestyle can be aligned with my religious beliefs, but we also don't make it the focal point of our relationship.
I've never said I was against the various domestic partnership rules that allow equal insurance, tax breaks and other benefits to committed partners. I'm simply not willing to use the word marriage to describe the relationship.
So when I see all the commotion about a measly $1000 donation to support proposition 8 in CA, I wonder why anyone is actually wasting their time on a protest. I don't think that Eich is filled with hatred ... I suspect he barely thinks about it at all. But why is it okay when the hatred is directed at him? Why are people so consumed by the issue that they give up vast amounts of their time and energy?
I can live without hating ... can you?
P.S. I'll admit that there are probably things and people in the world that are worth hating.
Why does rarebit pulling their app represent a lack if respect for personal beliefs? Why is it ok for Eich to do what he will but not ok for others to act in response to that? That's bullshit.
Actions have consequences. Actions have consequences.
There's a common wrong argument against this sort of boycott, but its comparably common rebuttal is subtly wrong as well.
common wrong argument: This is a violation of Eich's freedom of speech.
subtly wrong rebuttal: The First Amendment protects you against government infringement of free speech (including campaign donations, since money is "speech"), but it doesn't protect you against the social consequences of that speech.
While true on its surface, the reason this rebuttal is subtly wrong is that it ignores a critical distinction, which is that, as a "protected class", gays are privileged under the law. This means that you are especially vulnerable to being sued for violating their rights. As Mencius Moldbug put it in the context of McCarthyism and the anti-Communist Red Scare [1]:
"[M]ost of what we call 'McCarthyism' was a matter of 'social consequences.' Besides, the social consequences work for one and only one reason: there's an iron fist in the velvet glove. Being sued for disrespecting a privileged class—excuse me, a protected class—is not in any way a social consequence, but rather a political one."
To appreciate the asymmetry, imagine a counterfactual reality in which Eich donated against of Prop. 8 instead of for it. In this context, suppose he made a comment in the workplace about his support for gay marriage. Suppose further that some Mozilla employees, who happened to vigorously oppose gay marriage, sued on the grounds of a "hostile working environment". Such a lawsuit would have no chance of success. In contrast, in the real reality we actually live in, Eich will now have to monitor his workplace speech very carefully—one wrong word about gay marriage could be all it takes to precipitate a lawsuit against him and the Mozilla Foundation. It would be unwise to underestimate the chances of such a suit's success.
In the counterfactual universe, a pro–gay marriage Eich might still face a boycott or protests, but they would be incomparably weaker because non-gays are not a protected class. Whereas in real reality, the "social consequences" of a boycott are supported by the full power of the US Federal Government. For obvious reasons, such boycotts have a habit of succeeding.
What Brendan Eich does with his own money on his own time is none of my concern. His opposition to Google Dart is my concern and I wish he would lighten up about that.
[+] [-] HillRat|12 years ago|reply
More seriously, there's the open question as to whether a career technologist is the right person for the CEO slot, especially since he appears to still be in the trenches when it comes to projects like Rust.
Beyond that, this is a cautionary tale for potential CEOs -- within reason, you can give money to politicians and money to foundations, but once you start giving money to specific political causes you're risking a firestorm, and rightfully so. While MoCo isn't exactly a Chik-Fil-A or Hobby Lobby, this is the sort of the thing that causes PR flacks to either wake up in a cold sweat (if they're employees) or start planning the color of their new Aventador (if on agency contract).
[+] [-] fennecfoxen|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ben0x539|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jack-r-abbit|12 years ago|reply
I'm glad it was made right in the end and I hope at least some of those 7 million people have changed their opinion... but I don't think we need to keep dwelling on it.
[+] [-] redbad|12 years ago|reply
2. There is a difference between being employed by a company and being its CEO.
3. These differences are significant.
[+] [-] fennecfoxen|12 years ago|reply
Next steps include: calling for the resignation of anyone who voted Republican in a recent election.
[+] [-] Fomite|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] katowulf|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bsder|12 years ago|reply
If you aren't willing to take the social consequences of your actions, perhaps you should not take those actions, hmmmm?
[+] [-] famousactress|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ender7|12 years ago|reply
[1] Inferring what Mozilla values based on the opinions of its CEO is not particularly fair, but then again I'm not sure it's unfair either.
[+] [-] gojomo|12 years ago|reply
What the staff does in other spheres of life, with their own time and money, is their own concern. It's a freer society, and a more pro-freedom organization, that grants individuals the widest range of actions and opinions when away from their official responsibilities.
The CEO position isn't "mascot" or "most popular" or "dear leader". (Those are cult-of-personality failure modes for a professional organization.) It's lead administrator, with specific on-the-job duties which involve essentially no electoral politicking nor meddling in employees' lives.
[+] [-] wodenokoto|12 years ago|reply
Saying that Mozilla does not value gay rights because of 1000 dollars, donated once, indirectly associated with Mozilla is a crazy given how much they actually spend directly on supporting the cause yearly.
I'm not saying that a care package for 1.000 dollars negates Eichs contribution. But you can't say they don't value gay rights either.
[+] [-] anaphor|12 years ago|reply
So I wouldn't really be worried about the current state of affairs. If people want to boycott then they can do that, but I doubt it will have much effect unless Eich starts going insane, in which case Google will probably cut their funding. In that case we can all start hacking on Iceweasel and forget about it. Yay for free libre open source software!
[+] [-] general_failure|12 years ago|reply
I guess it was silly of me to imagine mozilla as something larger than life/more than a run of the mill company.
[+] [-] dinkumthinkum|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lawl|12 years ago|reply
It's the same with politicans, what the fuck has an affair to do with their political views?
I 100% support gay marriage. I also understand they're upset. But I don't know if this is the right reaction.
[+] [-] ebiester|12 years ago|reply
I'd consider it more if Prop 8 hadn't been overturned. But as it stands, he hasn't used his personal platform to speak on the subject or use Mozilla's resources to do so. If that changes, I'll reevaluate.
[+] [-] Karellen|12 years ago|reply
Uh, integrity? If a politician won't keep probably the most solemn vow they've ever made, to the person they were most committed to in their life, in front of all the other people they care about most, why the fuck do you think they'll keep some fucking campaign promise to you and a bunch of other faceless citizens they've never met to make your lives better, instead of taking a backhander from some lobbyist to fuck you all over instead?
And if they're not going to keep their campaign promises (yeah, yeah, no need to point out the incredible naïvety of that particular "if") then why should you let them stay in a position of power that they can use to better themselves at your expense? Boot them out, get the next one in, and keep doing it until they learn the lesson that we fucking demand better.
I don't know what kind of world you want to live in, but one where we've already given up and don't even try to maintain a pretense of holding our politicians to account for their honesty isn't the one I'm going for.
[+] [-] IvyMike|12 years ago|reply
It may be more emotional than logical, but I personally would find it very difficult to work for someone who would deny me the right to marriage because I'm an atheist.
[+] [-] Aloisius|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] steve19|12 years ago|reply
edit: and now my words are being twisted. I never said being gay was a belief. what one person thinks of a proposed law is a belief.
edit edit: tolerance is not "I am OK with the gays but will never freely associate with one of them" nor is "I am tolerant of his views on gay marriage but I hate him and will never have anything to do with him".
tolerance is" I hate what you think/belive/lifestyle/god/wear but I won't hold it against you". my sister frequently nurses racists who are very rude to her. she tolerates then as gives them as good care as she gives anyone else. that is tolerance.
welcome to democracy. people have different opinion. they have different religious beliefs and different upbringing. just get along people.
[+] [-] eropple|12 years ago|reply
That's not intolerance, that's freedom of association.
But I think you already knew that.
EDIT:
> tolerance is" I hate what you think/belive/lifestyle/god/wear but I won't hold it against you".
This is the nonsensical redefinition of "tolerance" that I notice is increasingly preached by those who realize their regressive opinions are increasingly considered unacceptable by a growing majority. It does not reflect the actual definition. It is dishonest.
Tolerance is respecting your right to have your regressive, hateful opinions. And I would never suggest that Eich does not have the right to have them. Even to donate money to those causes. But that also means I have the right to avoid using products that benefit him because I do not want to give patronage to people who would do as he does. You don't get a get-out-of-jail-free card about being reprehensible just because you really firmly believe something.
[+] [-] gtremper|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Nursie|12 years ago|reply
False equivalence.
A gay CEO would not (necessarily) be actively trying to take conservative muslims' rights away.
[+] [-] smirksirlot|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oneeyedpigeon|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] asdfologist|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dinkumthinkum|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jkelsey|12 years ago|reply
I can't buy the argument that it's just his personal political opinion and that the type of inclusion that Mozilla wants to have requires a large ecosystem of diverse opinions. Perhaps on issues like income inequality, taxation, foreign policy. Hell, if this was about him being a massive gun-rights advocate, I could see myself budging on not letting it bother me like this.
Sorry, but human rights are human rights, and contributing to a effort to deny a group of people a right that everybody else enjoys based simply on their sexual orientation, gender, ethnicity, or culture is as disgusting a human behavioral trait as it comes. It needs to rooted out from our collective human identity.
I don't necessarily want to see Eich removed. His contributions to free and open source software are incredibly significant and deserve praise. However, simply pointing out Mozilla's health care policies isn't going to cut it. Without anything more significant, an apology or something, I'm just going to see Firefox and Mozilla as tarnish under a shade of bigotry. It's not a purposeful perspective, or something I will enjoy, but I can't just let this slide away like it's nothing.
[+] [-] joyeuse6701|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yuchi|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DanielBMarkham|12 years ago|reply
Now can somebody get this political bullshit off the front page of HN? Please? Nothing productive can come from a logical and reasonable conversation with people who are, by definition, very upset. Half the posts here are "hell yeah!" and the other half are baiting arguments from others who feel impassioned by the issue. Not a good topic.
[+] [-] tptacek|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] general_failure|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vacri|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] katowulf|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Camillo|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xupybd|12 years ago|reply
As a for instance my Aunty is vegan and is offended that I or any one else would ever eat meat. And I know eating meat is much less of an issue, but I support her right to oppose the eating of meat. She has would vote against my ability to eat meat. But my response would not be to attack her as a person but simply vote in the opposite direction.
On the other end I can see why a Jewish person living in Nazi Germany would have attached Hitler and the Nazi party at any chance they got.
But is there a middle ground?
[+] [-] vezzy-fnord|12 years ago|reply
If it's any consolation, there has yet to be a cult tech figure who is a neo-Nazi/white nationalist or anything of the sort. Or am I wrong?
The world would be a much better place if we could learn to separate the artist's work from the artist's personal deeds and opinions. Otherwise you'd probably be unable to enjoy anything made before the 20th century.
[+] [-] smoyer|12 years ago|reply
I've got friends that live an alternative life-style, and I can discuss this sanely with them. We don't have to agree on everything to be friends and we certainly don't agree on whether their lifestyle can be aligned with my religious beliefs, but we also don't make it the focal point of our relationship.
I've never said I was against the various domestic partnership rules that allow equal insurance, tax breaks and other benefits to committed partners. I'm simply not willing to use the word marriage to describe the relationship.
So when I see all the commotion about a measly $1000 donation to support proposition 8 in CA, I wonder why anyone is actually wasting their time on a protest. I don't think that Eich is filled with hatred ... I suspect he barely thinks about it at all. But why is it okay when the hatred is directed at him? Why are people so consumed by the issue that they give up vast amounts of their time and energy?
I can live without hating ... can you?
P.S. I'll admit that there are probably things and people in the world that are worth hating.
[+] [-] mindslight|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oddshocks|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] badman_ting|12 years ago|reply
Actions have consequences. Actions have consequences.
[+] [-] Houshalter|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jbeja|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Bahamut|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sockypuppy|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lexcorvus|12 years ago|reply
common wrong argument: This is a violation of Eich's freedom of speech.
subtly wrong rebuttal: The First Amendment protects you against government infringement of free speech (including campaign donations, since money is "speech"), but it doesn't protect you against the social consequences of that speech.
While true on its surface, the reason this rebuttal is subtly wrong is that it ignores a critical distinction, which is that, as a "protected class", gays are privileged under the law. This means that you are especially vulnerable to being sued for violating their rights. As Mencius Moldbug put it in the context of McCarthyism and the anti-Communist Red Scare [1]:
"[M]ost of what we call 'McCarthyism' was a matter of 'social consequences.' Besides, the social consequences work for one and only one reason: there's an iron fist in the velvet glove. Being sued for disrespecting a privileged class—excuse me, a protected class—is not in any way a social consequence, but rather a political one."
To appreciate the asymmetry, imagine a counterfactual reality in which Eich donated against of Prop. 8 instead of for it. In this context, suppose he made a comment in the workplace about his support for gay marriage. Suppose further that some Mozilla employees, who happened to vigorously oppose gay marriage, sued on the grounds of a "hostile working environment". Such a lawsuit would have no chance of success. In contrast, in the real reality we actually live in, Eich will now have to monitor his workplace speech very carefully—one wrong word about gay marriage could be all it takes to precipitate a lawsuit against him and the Mozilla Foundation. It would be unwise to underestimate the chances of such a suit's success.
In the counterfactual universe, a pro–gay marriage Eich might still face a boycott or protests, but they would be incomparably weaker because non-gays are not a protected class. Whereas in real reality, the "social consequences" of a boycott are supported by the full power of the US Federal Government. For obvious reasons, such boycotts have a habit of succeeding.
[1]: [Technology, communism, and the Brown Scare](http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2013/09/technol...)
[+] [-] michaelwww|12 years ago|reply