Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mozilla Moving Forward

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 259 posts

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#191

Post by mpyne »

coldtea wrote: post #158
bunderbunder wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How's that different from lynching? Or McCarthyism?

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 either. It's not a crime to inquire of people whether they were or were not a Communist.

And before you comment that this is different, but of a gay person's moral rights, keep in mind that Communists actually were on a designed program of the violent overthrow of capitalist societies in order to bring about international Communism.

To protect gay marriage, a first step is to defend the very legal framework that would make gay marriage possible in the first place, which is what McCarthy actions were (when taken at face value).

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#192

Post by m52go »

nostromo wrote: post #44
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…

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.

Time considerations are vital.

Supporting slavery right now is immoral. Opposing gay marriage right now is NOT immoral right now however much you can't stand it.

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#193

Post by msbarnett »

coldtea wrote: post #179
msbarnett wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To crib a very old phrase: I cannot rightly apprehend the confusion of ideas that would lead one to believe that it was ok for Brandon Eich to exercise his Freedom of Speech to support an attempt to relegate many mozillans and other Californians to second-class citizenship, but that it was not ok for others to exercise their Freedom of Speech to express their feelings about Eich and his suitableness as a public-facin…

His act was his right under freedom of speech, in a public democratic process. In fact the majority (or close to it) of the voting public agreed with him, IIRC. If an issue is under vote, it's the voter's right to take whatever side he likes. The counter-action was an ad-hoc protest to strip him from his position. That is, an interference with something not under vote, and in a field not related to his "offending" ac…

> His act was his right under freedom of speech, in a public democratic process. In fact the majority (or close to it) of the voting public agreed with him, IIRC. If an issue is under vote, it's the voter's right to take whatever side he likes.

Ok. We do not generally believe that the minority's rights are a matter to be decided by the majority. But that's a separate issue and I agree his act was certainly an exercise of his guaranteed rights.

> The counter-action was an ad-hoc protest to strip him from his position.

Wait. Wasn't the counter action merely a number of individuals each exercising their right under freedom of speech, in the public marketplace?

The right to free speech applies to everyone, not just to Eich. The right to free speech is a right to speech free from government suppression, not a right to speech free from consequences. It is, especially, not a right to speech free from other people using their right to free speech to complain about your views.

> That is, an interference with something not under vote,

What, pray tell, is "interference with something not under vote"? Using your freedom of speech to encourage people to take their money/time/attention/web browser usage elsewhere is fundamental to the concepts of Freedom of Speech and the Free Market, is it not? Is this not exactly what Eich was doing? Using his speech and money to support an idea that had negative consequences for others?

> and in a field not related to his "offending" action.

Eich used his speech and money to support the relegation of LGBTQ-identifying Californians to second-class citizenship. Mozilla has a large number of LGBTQ-identifying employees who live in California. Eich was appointed CEO of Mozilla. This was directly related to his actions.

> Essentially a vocal group bullying for his firing.

Again, I do not rightly apprehend how a group calling for a man to lose his job is more of a bully, more worthy of condemnation, than a man using his money to attempt to ensure his fellow employees and fellow citizens were constitutionally condemned to second-class citizenship.

At no point in this drama has Eich been denied access to any fundamental rights. That's more than you can say for any of his (former) LGBTQ employees.

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#194

Post by wonderzombie »

baddox wrote: post #108
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.

It sounds like you need to be able to predict the future in order to know what political views are currently acceptable for CEOs to support. What if in the future we live in a stateless socialist society, and the idea of wage labor or private ownership of means of production is widely considered immoral or repugnant? Or what if in the future we live in a stateless capitalist society, where the idea of taxation or eco…

Your analogy ignores the facts. Eich didn't make a mistake 4 yrs ago-- he still holds the same views as evidenced by his interviews! Eich had multiple opportunities to indicate whether his views had changed. He defended his views, and rather poorly on the merits, I might add.

Compare and contrast how the CEO of OkCupid handled a similar situation, having donated $500 to an anti-choice, anti-gay candidate in '04. He apologized publicly and stated unequivocally that he believes marriage is a civil right.

This was not a "gotcha." Eich held the same views all along.

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#195

Post by nostromo »

twoodfin wrote: post #151
bunderbunder wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's very clear, and I appreciate your distillation of the issue as you see it. But it still bothers me: How do you distinguish this approach from the blacklisting of alleged Communists in 1950's Hollywood? Or was that an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence of the neutral or beneficial practice of people's political views being subject to the court of public (and institutional) opinion? I would like to say: I r…

McCarthyism at its core was the US Federal Government suppressing speech. Not just Congressman McCarthy, but scary agencies like the FBI.

The first amendment protects your freedom of speech from limitation by the government. It does not protect you from customer revolt because of your CEO's opinions.

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#196

Post by coldtea »

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…

>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 mouth, about how we'd still be living with Jim Crow if you had your way? "Let's not offend anyone who's racist, lest they feel like their rights to bigotry are being undermined!"

I don't understand the argument here. I never wrote anything about voting against laws like the Jim Crow ones. Just that bigots have a right to their opinions too. And in fact, when the Jim Crow laws were discarded, those bigots still held their opinions.

(Well, it's actually even more complicated than that. For example Jim Crow laws had little to do with pure bigotry and a lot to do with monetary exploitation of the blacks. More than bigots, their advocates were ruthless disgusting businessmen.).

>It's also pretty rich to compare abolitionists -- people campaigning for an expansion of human rights -- to someone who did the exact opposite.

How about Eich's human right to his job? Or his human right to vote for whatever he likes? Or is it like someone who is against a human right (as considered by some) is OK to lose other rights of his?

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

It should, or it has no meaning.

If free speech means solely the ability to say something publicly (and then suffer possible consequences), then that was available in every era and to everybody.

If so, losing your head for talking against the church in 1600 was also a "free speech" environment. Getting fired during McCarthyism was also compatible with "free speech".

>Free speech is not absolute, as has been demonstrated time and again.

I'm not saying what free speech has been historically, so what has been "demonstrated time and again" doesn't say a lot in this argument. History has a bad track record with regards to free speech.

I'm saying what free speech should be, and how its champions like Voltaire envisioned it.

>Likewise you can't try to deny an entire class of people their rights and expect zero consequences b/c free speech.

Well, it seems that generations over generations of Californians could not only try, but actively deny that class of people their rights and have zero consequences. In fact when Eich supported his position, it was also the LAW that denied then. And the majority of the population (IIRC) agreed with that. It was put to vote -- that itself means that not only you could "try to deny", but that your right to do so, voting no on the matter, was sanctioned by the state.

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#197

Post by temphn »

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…

The answer is to stop arguing with words and start targeting Gawker's business model. Their advertiser list is in plain view. Go to their about page to see all the megacorps that have done sponsored ads with them. Now take the worst things Gawker has ever written and send it to the people who run the advertising accounts at those companies (you can get their names off LinkedIn or whatever).

For example, send the #GawkingatRapeCulture hashtag to the Coke rep who chose to advertise on Gawker and ask them whther Coke is intentionally supporting rape culture by donating to Gawker. Make sure not do this purely as a solo op; once you have the data on their advertisers, pull together a website that makes it easy for anyone to chip in via one click.

Those who run sites with advertising inventory can also donate ad slots at lower CPMs to the sponsors of Gawker in order to pull revenue away from Gawker.

They profit from clickbait. So we need to hit these people in the wallet.

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#198

Post by bradleyjg »

mpyne wrote: post #191
coldtea wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How's that different from lynching? Or McCarthyism?

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.

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#199

Post by wonderzombie »

finder83 wrote: post #177
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…

His free speech was clearly violated, by the public, slanderous nature in which it was handled. I completely agree if his views don't fit within the organization that he should not have been appointed CEO or possibly removed, but to slander someone for their views is completely unacceptable. Criticism is one thing, aggressive oppression is another.

Oppression? Oppression implies he was denied a right. Being a CEO of a corporation is not a right, especially considering that a CEO is a very public figure.

Now, if he got blackballed across the industry, I'd be there with you. But that's not a foregone conclusion by any means.

I don't understand what you mean by slander. Go look at the interviews he gave. If his views in 2014 are any different from his views in 2008, he gave no indication whatsoever. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Re: Mozilla Moving Forward

#200

Post by humanrebar »

Crito wrote: post #141
jessriedel wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 be legal to fire Eich for his speech but it should not be socially acceptable.

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

Post reply on HN