Gay Developers Boycott As Mozilla Appoints Allegedly Anti-Gay CEO • Hacker News Board

Re: Gay Developers Boycott As Mozilla Appoints Allegedly Anti-Gay CEO

#31

Post by shittyanalogy » Wed, Mar 26, 2014, 8:46 PM UTC

jnbiche wrote: post #26

shittyanalogy wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you implying that because someone does or does not write a blog post that somehow we know their true feelings?

Of course not, but at some point we have to take most people at their word, otherwise life becomes difficult. You didn't answer my question. I'm genuinely interested in who you're talking about who's using their notoriety to "coerce" people.

We do not have to take people at their word about their opinions. That's childish. You will never know what anyone truly feels because you are not them. You can let them fill you with whatever they want or you can just continue your life observing their actions and planning yours accordingly. You can take his lack of blog posting denouncing his previous donation as a clear indicator that he's a homophobe, or you can understand that life is more complicated than that.

As per your previous question, the article is thus: http://www.teamrarebit.com/blog/2014/03/24/goodbye_firefox_m...

Now I'm not saying that people shouldn't act on their strong convictions, I'm merely saying that those in charge of team rarebit have decided to publicly incite ill will towards a person who made a donation on public record 6 years ago. I have no interest in deciding who is right or wrong. I'm simply pointing out that they are giving very good reason for people to want to keep their donations completely private.

Re: Gay Developers Boycott As Mozilla Appoints Allegedly Anti-Gay CEO

#32

Post by shittyanalogy » Wed, Mar 26, 2014, 11:07 PM UTC

tthomas48 wrote: post #27

shittyanalogy wrote: post #14

The biggest impact this could possibly have is in producing legislation that lets large donations conceal their source because of fear of hateful retaliation. Ironic I know. If we don't want to have those laws we need to be a little less witch-hunty about what we discover in the records.

Do we though? I think we need to fight to keep speech in the open. There's no constitutional right to free speech that can't be traced back to you. If we're going to equate money and speech then we have to equate the fact that speech is audible. Money masquerading as speech needs to be as well. If you're not willing to stand up for what you believe then you have no business saying it.

You don't think anonymous speech should be protected?

    Voting?
    Reporting crimes in your neighborhood?
    Protesting an employer decision?

You can't think of any case where people would want their speech to be anonymous with just reason?

Re: Gay Developers Boycott As Mozilla Appoints Allegedly Anti-Gay CEO

#33

Post by transitionality » Thu, Mar 27, 2014, 8:41 AM UTC

tthomas48 wrote: post #27

shittyanalogy wrote: post #14

The biggest impact this could possibly have is in producing legislation that lets large donations conceal their source because of fear of hateful retaliation. Ironic I know. If we don't want to have those laws we need to be a little less witch-hunty about what we discover in the records.

Do we though? I think we need to fight to keep speech in the open. There's no constitutional right to free speech that can't be traced back to you. If we're going to equate money and speech then we have to equate the fact that speech is audible. Money masquerading as speech needs to be as well. If you're not willing to stand up for what you believe then you have no business saying it.

Actually, the Founding Fathers were pretty big on anonymous free speech. Remember the Federalist Papers.

Re: Gay Developers Boycott As Mozilla Appoints Allegedly Anti-Gay CEO

#34

Post by transitionality » Thu, Mar 27, 2014, 8:43 AM UTC

HelloMcFly wrote: post #17

trebor wrote: post #7

Isn't this just intolerant of his own views and morals? He's free to have those, last I checked.

Of course he is. That doesn't make a boycott wrong, or the those who boycott "intolerant." Further the causes you wish to further, but be aware that as a consumer I may choose to withhold direct or indirect support based on your decisions. That's fair for everyone.

Trying to get someone fired because you disagree with their political stance is both intolerant and bigoted. It is political oppression.

Re: Gay Developers Boycott As Mozilla Appoints Allegedly Anti-Gay CEO

#35

Post by tthomas48 » Thu, Mar 27, 2014, 8:40 PM UTC

shittyanalogy wrote: post #32

tthomas48 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we though? I think we need to fight to keep speech in the open. There's no constitutional right to free speech that can't be traced back to you. If we're going to equate money and speech then we have to equate the fact that speech is audible. Money masquerading as speech needs to be as well. If you're not willing to stand up for what you believe then you have no business saying it.

You don't think anonymous speech should be protected? Voting? Reporting crimes in your neighborhood? Protesting an employer decision? You can't think of any case where people would want their speech to be anonymous with just reason?

In the US voting is not guaranteed to be anonymous. It's protected and (mostly) un-traced to prevent coercion. But the fact you voted is recorded. If you live in a district with few enough voters (or voters who all vote the same way) your voting record could be used to tell who you voted for.

I don't think the other ones you mentioned are particularly compelling, no. There are ways to protect the names of people who report crimes without guaranteeing absolute anonymity.