Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Steps Down

[Xan Krieger]

So sad, people bullying a guy out of his job because they disagreed with his political views. A better way of going about things would've been $1,000 contribution to a pro-gay organization, would kinda balance things out. Instead people chose to be assholes and complain about a man till he gets so sick of it he resigns.

 

[DrOswald]

Well done internet *slow clap* you really pulled together to achieve something utterly meaningless and actually helped give credence to the idea that people who don't fall in line with LGBT beliefs are actively hounded and discriminated against, a fallacy long peddled by those who are actually more damaging to that cause.

It isn't meaningless to show that funding anti-LGBT laws will be frowned upon and even economically punished.

Your right. It isn't meaningless. It shows that if proponents of traditional marriage want to be able to maintain their religious beliefs they better fight the LGBT movement tooth an nail for every single inch of ground because "live and let live" is clearly not an option.

I support same sex marriage, but this was short sighted and foolish. We made a martyr out of a man because he donated a pittance to a political cause 6 years ago. This will do nothing but promote hatred on both sides. For years the biggest argument conservative leaders have made is "it's us or them" and we just proved that right.

 

[The Material Sheep]

I don't agreeeeee with this position. I don't support this position. I'm ON your side of the fucking fence in terms of what I think SHOULD happen. I just have the foresight to allow people the right to have stupid opinions, or opinions I don't agree with without thinking it's okay that they get fired for it when it has nothing to do with their job.

ALSO how is this not blacklisting? You accept that it's okay that a man can be publicly shamed and lead to his removal from a job, but you think this can't happen again? Like the next job he takes, what if people continue to hound him? Sure he's got the money to probably just retire, but if you think the behavior here was acceptable when is no longer acceptable?

He actively supported oppression. That's more then just having a stupid opinion. He deserves everything he gets.

Well it's good to show every person who's on the fence about gay marriage, that the movement is controlled by zealots who'd just as quickly resort to witch hunts and purges for the sake of weeding out oppressors.

It also shows that the movement can't stay rational when faced with differing opinions, and resorts to the very things it denounced when it was happening to them.

What do you think happened here? There was nothing but well placed outrage at someone supporting oppression (which is way worse than just holding an opinion). There were no witch hunts. No zealots. No purges. The guy stepped down at the behest of the company he worked for.

There was a witch hunt. Someone said he did something that others don't like. People grabbed their torches and pitch forks, not taking into consideration, that this was his personal money, not professional. This was a while ago, and that he might not hold such beliefs any longer.

Tell me there aren't zealots though seriously. You think that the SJW's who mobilize at a moment's notice to spawn outrage whether it be real, fake or grey, are in anyway thinking about these things as rational individuals, who come to each of these conclusions after consideration and careful view of context? These people are zealots, they follow the beck and call of any face who declares something a wrong belief. Be it the recent Colbert debacle or this, there isn't thought, just dogma, and what's funny is you spout a lot of the same dogma. Constantly throwing the word oppression out there like it's a magical I have absolute morality button, therefore no action taken by said group is wrong so long as it's fighting oppression. No matter the results of said action, it was 100% justified if it was fighting oppression. Can you not see the holes in that logic? Can you not see how this horrid belief system only alienates rational people, and continues to separate people into groups? If not there really is no way to end discrimination, because the conduct of the oppressed will forever back the oppressor into the wall, either causing the current oppressor to turn into the oppressed or the oppressor to reassert it's control. This conduct damages the LGBT movement, and it needs to stop.

Holding an opinion that you believe is an opinion that supports oppression, is not illegal. Nor should it be ever. So long as they aren't enacting violence, this is not a crime, nor should it be.

 

[tklivory]

Though this story is being told and commented on mainly as an SJW story, it should be pointed out that a lot of pressure came from within Mozilla rather than without. For example, half of the board of Mozilla resigned after his promotion, and there's indications that several of the other employees weren't happy with the choice. Now, argue all you want about the SJW stuff (and I know we all will), but internal company politics is a whole different ball of wax. If your becoming the CEO is so internally divisive for a company that 3 out of 6 board members resign because you're promoted to be the CEO of it, then maybe you shouldn't be the CEO. Just sayin'.

 

[BrotherRool]

I still don't know how I feel about this. The guy was a founder of Mozilla, created JavaScript and has been a CTO for 9 years. Regardless of personally being a dick he was the guy most qualified to do this job. And in terms of internet specific principles, I can get behind open platforms and all that.

On the other hand he was supporting something that has made many millions of people unhappy.

----------------------------
I don't know, I still don't have any conclusions. Is it right that he never works for a company at the level he is most qualified for again? Is it right for a company to hire someone with such damaging beliefs towards other people?

I'll tell you where i fall. The guy from what i've read did indeed have an opinion but professionally he did not attack his LGBT coworkers, he did not try to fire them and didn't reverse the stated pro LGBT rights of his company. And beyond that he was qualified. He showed his support for something as quietly as possible and then because of that was driven out of a position he was perfectly suitable for. So I do feel this is unjustified for him. The summation of a persons character is not his opinion on ONE SINGLE subject.

That's persuasive. If he's not hostile to the people around him or even driving his company into that direction then he wasn't really doing harm in that position. Homophobia is awful but I don't know if I'm comfortable with the idea that homophobes shouldn't have good jobs if they're qualified, that's too extreme.

...but on the other hand I've never had to suffer any ostracisation because of my sexual orientation. It's easy for me to be dismissive.

Though this story is being told and commented on mainly as an SJW story, it should be pointed out that a lot of pressure came from within Mozilla rather than without. For example, half of the board of Mozilla resigned after his promotion, and there's indications that several of the other employees weren't happy with the choice. Now, argue all you want about the SJW stuff (and I know we all will), but internal company politics is a whole different ball of wax. If your CEO is so internally divisive for a company that 3 out of 6 board members resign because you've become the CEO of it, then maybe you shouldn't be the CEO. Just sayin'.

2 out of 6 resigned because of him. The third was always going to resign and was staying on only to the CEO appointed.

And that wasn't because he has a divisive personality, Eich has been one of the most senior executives (CTO) in Mozilla for 9 years. All of those executives oversaw his run contentedly for a long time. The issue was that 2 of them believed that the CEO should be someone coming from outside the company, presumably to be a fresh face on things. That would be true if it were Eich or someone else. Of course it's possible something else was going on and that those 2 wouldn't have resigned if it were someone in the company who they supported more.

 

[Tanner The Monotone]

You know the trouble with empathy? You can't teach it by shaking your fists and screaming. I highly doubt Eich has come away from this with a positive outlook on the LGBT community. Odds are, he's come away even more hateful and just plain bitter now. On top of that, he's made himself look like the good guy by stepping down and protecting his employees who may not share his views, so they don't have to burn with him. Now, all you have to do is add the fact that absolutely nothing has been accomplished in the field of gay rights, and you've got a good old fashioned fuck up.

Believe me, I'm right there along with everybody else that says Eich was a dummy for funding prop 8. It was an insult to every single rational person on the planet, and it was an absolute joke that a country that calls itself free ever even opened up the possibility of it being legalized. However, I think the goal larger queer movement should be to teach and to help understand, not to demand heads just because somebody didn't agree with us that one time. We need less witch-hunting and reverse-shaming, and more of this:

Spoiler

We can't teach the idiotic masses anything by being just as close-minded as they are. Although, I suppose we should be allowed some close-mindedness, after all, we're not the ones treating them like animals just because of their sexual orientation.

Those people were actors, which wouldn't be so bad if they weren't making it out to be real and trying to shut people down that try to reveal that fact.

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

I find it slightly distressing how many people simply consider his stance "a matter of opinion". How is not letting gay people get married and different from the laws that wouldn't let 2 different races get married? Is there any logical harm that could come from letting gays marry? I understand it sounds smart to consider all disagreements a matter of option, but some people's opinions flat out suck. If he was a card carrying KKK member then no one would be defending him. Then again, the edge-o-meter for the average escapist comment is usually pretty high so it's probably just that

In all seriousness, I don't really approve of witch hunts but Mozilla shouldn't have put him charge in the first place. It's too public of a position for someone with such a history. I'm honestly surprised he stepped down so quickly. Usually we have to listen to complaints about people like this for years. It was probably for the best

 

[Frezzato]

Damn, Eich sure folded fast. It was just yesterday that he stated he wouldn't step down [http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/01/mozilla-ceo-brendan-eich-refuses-to-quit].

 

[frizzlebyte]

Good. Unfortunately, there will be people spouting false equivalences about this, but that's unavoidable I suppose.

All he needed to do was come out and say that what he did was wrong (support oppressive legislature financially) and say he wasn't going to do it again.

So, the fact that I once voted to define marriage as between one man and one woman means that I deserve the same treatment as Eich? Granted, I have changed my mind about the issue now, but if I hadn't, I should be at risk of losing my job over it if it "got out?"

No matter what your personal beliefs or allegiances, no matter how ignorant or backward they may be, you don't deserve to lose financial security over it.

Just for the record: I actually would like to see "marriage" taken off the books at the state and federal levels, and replaced with civil unions. Marriage should be a religious issue, in my opinion.

 

[BrotherRool]

Damn, Eich sure folded fast. It was just yesterday that he stated he wouldn't step down [http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/01/mozilla-ceo-brendan-eich-refuses-to-quit].

I wouldn't be surprised if this has done some serious lasting damage to Mozilla. Last month for the first time Chrome overtook Firefox in user numbers and if this affair looked like it was going to drive away more people then that could have sunk the company. I can imagine someone seeing the daylight and realising that it was absolutely untenable and then you just need to convince Eich that he doesn't want to be head of a dead company.

 

[chronobreak]

I understand what you're saying, but nevertheless I still can't help feeling this is a step forward. We've reached the stage where being (publicly) homophobic makes your job untenable.

You do not know this man from Adam I am willing to bet, yet feel comfortable labeling him as "homophobic" because he supports traditional marriage? By all accounts, he ran a very diverse and inclusive ship at Mozilla. You are of course free to believe whatever you want, but if you want to claim this man has some deep-seated hatred of homosexuals, you should have a little more evidence than a small contribution to a political campaign years ago.

 

[Avaholic03]

I'm still constantly amazed when people try to be public figures AND be vocal about their controversial opinions. When has that ever worked out for someone?

He was never vocal. He made a private donation to a campaign. He has not, to my knowledge, never even expressed any of his viewpoints in a public way and his donations were rooted out and then he was set upon by an angry mob. What exactly was his crime? Having a private opinion others felt he didn't have the right not have.

I don't think he is really much of a public figure. He's not a media personality, he's not an activist he was simply a highly qualified individual in charge of a tech company and i think in the privacy of his own mind he has the right to think and support what he wants.

Donating $1000 to a cause, especially one that polarizing, is being vocal. As they say "money talks".

He may not be a media personality, but being a CEO/CFO/other executive for a large company IS a public position, whether they want it to be or not.

I'm not saying that he isn't entitled to his opinions, or to even spread his money around as he sees fit. But he had to expect that this would come up eventually.

 

[The Material Sheep]

I'm still constantly amazed when people try to be public figures AND be vocal about their controversial opinions. When has that ever worked out for someone?

He was never vocal. He made a private donation to a campaign. He has not, to my knowledge, never even expressed any of his viewpoints in a public way and his donations were rooted out and then he was set upon by an angry mob. What exactly was his crime? Having a private opinion others felt he didn't have the right not have.

I don't think he is really much of a public figure. He's not a media personality, he's not an activist he was simply a highly qualified individual in charge of a tech company and i think in the privacy of his own mind he has the right to think and support what he wants.

Donating $1000 to a cause, especially one that polarizing, is being vocal. As they say "money talks".

He may not be a media personality, but being a CEO/CFO/other executive for a large company IS a public position, whether they want it to be or not.

I'm not saying that he isn't entitled to his opinions, or to even spread his money around as he sees fit. But he had to expect that this would come up eventually.

I can understand that, as a pragmatic way of looking at things, but ideally shouldn't there be some separation between personal and public appearance?

Like when I say OKcupid was being unethical for airing that, it's not because I think all monetary donations should be 100% private, but because that was something he did privately, as an individual, and not as the leader of a company.

 

[Flatfrog]

I understand what you're saying, but nevertheless I still can't help feeling this is a step forward. We've reached the stage where being (publicly) homophobic makes your job untenable.

You do not know this man from Adam I am willing to bet, yet feel comfortable labeling him as "homophobic" because he supports traditional marriage? By all accounts, he ran a very diverse and inclusive ship at Mozilla. You are of course free to believe whatever you want, but if you want to claim this man has some deep-seated hatred of homosexuals, you should have a little more evidence than a small contribution to a political campaign years ago.

Fair point. I was letting a propensity for wordplay get the better of me, so I used a stronger label than the case merited. Apologies for any offence.

 

[DrOswald]

I still don't know how I feel about this. The guy was a founder of Mozilla, created JavaScript and has been a CTO for 9 years. Regardless of personally being a dick he was the guy most qualified to do this job. And in terms of internet specific principles, I can get behind open platforms and all that.

On the other hand he was supporting something that has made many millions of people unhappy.

----------------------------
I don't know, I still don't have any conclusions. Is it right that he never works for a company at the level he is most qualified for again? Is it right for a company to hire someone with such damaging beliefs towards other people?

I'll tell you where i fall. The guy from what i've read did indeed have an opinion but professionally he did not attack his LGBT coworkers, he did not try to fire them and didn't reverse the stated pro LGBT rights of his company. And beyond that he was qualified. He showed his support for something as quietly as possible and then because of that was driven out of a position he was perfectly suitable for. So I do feel this is unjustified for him. The summation of a persons character is not his opinion on ONE SINGLE subject.

That's persuasive. If he's not hostile to the people around him or even driving his company into that direction then he wasn't really doing harm in that position. Homophobia is awful but I don't know if I'm comfortable with the idea that homophobes shouldn't have good jobs if they're qualified, that's too extreme.

...but on the other hand I've never had to suffer any ostracisation because of my sexual orientation. It's easy for me to be dismissive.

The idea that he was a homophobe is completely unfounded. He has never spoken out against homosexuality in anyway, he has never committed anything that could be construed as a hate crime. No one could even make the slightest claim, unfounded or not, that he ever discriminated against a homosexual ever, which is amazing. I doubt I could work for as long as he did in the tech industry without ever accidentally slighting at least 1 gay person. Especially if I actively hated gay people and was working to oppress them.

All we have on him is that he donated $1000 to prop 8.

The idea that same sex marriage is solely an issue of whether or not you hate gay people is false. For many this is a religious issue. They want the LGBT community to have every right they have, but they believe for religious reasons that the term marriage should refer to only a union between a man and a woman. They are fine with, and even support, same sex unions with all the rights of traditional marriage, but in their mind "marriage" should be reserved as a religious institution.

We don't even know that he hated gay people. It is probably the case that he didn't. We probably just destroyed a man's career because of his religious beliefs.

 

[Kinitawowi]

We've reached the stage where being (publicly) homophobic makes your job untenable. Considering how recently it would have been that being (publicly) homosexual would have the same effect, I think that's progress.

It's flown from one extreme to the other. Neither of them is good.

The fact that this is regarded as "progress" is an absolute disgrace and should be thrown in the face of anybody who claims that their movement is about "equality".

 

[Tanner The Monotone]

You know the trouble with empathy? You can't teach it by shaking your fists and screaming. I highly doubt Eich has come away from this with a positive outlook on the LGBT community. Odds are, he's come away even more hateful and just plain bitter now. On top of that, he's made himself look like the good guy by stepping down and protecting his employees who may not share his views, so they don't have to burn with him. Now, all you have to do is add the fact that absolutely nothing has been accomplished in the field of gay rights, and you've got a good old fashioned fuck up.

Believe me, I'm right there along with everybody else that says Eich was a dummy for funding prop 8. It was an insult to every single rational person on the planet, and it was an absolute joke that a country that calls itself free ever even opened up the possibility of it being legalized. However, I think the goal larger queer movement should be to teach and to help understand, not to demand heads just because somebody didn't agree with us that one time. We need less witch-hunting and reverse-shaming, and more of this:

Spoiler

We can't teach the idiotic masses anything by being just as close-minded as they are. Although, I suppose we should be allowed some close-mindedness, after all, we're not the ones treating them like animals just because of their sexual orientation.

Those people were actors, which wouldn't be so bad if they weren't making it out to be real and trying to shut people down that try to reveal that fact.

Are you talking about the 'First Kiss' video? Because, mine is not that.

No, the hug video. The Asian women at the beginning is an actor. After all the death threats she recieved she came out and admitted that fact.

 

[Flatfrog]

We've reached the stage where being (publicly) homophobic makes your job untenable. Considering how recently it would have been that being (publicly) homosexual would have the same effect, I think that's progress.

It's flown from one extreme to the other. Neither of them is good.

The fact that this is regarded as "progress" is an absolute disgrace and should be thrown in the face of anybody who claims that their movement is about "equality".

No, I disagree. Tolerance and intolerance are not two extremes, and intolerance *of* intolerance is not the same as intolerance of diversity.

I once heard a great story which I'm often reminded of in cases like this. A mother finds her two children fighting over a cake. Billy wants the whole cake but Suzie thinks they should share it equally. "Now, now", says the mother. "You should compromise. Billy can get three quarters and Suzie can get one quarter".

You can't 'compromise' between inequality and equality. Equality is equality. A belief in equality means that someone who supports inequality is wrong. That's the liberal paradox - it's the same problem as the cultural diversity dilemma: if a different culture supports a practice we find barbaric such as FGM, who are we to oppose them? Aren't their views just as valid as ours? Well - no. Because ours come from a position of equality and theirs come from a position of inequality.

Even writing this makes me uncomfortable. It feels weird to say dogmatic things. But the logic of the position is pretty inescapable.

 

[Flatfrog]

Does it matter if a police man is gay? Nope. Does it matter if a fireman is gay? Nope. Does it Matter if a Lawyer is gay? Nope. So why should it matter if a CEO is anti-gay.. or at least anti-gay marriage.. The two are not mutually inclusive.

Once again, even though this shouldn't need explaining. Being gay is not a choice. Being anti-gay is a choice.

 

[RJ 17]

There, happy now? You've succeeded in getting a man to quit his job. You've changed absolutely nothing other than the fact that there's just one more person seeking employment now.

Is this man suddenly going to become a LGBT supporter? I doubt it, the LGBT community just cost him his job. Is Mozilla going to change its anti-gay policies? Well it didn't have any to begin with, so that's not going to happen either.

I hope you're all proud of yourselves for making this guy "resign" just because of his personal beliefs.

Note: The "you" in this context is the LGBT community that proposed this pointless boycott and anyone else that supported it.

I'm fully aware that there are those in the LGBT community that disagreed with this witch-hunt of a boycott from the start, this post is not directed at you.