France is living this dream already and has been for over a century. It takes legal protections for secularism and the enforcement of those laws, it's simple, but it isn't easy.
Ah, yes, quietly and faithfully paying for a campaign to keep people like me second-class citizens. Ah, well, that's fine, then, as long as it's nice and polite and Christian.
(Back when equal marriage was a live political issue here, I must say I think I _preferred_ the out-and-proud homophobes to the ones who hid behind religious claims. At least they were honest in their hatred.)
Did Eich use his position to advance his advocacy? That's really the only question of merit. If he applied his views to hiring or firing decisions, that's an HR and legal matter all of its own.
There's an infinite number of arguments on how his publicly expressed (these donations were not anonymous) personal views impact his role as the head of an organization.
If for instance valuable members of the org quit on it, recruiting becomes noticeably harder, Mozilla's PR is impacted and investors aren't happy about it, I'd assume that's enough to ask him to step down.
Is that the case? Same applies to people trying to oust others on such grounds. I would never support an organization with that much lack of a spine and in my quite pragmatic views the requirements here are fairly low due to economic realities.
I trust the leadership of Mozilla a fair bit less than previously and I believe it at least now has a toxic work environment I also would probably not like to work for.
I still do support Mozilla projects, but I am far more careful of that today.
On Mozilla in particular, I think people joining it and supporting it in general have a fairly stronger opinion on what an organization should have as values than for many other large size companies (let's say Microsoft, Oracle or Accenture for instance).
Is a good or a bad thing ? Honestly I don't think Mozilla would have grown as much without all the social clout it has. There's no denying it has a tremendous effect on the pool of candidates, and the users choosing to support the company even as other products can be objectively better.
As you say it cuts both ways as they now have a kind of moral handcuffs limiting the views and moral/political positions they can have at the leadership and PR level. I personally see it as net positive, but we can agree to disagree.
Yes, we would have to disagree. Mozilla previously had a reputation of being open and tolerant, even for people with more conservative viewpoints. While the proclamation for inclusion might be louder today, it is far less believable now.
Especially if there are any moral "handcuffs" as you say, because that would be an obvious contradiction to their stated values which I would argue people will notice.
The rules of PR demand that you are less free with what you communicate and it also demands you to lie. Many opportunities that Mozilla had were lost without any gain.
Hard to believe that Eich discriminated against gay people like you suggested. And I feel that isn't even the issue of those that complained here.
I think there was no good out of that situation, keeping Eich wouldn't have been great either.
We've potentially seen a similar thing play out with 37 signals and a third of employees leaving ship after they felt betrayed by the leadership's personal positions.
I personally didn't see Eich as a good leader at the stage they were, and while not being impressed by the current leadership either I'm not sure his ousting had that much impact in the grand scheme of things.
The entire thing was simply that he had donated to some Christian organisations, some of which spent some of their time advocating against gay marriage. That was it.
incorrect—eich donated to the campaign for california proposition 8, which was "a state constitutional amendment intended to ban same-sex marriage", and actually passed at the time, but was later overturned in court
This was also back in 2008 when even Obama was quoted as defining marriage as "the union between a man and a woman" [1]. So that begs the question: Why did Eich get so much more scrutiny than even Obama? Why did the media seemingly coordinate to do hit pieces on him? And why the CEO of an open-source browser with < 5% market share, and not the massive big-tech incumbents?
my opinions about morality aside, someone pointed out elsewhere that mozilla specifically has an outsized relationship with the LGBTQ+ community, thus making it practically impossible for him to be an effective leader there
he himself actually literally said as much: "Our mission is bigger than any one of us, and under the present circumstances, I cannot be an effective leader. I will be taking time before I decide what to do next." [1]
it was reported on beforehand [2], but as far as I'm reading, there wasn't a serious outcry until 2014, six years after the donation, after he was appointed as CEO (and subsequently ousted)
as for politicians, I think they're by definition mealy-mouthed, and they often just say what they think people want to hear at any given time
Its easy to say that now that the pendulum is swinging back the other way. But where were the voices of reason for the past 10 years when free expression was under attack?
Eich is free to express his opinions and free to suffer the consequences. CEO is a very political position and he made a politically bone-headed move. I don't see how it could have ended any differently.
The people doing public witch hunts should suffer the consequences of their childish behavior then and this won't be too constructive in furthering their stated goals.
This self-righteous bickering is indicative of more character flaws than Eich displayed with his opinions.
> CEO is a very political position and he made a politically bone-headed move
No, that is not what happened. Political activists inside companies have gained power as a result of the 'long march through the institutions [1] which they have been using to enforce their ideology in rigid fashion. This started in the lunch rooms but eventually reached all the way to the top. Eich, like many other CEO's was replaced by a political activist - in this case Mitchell Baker - who used her position to further her ideological goals while simultaneously enriching herself. She is only one of many who is guilty of this type of fiduciary breach of confidence.
The fact that these 'champagne socialists' strut their virtue while filling their coffers - in Dutch this this is called 'links lullen, rechts vullen' (talk left but hoard right) - only makes it all the more galling and clear that their ideology is only a thin veneer over a lust for greed and power [2].
[2] That same ideology sees everything in the world as an eternal power game between the oppressive and the oppressed and calls for a permanent revolution against the powerful - i.e. against themselves.
That is also not what happened as can easily be seen by those same activist taking over non or only partly market-driven sectors like academia and large parts of the public sector, especially centred around education.
If "the market" truly were king I'd expect those who come with plans to rake in the most money for the least effort to take over, i.e. the thing which those same activists tend to point damning fingers at for being the evils of 'capitalism'. I'd also expect companies which are taken over by activists to fail in the market since they produce less efficiently given that part of their energy is used to further the cause of those activists instead of focusing on 'shareholder value'.
It was obviously a targeted, coordinated attack. People were looking decades back into his donation history to try to find anything that tied him to "the right wing". A thousand dollars a decade before to a anti-gay-marriage proposition in California that most Californians agreed with him on at the time. A few thousand dollars two decades back to Ron Paul. Why do you claim he should "suffer" for that? Should half the country "suffer" as well just for voting Republican?
Meanwhile, around the same time, Bill Gates was meeting with Epstein, and that received less than 1/10th of the media coverage. He was sending emails about "staying late into the night" at Epstein's house with a woman and her underaged daughter. But that's ok, because he's on "our side".
It's not about making people suffer. Eich used his wealth to lobby for something that many people find objectionable. Mozilla is quite an ideological company (many who work there are probably somewhat driven by the "mission" rather than necessarily the company's financial performance), and so the CEO publicly supporting criminalising same-sex marriage could affect hiring and staff morale.
It's not like his career has been destroyed. He's still incredibly wealthy, and has a new browser company. People can use that, and work there, if they want.
>Eich used his wealth to lobby for something that many people find objectionable.
Something which a majority of Californians in 2008 voted for, so your many people were the minority.
But even were that not the case, where should the line be drawn? Even if Eich's view were held by 1% and not the 52.24% that voted for it in 2008, should Eich have been fired for holding that position? Yes or no?
> publicly supporting criminalizing same sex marriage
Same sex marriage simply wasn't a thing legally at the time, and was an issue the american public was discussing. It was not something in the process of being criminalized. The population of California voted not to allow it in the year we are talking about here, just to give you some perspective. Barack Obama opposed it politically.
My example was the media coverage of these two events. Look at how the Guardian covers Eich in the article linked in a comment above. Pay attention at how they go out of their way to throw out labels like "right wing". Now try to find a single article from the Guardian that so strongly rebukes Gates. If his behavior is not OK, then why don't they address it?
Yes, I agree that the liberal aka mainstream media have lost their way, in the sense of favoring political positions rather than what's objectively true.
This became obvious in the coverage of Trump and then Russia's war on Ukraine. If everything I've read for years was true, both Trump and Russia would have been finished long ago. But they're clearly not.
As is shown in the following notes, the definition of rape in the New York Penal Law is far narrower than the meaning of “rape” in common modern parlance, its definition in some dictionaries, in some federal and state criminal statutes, and elsewhere.
The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was “raped” within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump “raped” her as many people commonly understand the word “rape.”
Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.
Sorry, in the US, only courts convict. And if you are convicted of rape, you go to jail.
Word play does not count here. Last time i checked he is still walking around, campaigning.
I don't have strong opinions about the Eich situation. But:
> Should half the country "suffer" as well just for voting Republican?
In the past, probably not. With today's Republicans? Absolutely. You don't get to knowingly vote for a fascist and his corrupt sycophants and face no repercussions. If your politics are "I don't give a fuck about democracy unless I win," our world views are entirely incompatible and I don't want to give you an iota of support.
Your account has swerved into using HN primarily for political and ideological battle. I don't know why, but it's dismaying, because you've been a great contributor in the past but now you're posting more battle comments than not.
This is not allowed on HN, regardless of which politics you're for or against, or how right you are or feel you are. We have to ban accounts that post like this and I definitely don't want to ban you, so if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stop posting like this, that would be good.
If you look over that material and still have a question that hasn't been answered, I'd be happy to take a crack at it.
The short version is: (1) some political overlap is inevitable* and ok, but (2) even in those threads, battle-style or flamewar-style comments are not ok, and (3) using HN primarily for such purposes is not allowed and we ban accounts that do. Your account has been on the wrong side of both (2) and (3), which is why I replied to you.
It's a common perception that "HN is getting more political lately" but I think that's an illusion which goes back a long way: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17014869. It's a product of sample bias plus random fluctuation.
* Btw, that is the answer to your question "why not ban [political] topics entirely"—it can't be done. For one thing, there's no agreement about what counts as "politics"; for another, many stories that are clearly on-topic for HN have political aspects. Trying to exclude the political altogether would actually be a surefire way to intensely politicize this place, as we discovered when we once briefly (for a couple days) tried an experiment in doing so. That was quite a learning experience.
The problem was that he was CEO of Mozilla - pretty sure they have had am outsized sample of LGBTQ people in their employ and other tech organizations which they interacted with.
How could he lead an organization when his personal biases was made clear by these donations which was to deny them what most people consider to be a basic human right - the right to life and happiness.
Unlike you and your smears, I make my positions clear and cite my sources for them.
If you mean by "anti-vaxer (sic)" my opposition to the Covid shots and mandates, then so be it. Many, including me, who have had older vaccines, especially from before the 1986 US liability shield and subsequent problems, are "anti-vax". Even though we still vaccinate our children.
"Covid conspiracist" must mean I cited lab leak possibility and reasons for considering it. Now that federal agencies agree, you should reconsider this lame smear attempt.
Your use of (misspelled) "spell words" (Roger Scruton's phrase) to curse me marks you as superstitious and thoughtless. Do better!
Seems like he actively fought against equal rights and a level playing field. That position should be morally repugnant in a modern society. I’d say doing nothing (I.e. too little) was actually too much.
You can say whatever you like. When the mob comes for you, you'll cry foul and appeal to freedom of conscience. Nobody will give a damn because that isn't a value anyone cleaves to any longer. Nobody cares that YOU think YOUR principles are a special case.
As far as I am aware, I don’t hold values or principles that are abhorrent to foundational ethical guidelines. If I ever do, I don’t expect any sympathy from others as I reevaluate my views in light of new information and grow as a person.
This person specifically fought against equal rights. The way most people look at what he did (and the way certainly anyone but the most virulent bigots in the future will) is the same way we today look at the people who threw rocks at MLK during the civil rights movement.
This is just a long way of stating your confidence that your values will always be in lock-step with whatever the most powerful zetigeist in your society is at any one time. Which is its own problem that you should reflect on.
Eich hasn't thrown rocks at anyone and it's disengenuous to frame it otherwise, especually considering you could have made a perfectly good argument without that.
Edit: The question isn't whether you think he did something wrong, it's whether you think that people who have contributed massively to causes or organisations should be driven out for reasons that have nothing to do with those causes or organisations.
One can only dream of a world in which all civic actions are secular, and religious matters are private and quiet.