OKCupid Asks Firefox Users To Support LGBT Rights, Switch Browsers

[RJ 17]

the whole discussion and approach changes when we're dealing with corporations. as consumers, we only matter to them if we effect their bottom line. in order to discourage future propagation of intolerant views.

And that's a fair enough point, but you're not taking a stand against a company or business, you're taking a stand against one person's personal beliefs and using the company that person runs as a punching bag. The question is this: do you believe that boycotting Mozilla will change HIS stance? No? Then why bother?

This would be different if Mozilla had openly anti-gay policies. THEN you'd be boycotting in order to affect a change in said policies. But to think that this one man is going to say "Gee, everyone's switching browsers. Guess that means I should open my mind and be more tolerant and accepting towards homosexual marriage" is just absurd.

When you boycott a company based purely upon the personal beliefs of the person in charge, I believe you're being hypocritical.

People who make this argument completely miss the fact that boycotting, or even outright hating someone, for their personal beliefs, which they can change, and the actions they take based on those beliefs is a lot different than boycotting or hating someone for who the way they were born. There's no hypocrisy here. And I always get the feeling that when people say there is that they're really just afraid of taking a stand on something and probably actually believe that the solution to every problem is some compromise between differing views.

Sorry, but hating people for how they were born is always wrong if how they were born is causing you no direct harm except for whatever imaginary harm you've concocted in your own brain. And declaring that that is unacceptable and refusing to deal with those who think that way isn't hypocrisy. It's called having a sense of morality that isn't completely broken.

Discrimination is discrimination, my friend, I don't care if it's regarding someone's life choice or regarding something they were born with.

Case in point: discrimination based on religion. You're not born Catholic, Muslim, or Jewish. You might be born into a Catholic, Jewish, or Muslim household, but when you're old enough to make your own decisions you can be any religion that you want. By your logic, because religion is a personal belief choice, it's perfectly fine to disagree with and openly hate people of other religions for not believing the same as you.

But this is all outside the point at hand: the boycott serves no purpose because it's not going to change the CEO's personal belief. As I said, if you're boycotting a company because they do have openly anti-gay policies then fair enough, the company itself is what needs to be changed. In this case, the company doesn't need to change, you just don't like the guy that's running it.

 

[MrPhyntch]

yeah, kinda. if you're not fighting for justice, or at least taking the smallest measure possible by using a different browser, then you are a part of the problem. what if there was laws in place that specifically targeted you and prevented you from marrying who you wanted, for whatever reason they saw fit to enforce. the world is larger than you, and you need to think beyond just what effects you, because one day it might. it's kinda the whole idea behind that "first they came for the..." poem from world war 2.

While this is (technically) true, not every God-damned thing has to be a fucking crusade against injustice. Sometimes a person just wants to look at funny cat pictures and ***** about video game endings he didn't like well after said bitching is relevant.

Besides, if using a FREE NON-PROFIT web browser were so important, which one do you use? Internet Explorer, the browser that forces coders to do backflips for a single page to look half-decent? Chrome, part of the company that is actively trying to take over the tech industry and has supported some very anti-free-internet laws? Or are you going hipster and not getting half the functionality of the web pages simply because you don't want to support the big guys?

And if using Firefox makes me an anti-gay hater homophobe, then fuck it I'm going whole hog. Next time you see me I'll be posting from my laptop using Firefox, using the Wi-Fi at the Chik-Fil-A I'm eating at, and finishing the erst of the Ender's Game series.

 

[FogHornG36]

...And what about those who seek to not give a shit? Must we embrace the spam of LGBT? I suppose nowadays you're either with them or *your the Nazi party*.

Fixed it for ya...

Oc, im glad that people feel the same way, this feels like its going into the social justice thing, and really its discriminating against someone because they have different ideals then you.

 

[JazzJack2]

Sure it would. It sends the message that people won't buy your product if you support anti-gay legislation. Ergo, less likely to donate money for the cause of making anti-gay legislation.

Except;

A) The company that produces the product in this case doesn't support anti-gay legislation, a member of the company does.

B) The opinions of an individual within a company should have no bearing on your view of the company if his or her opinions are not relevant to the company and he/she is not forcing them through said company and last time I checked Mozilla Firefox was a browser and so the political opinions of it's members (not matter how horrid these opinions are) are not relevant.

Like I said it would achieve nothing, woo you'd get a guy fired for having unsavoury opinions that no bearing on his job, wow that'd be another great step for freedom!

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

how many people work at mozilla? i dont think this CEO is the only person working there, and i dont believe the entire corporation shares his views, on top of that i dont think the people who work there all agreed to put that guy on top


i dont see how this boycott helps at all

 

[Something Amyss]

...And what about those who seek to not give a shit? Must we embrace the spam of LGBT? I suppose nowadays you're either with them or against them.

I don't get the attitude here. They literally say "if you don't want to switch browsers, that's fine." You come off as far more hostile than the people you're complaining about.

As far as the attitude of "ugh it doesn't involve me" - Imagine if you were persecuted constantly for something you couldn't control and people had that attitude towards you? Yeah. It fucking sucks.

But...It does involve him. He specifically said he was gay.

It's not like it suddenly doesn't work if you're gay, it's just a man who has different political beliefs than some people.

Political views that one might validly not want to support fiscally. Which does not, by the way, translate into hate.

So because the CEO of a company holds personal beliefs contrary to your own, you should just demand that he resign and that the company be boycotted?

It happens all the time for non-LGBT reasons. Is it different here because he's a homophobe?

You have the right to vote, you know, and that's how such things as gay-rights are solved...not by switching web browsers.

Voting isn't the only form of political pressure employed on companies or even governments. Again, I'm part of the "if you don't want to change, fair play" crowd, but this sort of justification is inane. And, I might ad, it's totally reasonable to not wish to fiscally support someone who gives or has given money to causes you object to.

Incidentally, but making something socially untennable, by costing people and/or companies money fiscally, we do impact social policy and even laws. By railing against this, you're railing against the same system that got blacks and women recognition, because these movements didn't happen by just waiting around for laws to be made. People made protests and demonstrations. They voted with their wallets and their mouths. They lived by example.

Before anyone asks, I supported the right of Chick Fil-A and their consumers. I supported the right of Duck Dynasty fans to their little tantrum. I support the Westboro Baptist's Church right to demonstrate in whatever shitty way is constitutional. I hold these beliefs all-around: if you do not like something, you do not have to support it. Even if I think it's stupid. It's also their right to be as homophobic, intolerant, or stupid as they want. I don't have to, nor will I, ever offer financial support to the above groups. Still, they have the right to their bigotry, and we have the right of self-determination, to act on it in whatever way we see fit (provided we do not harm them nor take their rights away).

I say this against my self interest as a member of the LGBT community. But the principle of free speech only works if we protect unpopular speech. At the same time, free speech is not freedom from consequences, as we as a people have the right to boycott or organise against someone in the same way Jackass: the CEO took part in a campaign against gay marriage.

The most is could do is have the CEO removed which is simply pointless and will do nothing to help gay rights.

Well, you know, except make such statements and actions socially unacceptable, which would make it harder for someone to openly oppose gay rights in the public market.

What is this shadow complex again? I'm sorry but I don't really care how big an ass the guy running a BETTER AND FREE WEB BROWSER is. People are allowed whatever views they'd want or I'd never listen to anyone that votes republican.

Who said he wasn't allowed to have whatever views he wanted?

 

[Charli]

Urg, on one hand, the company that made my browser is run by an asshole.

On the other hand, ew Google.

Yeah, I'll stick with Firefox until Mozilla as a whole does something stupid.

Well he's just a CEO, the guys who actually make the stuff that makes the browser work are evidently not too happy with him.

And...egugh. I mean I use chrome on this machine, but I use Firefox on my laptop.

And this is actual action and money spent on anti-gay rights, not just a bigot spouting opinion...

Oh well I'll adjust my laptop later, not using it right this moment.

 

[RJ 17]

So because the CEO of a company holds personal beliefs contrary to your own, you should just demand that he resign and that the company be boycotted?

It happens all the time for non-LGBT reasons. Is it different here because he's a homophobe?

Apparently it is, considering the fact that people aren't boycotting because of company policy but rather someone's personal beliefs.

You have the right to vote, you know, and that's how such things as gay-rights are solved...not by switching web browsers.

Voting isn't the only form of political pressure employed on companies or even governments.

That's just it though: they're not putting political pressure on a company or government. The purpose of putting political pressure - i.e. boycotting - on a company or government is to change the policy of said company or government. There's no such policy to be changed for Mozilla. Mozilla is not an openly anti-gay company. As such they're putting pressure on a man to change his own beliefs, not the company to change its policies. That's the problem I have here. It's Chic-Fil-A all over again.

What is this shadow complex again? I'm sorry but I don't really care how big an ass the guy running a BETTER AND FREE WEB BROWSER is. People are allowed whatever views they'd want or I'd never listen to anyone that votes republican.

Who said he wasn't allowed to have whatever views he wanted?

The people that are arguing for and wanting to boycott Mozilla, apparently. As I said, they're not attacking the company or it's policies, they're attacking this man's personal beliefs.

 

[Draconalis]

A whole 1000 dollars for prop 8?

What does that cover these days? a spread in a newspaper?

When I read that, I actually laughed.

That being said, as others have already stated... I'm not switching to shittier browsers as a token gesture in futility.

I'm glad to see the whole world hasn't gone "Chrome Crazy" as I thought it had.

I don't understand the appeal of that terrible... terrible browser.

 

[Tanis]

Um, how about, NO.

Chrome is shit.
IE is, well, IE.
Opera ain't much better.

It's like that whole fiasco with Chic-Fi-La.

Unless the company is ACTIVELY doing something (SEE: Hobby Lobby's war on women and non-Christians) bad...
What a CEO/any-other-employee does...is none of my concern.

 

[JazzJack2]

Well, you know, except make such statements and actions socially unacceptable, which would make it harder for someone to openly oppose gay rights in the public market.

Pressuring people out of employment because they hold controversial opinions sounds pretty fucking despicable, at least to me anyway.

But hey if we are going to attempt to ostracize people we disagree with I guess I should boycott any company that employs a Tory supporter, I mean what their idelogy has done to the poorest in my country is far worse than what someone simply saying they disagree with my right to marriage does to me. Of course that does mean I'll have to totally avoid interacting with 40% of the population which will be pretty hard, perhaps I should just take the adult option and you know realise that the majority of people in the world are going to hold at least one opinion that you find reprehensible and you're simply going to have to accept that.

Yes, but not just a member, but the head of the corporation, one of its many spokepersons.

Right a spokeperson for a software company, not a political party, until he starts using his job as a CEO to spout of his political opinions (or until someone recommends me a better browser ) I will continue to use Firefox and I won't give a shit what their employees do or think in their spare time.

Sure it should. They become a spokesperson for their organization, their business, their employer. Would you seriously not think less of an organization if the person in charge stated that the Holocaust didn't happen, and its supposed existence is a fabrication of the Zionist-Occupied Government?

If it didn't affect the product then no I would not.

People do think more, or less, of an organization or business because of their spokespersons. Maybe not you, but many people, perhaps the majority (I have no evidence to substantiate that its the majority, just saying possibly) are effected by it because they don't want to support that person.

Your point being? we are discussing whether people should or should not find the personal views of a CEO relevant to the company as a whole and so to simply state that some people do find it relevant isn't an argument as to why I should.

 

[V8 Ninja]

Well, it kind-of sucks that the new Mozilla CEO is a bigot. However, until the man starts making contributions to anti-gay organizations under the company name I'll be fine with continuing to use Firefox. Other than being invested in Firefox, it seems like lots of other parties that are more responsible for Firefox (app developers and Mozilla employees) share my sentiments.

 

[RandV80]

...And what about those who seek to not give a shit? Must we embrace the spam of LGBT? I suppose nowadays you're either with them or against them.

I don't get the attitude here. They literally say "if you don't want to switch browsers, that's fine." You come off as far more hostile than the people you're complaining about.

Yes but that comes with a political spiel and an extra step to scroll past and click through. I use Firefox, and personally I'd be pretty ticked if websites I go to start nagging me about my choice of web browser over some loosely related political reason, regardless of whether I agree to it or not. What if other sites started redirect you when logging in with Chrome warning of privacy concerns over Google? What if they did it with Microsoft over anti competitive practices?

Points is there's a very good reason why web pages don't or shouldn't do this sort of thing.

 

[BlumiereBleck]

...And what about those who seek to not give a shit? Must we embrace the spam of LGBT? I suppose nowadays you're either with them or against them.

Sadly it has become this.

Spoiler: If you are not with me you're against me!

ON TOPIC: My natural response is "Who cares? Mozilla is the best browser and their CEO's opinion does not change the browser into homosexual hating machine. So why should we care?"

 

[RJ 17]

Apparently it is, considering the fact that people aren't boycotting because of company policy but rather someone's personal beliefs.

Not just "someone", but the CEO, the head of the corporation, the representative of the company. When a person like that speaks they speak for the organization as a whole.

That's just absurd. When he starts making Mozilla take on anti-gay policies and practices, THEN you can throw a fit and boycott Mozilla. Until then, you're boycotting a company because of the beliefs of a person, doesn't matter if he's the CEO or the janitor.

The Chic-Fil-A example still supports my case, just not in the way I intended apparently. If it's true that it was a policy of Chic-Fil-A to discriminate against homosexual (edit)employees(end edit) (which I hadn't heard about) then indeed, boycott them all you want. That's a policy of the company that needed to be changed, hence the purpose of a boycott. Until this guy starts mandating similar policies for Mozilla, I still say there's no reason to boycott them seeing as how a boycott is an attack on a company, not a person.

 

[hentropy]

I'm all for gay rights but this is perhaps a bit unnecessary. First off, just because someone was opposed to Prop 8 in 2008 (now 6 years ago, mind you), doesn't mean they are opposed to all forms of homosexuality or want to stop them from finding love. Some just have the misguided and uninformed view that marriage is an inherently religious institution. However, there are many people and groups out there that have no problem with homosexuality existing and don't want to outlaw it as OKCupid seems to be suggesting. I do not know what the CEO of Mozilla's exact personal beliefs are, but simply supporting Prop 8 is not reason to suspect someone wants to outlaw gay altogether.

Second, when did CEOs become the entire company? It's one thing if he is forcing their business to institute anti-gay policies, but this is decidedly not the case with Mozilla. Boycotting Mozilla because one member of their executive board has a certain view is ignoring the multitudes of other employees, including key board members, who have the opposite view.

 

[joshuaayt]

Proposition 8 was despicable- as is anyone who supported it.
And this guy didn't just support it internally, it wasn't just a part of him- he took action, and supported it with his wallet.

So, fuck him. You're allowed to believe whatever the fuck you want, but the second you're actively helping efforts to hurt innocent people, you become indefensible.

That said.

A company is more than its CEO- https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/03/29/mozilla-supports-lgbt-equality/

Even if that is just damage control on their part, I sincerely doubt that was written by Brendan Eich himself- It's not really reasonable to take action against a company that itself is doing no harm, with employees that are doing no harm.
I'm all for lobbying for his removal, but I wouldn't stop supporting the whole company just because it grew a bad head, so long as it isn't doing anything wrong.

 

[EvilRoy]

I do find this worrysome in that the supporters of LGBT seem to have a large blast radius and not really care. There are other people at that company, and none of them got a vote in who runs it - by attacking the company in this way you're punishing a large number of innocent people, many of whom could lose their jobs due to decreased business and this is not the job market you want to have that issue.

In an effort to hurt a single person they don't like, they have the potential to do real harm to many bystanders - and in the process they may make themselves into the bad guy. I hope it doesn't happen, but if there was a way to teach a person to hate the LGBT community (or at least its supporters), this would be it.