Mozilla’s plan to fix internet privacy

Clearly, if you a CEO and publicly supporting causes, your support for those causes will have an impact on the reputation of the organisation.

Now, I sure you can think of examples of more extreme spare-time beliefs that you might think were incompatible with being CEO, so its a question of where you particularly draw the line. (Or perhaps you can't and you think that any extreme free-time campaigning is fine).

FWIW, I'm not in San Francisco.

Now Mozilla has, whether you like it or not decided to build its brand values and ethos around equality and inclusivity - it is written all through its positioning and marketing material. Similarly Apple pitched privacy. If it was discovered that Tim Cook had a part time gig with Cambridge Analytica etc. I doubt he would last that long.

Regarding Google et al:

> Just because they don't explicitly say it out loud doesn't mean they care.

That's correct they don't say it out loud, they don't explicity campaign on the issue and their CEO doesn't donate money towards it.

> I trust Brave and Brendan far more on privacy issue since they only care about that and don't shove woke politics onto my face.

If Brendan started donating to an organisation campaigning to give law enforcement and marketing companies access to your personal data, do you think it would be compatible with his position at Brave? Bear in mind that, apparently when it comes to privacy, very few people care about that shit (as can be seen from Chrome's market share) and there is good money to be made selling data.

> I think being “woke” is only “not good” if you subscribe to the Fox News Cult.

I've never watched Fox News (outside of the odd clip that has Bill O'Reilly saying something insane). I am not from the USA. "Woke" isn't well defined but most people when they use it are referring to the insane left wing hypocritical politics. Believe it or not you don't have to be "ignorant right winger" to disagree with insane policies.

Also you've managed to do this nonsense of saying "well you must be one of these [ignorant people] so I can dismiss your opinion". Which must be some sort of fallacy. I don't know what it would be called, but it is certainly fallacious.

> Thinking carefully about the ethics of the company you work for, especially those in-demand employees who largely have a choice like software engineers, is definitely important. This is not a partisan issue.

Many of these companies expose "woke" ideas and make nice adverts while quite happily paying sweatshop wages in Asia. Many people see this as hypocritical.

Also developers need a reality check. You can and will be replaced by someone they can hire for cheaper if you don't want to do the job. There are what seven billion people on the planet? You are not special.

> If you don’t believe that “social justice” is good, what do you find appealing about the alternative of “social injustice?”

Social Injustice isn't the opposite of Social Justice it is Justice. Justice should be kept to the courts.

From what I've seen Social Justice normally normally includes things like harassment campaigns (and yes there are organised harassment campaigns), de-platforming of speakers and going after people's income known as "breaking their rice bowl" or they do some sort of insane "reverse racism". All of which I oppose.