When I first heard the news, I was very angry and confused. After reading the Recode[1] writeup, it made a little more sense. The key point was the interviews where he refused to back down from his opinions or apologize. Some could find that respectable (and ultimately I do), but if you take on the position of CEO you need to be prepared to eat your words. It would have been very easy for him to just apologize and have everyone go back to their business. It's sad that people are so shallow, but that's just the way it is. I'm not upset that he was fired.
That said.
I have nothing but fury for the people instigating these kinds of senseless whichhunts. The key point here is that Eich has been CTO of Mozilla for years. CTO to CEO, while a big transition, is much smaller distance in executive representation than this controversy calls for. What I suspect is somebody in the Gawkerati saw a news piece on "somebody something new CEO of Mozilla", Googled his name, and dug up one political contribution from 5 years ago to create a controversy out of thin air. This kind of behavior sickens me -- not just the media publications that stir this pot, but the individual people boiling at the seams to crucify everyone with a different opinion. In 2014, people that contribute nothing to society other than digging up controversies have the power to bring down historic figures from pushing the envelope of innovation and opening the Web to allow to allow this very kind of expression.
At the end of the day, that is the ultimate irony. The technology that Branden worked his life on gave voice to those who destroyed him. The entire point of the web is to allow this kind of radical expression, and the moment we get it we use it to tear down and villanize the people who make it run.
Absolutely disgraceful.
If you're glad Eich resigned, I really only have one question for you: What do you hope to gain out of this? Do you think this will push the envelope toward greater acceptance of homosexuality? Is the idea that if we villify ideas enough and those that express them, they will eventually go away? Or does it just, I don't know, feel good?
This is very sad and unfortunate. Brendan was basically forced out of his own job because of a political view he supported. No matter whether you agree or disagree with someone's views, a discussion should be reasonable and fair, not a lynching in the court of popular opinion. We should respect others views, and their freedom to support any political position, if we wish those same freedoms for ourselves.
I've seen people in this thread using words like "lynching" and "concentration camp" to describe what happened to Brendan. I understand people are angry about events, but please try to remember that for people in minorities, these words have meanings that are not at all similar to "don't get to be CEO of a software company."
Good grief. You do far more harm to your position by invoking a practice part of a century-long campaign of terror against a racial minority.
Free speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism. It means the opposite, actually. And we as a society have decided some views are socially unacceptable. Anti-homosexual bigotry has been added to the list, along with pro-slavery or violence against women. Those are topics which are really just not up for debate anymore— we are in theory an egalitarian society, where plurality takes precedence over someone's right to (e.g.) express negative views, esp about minorities.
I think you're confusing the respect we should have for a persons right to a view, with respect for the actual view itself. The former I have, the latter I do not.
What if he were a black woman and the political group she donated to was one that sought to prevent white men from becoming engineers? They can still do engineering, of course, but they can't have the state title and benefits that go along with it. Would you feel the same way?
This is so upsetting, it's infuriating. Here we had a wonderful chance for someone brilliant like Eich to lead one of the most important organizations in defending us against looming omnipresent state surveillance, and a bunch of social justice warriors went and ruined it. Pat yourselves on the back guys, you won!
Would you support a company whose CEO was a dazzling, intelligent, brilliant racist? Or anti-semite?
I don't understand how being brilliant means that everyone should ignore that you're also a bigot. Presumably if he had no talent then he'd be fair game?
Another perspective that I'm surprised hasn't been voiced:
Brendan had the privilege to climb to the rank of CEO, if only for a few days. But it is because of views like his that many don't get a chance at all to climb to anywhere near those heights. I know many qualified, talented, awesome people who, if they were straight and able to marry the loves of their lives, could become American citizens and pursue meaningful opportunities here (arguments about whether moving here is such a good idea these days not withstanding.) And marriage is just one of many ways in which we as a society diminish, limit or actively dehumanize those not a member of the majority.
I tolerate your views right up to the point where they make someone's dying moments hell because their husband or wife can't visit, or bar someone from working for someone else because of their gender or skin color. At that point, yeah, I'll gladly be a biggot against biggots.
Perhaps the reason we don't see more minorities in positions of power is that so many of us exercise our influence, be it via rhetoric or $1000 donations, to keep them out of those positions. I can't bring myself to feel bad when someone who does that is brought down.
Well, it's not going to be a popular opinion but I think it's a shame he's been forced out. Simply having the wrong views shouldn't make him ineligible for a job.
That's an overly simplistic way of looking at it. He had a chance to resolve the matter differently and wasn't able to. It's possible/probable that he is not CEO material (for this company at this time).
depends on the job. being cto is one thing; being the ceo is a far more people-oriented role with a far more significant impact on how people who work for mozilla are potentially treated.
and this is not about his views; he actually donated money to help ensure that people would not get equal rights; even though those rights did not affect him in any way.
Really, there are no views you can think of that would qualify someone as being ineligible for a job? What if someone refused to acknowledge women as people? What if someone refused to work with black people? What if someone viewed the holocaust as never having happened?
People who think this is unjust, think about this. If Eich had instead donated to a Neo-Nazi party, a group that supports re-legalizing slavery, or an organization taking away women's right to vote, would your opinion be any different? For those who say 'no, my opinion would be the same. Free speech is free speech and political affiliation is political affiliation' would you be comfortable working at Mozilla? I think this is the much more important practical concern. Eich's ability to continue as CEO was _compromised_ - could he hire and retain talent? Would Mozilla have seen a mass quit? Could they continue to get volunteers to work on the code?
The social justice warrior lynch mob can be an ugly, fickle beast, and its actions can be a double-edged sword, there's no question about it. In this case, they may have saved Mozilla (and Eich) from themselves.
edit: being the public face of a company is different in kind than being another kind of worker. Its "distance" from CTO may not be large, but the "king is the king" as it were.
edit 2: a couple of bigger questions here that will/should be asked. Should CEOs remain apolitical, or at least take great pains to hide their affiliations - particularly in industries with many much more liberal-minded workers? Will they after this?
Interesting stat: latest Pew has 61% of Republicans under 30 supporting gay marriage. Take that as you may, but I'd go with 'excellent bellwether for society at large'.
Is there any record or incidences in his 15 years working at Mozilla of him discriminating or maltreating anyone?
I ask this because, in the Recode article, Mozilla's executive chairwomen, says "That [the contribution] was shocking to me, because I never saw any kind of behavior or attitude from him that was not in line with Mozilla’s values of inclusiveness"
Unless there is some evidence, 15 years track record in a company should seemingly count for more than a single political contribution. Yes/no?
I think this helps clarify the distinction between him being CEO and a blatant racist being CEO (a comparison that seems to be common in this thread).
Should a person be allowed in a position of power if they are able to separate their personal beliefs and lead the organization properly, without improper bias against anyone? I suspect this has happened many times before.
I don't see how the LGBT community has benefited much from this. It seems to me that giving him credit for clearly not letting his personal beliefs affect his work relationships and taking a wait-and-see stance would've resulted in a more productive outcome. Would this not have been an opportunity to educate someone who is otherwise seemingly capable of reasoned and rational thought?
"He had to step down eventually from mozilla to avoid further damage to the brand."
In the other thread[1], I pointed out the damage will now continue via a second mob that seems to be sifting through all the other Mozilla employee's donations.
It happens a lot with this stuff in politics, and it sucks to high heaven having a group looking at everything you've ever donated.
I have misgivings here mainly because I have previously given enough to political campaigns that any prospective employer that cares can find out what my politics are. The idea that my personal political opinions are fair game in a hiring decision is scary.
Granted, its a little different when we are talking about the CEO of a foundation with a specific ideology, but if this becomes wide spread the chilling effects are something to be concerned about.
I've posted this elsewhere, but in one of the many dupes that got buried, so I'll repost it here:
I really think it was inevitable once people started complaining about his political background. The whole appointment had become about the gay rights issue rather than about where he would lead Mozilla in the future.
No one really thought he was suddenly going to turn Mozilla into an anti-gay rights organisation, but standing down is still the decent thing to do. It lets Mozilla focus back on their mission and carry on without controversy.
In a way it's a little sad though. I was kinda hoping that he'd say he'd had a change of heart since prop8 and renounce his views. Maybe that's just the optimist in me though...
I don't suppose anyone knows if he has a severance package? Doesn't seem like he is being forced out for 'cause' and the celebrity of his departure at Mozilla could easily damage his ability to be employed as a CEO elsewhere.
He was on the side of the majority of California, this wasn't a vote in Texas or India. Even the mainstream Democrats were against Gay marriage a couple years earlier.
Many anti-abortion proponents consider abortion a form of murder, which is a more serious issue. But I don't see campaigns against CEOs who support abortion.
Comparing his view with racism is ridiculous. He's not for discriminating against homosexuals, just for keeping marriage as it's been. Can the growing polygamist movement immediately discredit everyone opposed to them as bigots also?
If we were trying to keep marriage "as it's been", then I would have gotten a dowry, had a couple concubines on the side, and my wives would have been considered my personal property.
"Keeping marriage as it's been" is a post-hoc rationalization, to attempt to disconnect the anti-gay-marriage crowd from a religious argument. Go read the Bible that's used to justify this crap and write up a compare/contrast.
Eich had the freedom to donate his hard earned money to an anti-gay cause.
LGBT supporters had the freedom to make blog posts and tweets about their opinions on the matter.
Eich had the freedom to stand by his position.
Mozilla had the freedom to designate its CEO.
Why the outrage? The system worked. The only group that had it's freedom threatened was the group of individuals targeted by the prop 8 law. Denizens of the internet could have spared Eich their ire if they were so inclined. Eich could have apologized if he were so inclined. Mozilla could have stuck by Eich if they were so inclined. Everybody acted in their own interest and Eich's resignation is a consequence of that fact.
Here's my question: What was the board thinking to put him in place? It's not as if Eich won a contest just by inventing one of the most widely distributed programming languages, there were folks who decided he was the best to lead Mozilla forward. How did they go so wrong?
[+] [-] natural219|12 years ago|reply
That said.
I have nothing but fury for the people instigating these kinds of senseless whichhunts. The key point here is that Eich has been CTO of Mozilla for years. CTO to CEO, while a big transition, is much smaller distance in executive representation than this controversy calls for. What I suspect is somebody in the Gawkerati saw a news piece on "somebody something new CEO of Mozilla", Googled his name, and dug up one political contribution from 5 years ago to create a controversy out of thin air. This kind of behavior sickens me -- not just the media publications that stir this pot, but the individual people boiling at the seams to crucify everyone with a different opinion. In 2014, people that contribute nothing to society other than digging up controversies have the power to bring down historic figures from pushing the envelope of innovation and opening the Web to allow to allow this very kind of expression.
At the end of the day, that is the ultimate irony. The technology that Branden worked his life on gave voice to those who destroyed him. The entire point of the web is to allow this kind of radical expression, and the moment we get it we use it to tear down and villanize the people who make it run.
Absolutely disgraceful.
If you're glad Eich resigned, I really only have one question for you: What do you hope to gain out of this? Do you think this will push the envelope toward greater acceptance of homosexuality? Is the idea that if we villify ideas enough and those that express them, they will eventually go away? Or does it just, I don't know, feel good?
[1]http://recode.net/2014/04/03/mozilla-co-founder-brendan-eich...
[+] [-] rinon|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mbrubeck|12 years ago|reply
Lynching: http://www.americanlynching.com/images/28482.jpg
Concentration camp: http://www.history.com/images/media/slideshow/holocaust-conc...
(Probably-unnecessary warning: these are graphic images of violence by humans against humans.)
[+] [-] wonderzombie|12 years ago|reply
Free speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism. It means the opposite, actually. And we as a society have decided some views are socially unacceptable. Anti-homosexual bigotry has been added to the list, along with pro-slavery or violence against women. Those are topics which are really just not up for debate anymore— we are in theory an egalitarian society, where plurality takes precedence over someone's right to (e.g.) express negative views, esp about minorities.
[+] [-] adwf|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] squidsoup|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rhizome|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thenmar|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pvnick|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] untog|12 years ago|reply
I don't understand how being brilliant means that everyone should ignore that you're also a bigot. Presumably if he had no talent then he'd be fair game?
[+] [-] visualR|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ndarilek|12 years ago|reply
Brendan had the privilege to climb to the rank of CEO, if only for a few days. But it is because of views like his that many don't get a chance at all to climb to anywhere near those heights. I know many qualified, talented, awesome people who, if they were straight and able to marry the loves of their lives, could become American citizens and pursue meaningful opportunities here (arguments about whether moving here is such a good idea these days not withstanding.) And marriage is just one of many ways in which we as a society diminish, limit or actively dehumanize those not a member of the majority.
I tolerate your views right up to the point where they make someone's dying moments hell because their husband or wife can't visit, or bar someone from working for someone else because of their gender or skin color. At that point, yeah, I'll gladly be a biggot against biggots.
Perhaps the reason we don't see more minorities in positions of power is that so many of us exercise our influence, be it via rhetoric or $1000 donations, to keep them out of those positions. I can't bring myself to feel bad when someone who does that is brought down.
[+] [-] pbateman|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pbreit|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zem|12 years ago|reply
and this is not about his views; he actually donated money to help ensure that people would not get equal rights; even though those rights did not affect him in any way.
[+] [-] devindotcom|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rhizome|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] benched|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Futurebot|12 years ago|reply
The social justice warrior lynch mob can be an ugly, fickle beast, and its actions can be a double-edged sword, there's no question about it. In this case, they may have saved Mozilla (and Eich) from themselves.
edit: being the public face of a company is different in kind than being another kind of worker. Its "distance" from CTO may not be large, but the "king is the king" as it were.
edit 2: a couple of bigger questions here that will/should be asked. Should CEOs remain apolitical, or at least take great pains to hide their affiliations - particularly in industries with many much more liberal-minded workers? Will they after this?
Interesting stat: latest Pew has 61% of Republicans under 30 supporting gay marriage. Take that as you may, but I'd go with 'excellent bellwether for society at large'.
[+] [-] jhonovich|12 years ago|reply
I ask this because, in the Recode article, Mozilla's executive chairwomen, says "That [the contribution] was shocking to me, because I never saw any kind of behavior or attitude from him that was not in line with Mozilla’s values of inclusiveness"
Unless there is some evidence, 15 years track record in a company should seemingly count for more than a single political contribution. Yes/no?
[+] [-] Zelphyr|12 years ago|reply
Should a person be allowed in a position of power if they are able to separate their personal beliefs and lead the organization properly, without improper bias against anyone? I suspect this has happened many times before.
I don't see how the LGBT community has benefited much from this. It seems to me that giving him credit for clearly not letting his personal beliefs affect his work relationships and taking a wait-and-see stance would've resulted in a more productive outcome. Would this not have been an opportunity to educate someone who is otherwise seemingly capable of reasoned and rational thought?
[+] [-] AdamTReineke|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lawl|12 years ago|reply
But I do have to say I think Brandon handled that really well and its definitely the right thing to do.
He had to step down eventually from mozilla to avoid further damage to the brand.
I think it's good he realized that and takes on new challenges.
[+] [-] protomyth|12 years ago|reply
In the other thread[1], I pointed out the damage will now continue via a second mob that seems to be sifting through all the other Mozilla employee's donations.
It happens a lot with this stuff in politics, and it sucks to high heaven having a group looking at everything you've ever donated.
1) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7527579
[+] [-] KwanEsq|12 years ago|reply
His appointment was a misjudgement.
[+] [-] yaur|12 years ago|reply
Granted, its a little different when we are talking about the CEO of a foundation with a specific ideology, but if this becomes wide spread the chilling effects are something to be concerned about.
[+] [-] dragonwriter|12 years ago|reply
Eich was CEO of Mozilla Corporation, not the Mozilla Foundation.
[+] [-] mauricioc|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] agumonkey|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adwf|12 years ago|reply
I really think it was inevitable once people started complaining about his political background. The whole appointment had become about the gay rights issue rather than about where he would lead Mozilla in the future.
No one really thought he was suddenly going to turn Mozilla into an anti-gay rights organisation, but standing down is still the decent thing to do. It lets Mozilla focus back on their mission and carry on without controversy.
In a way it's a little sad though. I was kinda hoping that he'd say he'd had a change of heart since prop8 and renounce his views. Maybe that's just the optimist in me though...
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jim1313|12 years ago|reply
Many anti-abortion proponents consider abortion a form of murder, which is a more serious issue. But I don't see campaigns against CEOs who support abortion.
Comparing his view with racism is ridiculous. He's not for discriminating against homosexuals, just for keeping marriage as it's been. Can the growing polygamist movement immediately discredit everyone opposed to them as bigots also?
[+] [-] bashinator|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] devindotcom|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wonderzombie|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vectorpush|12 years ago|reply
Why the outrage? The system worked. The only group that had it's freedom threatened was the group of individuals targeted by the prop 8 law. Denizens of the internet could have spared Eich their ire if they were so inclined. Eich could have apologized if he were so inclined. Mozilla could have stuck by Eich if they were so inclined. Everybody acted in their own interest and Eich's resignation is a consequence of that fact.
[+] [-] bp123|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] myers|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pbreit|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]