Mozilla Moving Forward • Hacker News Board

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#201

Post by shasta » Mon, Apr 14, 2014, 9:11 PM UTC

bunderbunder wrote: post #132

twoodfin wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm genuinely curious where you would draw your line. Would you support firing Mozilla's CEO if it's revealed he voted for Mitt Romney? What if he gave his campaign $1000?

Speaking for myself, I find the idea that a line should be drawn to be downright antithetical. What I support is individual liberties. Which means that it doesn't necessarily matter whether or not I support something. Individuals and organizations are generally free to do what they want, including being free to do things I don't like, and vice versa. Meaning: 1. Brendan Eich was perfectly free to make political contr…

7. People who don't like people who walk away from the company can complain about that.

8. People who don't like the people from 7 can complain about that.

9. People who want to derail interesting conversation about how people ought behave with uninteresting observations about freedoms of speech are ... free to do so.

etc. etc.

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#202

Post by wonderzombie » Mon, Apr 14, 2014, 9:11 PM UTC

izacus wrote: post #170

wonderzombie wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whose free speech was violated? Free speech doesn't mean the freedom from consequences or criticism. It means the exact opposite! He's free to speak as he likes and donate as he likes, and everyone else is free to exercise their own rights to free speech. That's how it freaking works. There's no right to be a CEO, either. I wouldn't dispute a racist's right to speak as they like, but free speech doesn't mean turning…

Erm no... if you have to be afraid for your job, your career prospects, your house or your family then your have NO free speech, no matter what some paper somewhere says. Economic pressure was used to great success in (socialistic) countries like mine to curtail free speech (even though there was a "free speech" law). And it looked exactly like this - if you had an unpopular opinion, you'd just be marked as "unfit fo…

Is he afraid for his house and family? Mind you, I believe death threats in any situation are unwarranted and despicable. This is not the least bit unique to Eich's situation. It's a much larger problem we as a society have yet to address.

The analogy to socialism is vastly overstating the problem, and a cheeky way to deny Eich's critics' freedom of criticism. A sincerely held belief is not a shield against criticism, and free speech isn't absolute. It never has been.

The fact is that free speech means people are free to disagree en masse when they find a view abhorrent. A pro-slavery, misogynist, racist, or anti-interracial-marriage individual has a right to their views. They don't have a right to avoid social censure when their views are beyond the pale. And that's exactly what happened here.

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#203

Post by mpyne » Mon, Apr 14, 2014, 9:12 PM UTC

wonderzombie wrote: post #169

coldtea wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you going to defend people that oppose Women's Suffrage too? What about slavery supporters? These were just political opinions once too. Still are. And a lover of democracy and freedom should defend (not to be conflated with "advocate for") all of these people. They are entitles to their opinions, they are entitled to have their opinions battle other opinions in the court of public opinion, and they are entitle…

they are entitled not to lose their jobs or be beaten etc over them These things are not at all the same. And in this case, we're talking about a CEO, the public face of a company, not an otherwise private citizen. For, those that believe otherwise, I'd say that their opinoon means that people who talked against slavery in 1840 and were fired, ostracized from their community or beaten up were also living in a "free s…

> And in this case, we're talking about a CEO, the public face of a company, not an otherwise private citizen.

This is true, and similar to what got people like Adria Richards fired in other scenarios where they've lost the ability to be able to professionally represent their company through their speech alone.

> Anyway, you're essentially arguing that free speech means freedom from consequences, and it just doesn't.

Yes, but keep in mind that there's a difference between individual freedom of speech among individuals and what society does to individuals. IMO people should modulate the consequences they are free to impose based on the principle that free speech is valued.

There's a reason Rockwell's famous painting exhibiting freedom of speech is a man standing in a crowded town hall meeting. Whatever that man says, he will have to still live with those people afterwards, and so everyone involved will have to understand their part in what "freedom of speech" really means in America.

Of course the government can't ban people from ostracizing someone based on their speech. The point is that in a free society (as opposed to a free governance), the people at large shouldn't need to be told by the government not to ostracize someone who speaks their mind.

Your boss imposing consequences for your stupid tongue is one thing. But should it be right for your boss to froth up a mob to go after you, as long as they don't break the law?

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#204

Post by hadoukenio » Mon, Apr 14, 2014, 9:13 PM UTC

jessriedel wrote: post #92

nostromo wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And where do you draw the line? Are you going to defend people that oppose Women's Suffrage too? What about slavery supporters? These were just political opinions once too. But today you'll find that they get you fired as CEO. And for good reason: blacks and women (and gays) are your customers and employees and business partners.

The classic reference here is "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mills. http://www.bartleby.com/130/ He persuasively advocates that the line shouldn't be drawn based on the acceptability or reasonability of the opinion, but on whether the behavior is mere communication (i.e. leaflets, speeches, opinions, blogs, TV ads) or actual action . In particular, when the causal influence of the alleged wrong doing propagates through…

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of your free speech.

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#205

Post by rfrey » Mon, Apr 14, 2014, 9:15 PM UTC

bradleyjg wrote: post #198

mpyne wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it's kind of obvious how it'd different from lynching, I hope. I'm not so sure how it's different from McCarthyism though. "The Company is infested with homophobes. I have here in my hands a list of names that were made known to the Board as being contributors to and members of anti-gay organizations and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the Company..." McCarthy's "speech" wasn't illegal e…

I think you draw the wrong lesson from McCarthyism. If McCarthy had only gone after people that were actually trying to violently overthrow the US government and/or working for Stalin, history would look at him a lot differently. There were Soviet spies and they did a fair bit of damage. However, the people on his list were not in fact spies or communists and there was no good reason for him to believe they were.

So the only thing wrong with McCarthyism was accuracy?

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#206

Post by badman_ting » Mon, Apr 14, 2014, 9:17 PM UTC

natural219 wrote: post #3

I'm still mad about the Brendan Eich thing. Like, mad . I'm totally fine with anybody pursuing whatever kind of political agenda they want, but at the moment you start to derail real progress, the moment you attack one of the best organizations who has literally been busting its ass for the last decade to change the world for no profit... Well, you declared war. I think this whole debacle should be a rallying cry tha…

Stop it, that was not an attack.

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#207

Post by wonderzombie » Mon, Apr 14, 2014, 9:30 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #196

wonderzombie wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they are entitled not to lose their jobs or be beaten etc over them These things are not at all the same. And in this case, we're talking about a CEO, the public face of a company, not an otherwise private citizen. For, those that believe otherwise, I'd say that their opinoon means that people who talked against slavery in 1840 and were fired, ostracized from their community or beaten up were also living in a "free s…

> These things are not at all the same. And in this case, we're talking about a CEO, the public face of a company, not an otherwise private citizen. A job is a job. The "a CEO is a public face" is a shallow excuse. The same excuse (essentially not being suitable to be a public face for the company/employeer) has been used to fire people from teachers to waiters (far from CEO positions). > Should I put words in your m…

In fact, "public" is essential to the role of a CEO. It's hard for me to understand how you don't see the difference, regardless of how some people have tried to appropriate it.

As it stands now, having a job is not a human right. I think maybe it should be! But it's not. There's not even a right to a living wage in the US. There's certainly no right to be a CEO of Mozilla enshrined anywhere, and I believe CA is an at-will employer. So.

Maybe if he's blackballed from the entire industry, I'll characterize that as oppressive. But this is one job at one company. He's lost one (1) job. It may be unjust but life is hard when you have views the public finds objectionable. I can't imagine a system under which this would not be so.

Anyway, I'm not sure what alternative you envision here. Should people have just sucked it up? Expressed criticism more politely? Your premise precludes you from policing others' speech. I'm just not sure how you square others' freedom when it comes to disagreeing with the company's decision to hire an avowed bigot.

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#208

Post by Uhhrrr » Mon, Apr 14, 2014, 9:32 PM UTC

bradleyjg wrote: post #198

mpyne wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it's kind of obvious how it'd different from lynching, I hope. I'm not so sure how it's different from McCarthyism though. "The Company is infested with homophobes. I have here in my hands a list of names that were made known to the Board as being contributors to and members of anti-gay organizations and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the Company..." McCarthy's "speech" wasn't illegal e…

I think you draw the wrong lesson from McCarthyism. If McCarthy had only gone after people that were actually trying to violently overthrow the US government and/or working for Stalin, history would look at him a lot differently. There were Soviet spies and they did a fair bit of damage. However, the people on his list were not in fact spies or communists and there was no good reason for him to believe they were.

Some of them certainly were Communists. I don't have a great nonpartisan link ready at hand, but here is wikipedia: "Many of those who were imprisoned, lost their jobs or were questioned by committees did in fact have a past or present connection of some kind with the Communist Party." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism#Victims_of_McCarthy...

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#209

Post by danudey » Mon, Apr 14, 2014, 9:33 PM UTC

adl wrote: post #120

twoodfin wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A fuzzy, gray line that cost a smart hacker a job he was otherwise incredibly well-suited for? If it's really that indistinct, it's scary: I might want to work for a company some day that cares about where that line is, and I'd like to stay on the right side of it.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that Brendan was NOT 'incredibly' suited for the job. Let me explain: I have no doubt that Brendan was an incredible CTO/is an excellent hacker/engineer. But being CEO is not about that, it's about being a leader. Being a uniter and a communicator. a galvanizer to the corporation/community he was trying to lead. Forget about his donation a few years ago. In the short time he was CEO…

This is an excellent point. Even if you feel as though Eich's donations didn't disqualify him from the position, or if you didn't feel that boycotting a product based on its CEO's stated views was bad, he handled this mess absolutely horribly.

I could come up with a lot of better ways to say what he tried (and failed) to communicate, and whether those points are relevant or not, he completely botched communicating them at all.

For example, his comments about LGBT rights in Indonesia appeared to be about how Mozilla, as a global company in a global market, has to tread carefully in non-liberal markets, because coming out as strongly, unshakeably, and vocally in favour of LGBT rights could carve you out of entire markets which would be willing to look the other way but won't tolerate 'shoving it in their faces' so to speak.

Instead, it sounded like 'gay rights isn't really a given, so who knows how things will end up right?', which sounds to me like he's saying 'This fight isn't over yet, we still might win', which is ten times worse than just saying nothing.

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#210

Post by ubernostrum » Mon, Apr 14, 2014, 9:36 PM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #200

Crito wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eich's right to say what he wants remains intact. Nobody has attacked it, and it has not been eroded in any way. What he does not have is 'a right to not have people respond to his speech with speech of their own' . In fact, any speech in response to Eich's speech is just as protected as his speech. If this were not the case, then conversation/debate would not be possible. In other countries with hate speech legislat…

jessriedel clearly says that free speech should extend beyond the law to include social norms: "In particular, when the causal influence of the alleged wrong doing propagates through the minds of voting citizens, this is not something that ought to be retaliated against (by the government or by individuals)." ...this is really the crux of the debate. Many of those upset about the Eich situation still think it should…

In other words, many people believe what happened to Eich was unethical, however legal.

Presumably from your description those people believe he was fired. He was not. He clearly stated that he had resigned; his choice, his action.

I am unsure whether people so often assume he was fired because that's what fits the narrative they want to push (bullying intolerant liberal witch-hunting mob action... choose from any of the above, they've all been used), or because it's next to impossible to argue that he was wronged if he resigned.

(the difficulty being that making someone feel unwelcome through overwhelming social pressure can't be labeled wrong in the "Eich was wronged" worldview, because then the overwhelming unwelcoming social pressure of Proposition 8 comes into play as a "well, he did wrong")