At the end of the day, society-at-large has a choice about what kind of value judgments it applies to whom in our society. Around the time of Eichgate, one of the most popular sentiments was that a commitment to a political freedom of speech did not guarantee freedom from the social fallout of said speech. The detractors were absolutely right -- you can say what you like, but the social consequences of your speech are yours to reap.
That said, I wonder if the mass-mob of people calling for Eich's head really understood the full reprecussions of what their witchhunt meant for how leaders are selected in the tech world, if you're thinking about the general question of "which individuals should be qualified as leaders in major tech companies?" I personally suspect society is much worse off by applying social justice criteria to unrelated leadership positions that are attempting to improve a completely separate area of society (technical transmission of data across a standard-driven medium).
Given our current fetishization of "majority-is-right" morality in the US, however, I suspect this subtelty is lost on most of the mob.
So if you are part of a group that hates gay people and actively pursue and agenda of treating those people as second class human beings you have a "political view".
But if you are part of a group that opposes the aforementioned group by not wanting to work for or with them and use their services you are a "mass-mob" on a "witch-hunt".
This has consistently been the way this issue has been twisted by a large part of a the tech community. It's offensive Tea-party level logic.
If really you want to have an honest discussion about the requirements for our leaders, you may want to consider framing it in more neutral terms.
I think many people are trying to make a distinction that is different from "this opinion is a political view, this opinion makes you part of a witch hunt".
The distinction being made isn't between the different views, but between the ways people express those views. Brendan Eich holds a political view, and what he did about it was to donate money to an organization in support of it. Other people hold a different political view, and what they did about it was to try to punish someone who had expressed the first political view.
And the argument goes that donating money to organizations is a form of political speech that should be protected, not just from the government but from citizens, because the effects of "people not being able to express their political views for fear of legal or social consequences" are kind of bad. So when people try to punish people for expressing political views, we should say to them, "no, this isn't how the game should be played".
This is a complicated issue, and my own opinions on it aren't fully fleshed out (though I lean towards defending Eich). But I think it's important that both sides understand what the other side is upset about.
> Other people hold a different political view, and what they did about it was to try to punish someone who had expressed the first political view.
No, no, see. Other people hold a different political view, and what they did about it was lobby to have a major organization run by someone who doesn't express that first political view.
I know of NOBODY who wanted to "punish" Eich for his actions. I know of PLENTY who wanted to have someone tolerant running the volunteer driven organization.
> I know of NOBODY who wanted to "punish" Eich for his actions. I know of PLENTY who wanted to have someone tolerant running the volunteer driven organization.
Well it was certainly felt by Mozilla employees:
>¹ Several calls to boycotts, several petitions asking for the resignation of our CEO, demonstrations, insults, death threats, ...
>² Death threats against Mozilla employees and contributors don't count as attacks on Mozilla in your book?
I haven't seen much better logic from the other part.
It's not just a political view, they're taking away our rights!
If restricting the privileges of marriage to a group of people makes those left out "second class human beings", then the correct answer is to abolish marriage.
No, seriously. If this is truly a civil rights issue, then marriage itself (or, rather, its sanctioning by the state, with all the attendant privileges for married people and corresponding burdens on the community) is an inherently discriminatory institution. Fiscal benefits? Extended insurance? Visitation rights? Why should these privileges be enjoyed solely by married people?
You can just get married if you want to enjoy those benefits!
Yes, and gay people always had the option to marry someone of the opposite sex (in fact, many of them did). How is that a solution? Why am I required to be in a romantic/sexual relationship before I am granted my full rights?
If I am unmarried, why can't I name my cousin as a dependent for health insurance? Why can't I have my best friend immigrate to the US to be with me, instead of a spouse I don't have? What if I plan to be celibate all my life, but have strong platonic relationships? What if I am a polygamist?
The disestablishment of marriage should be the obvious conclusion to anyone who is truly approaching the issue with a concern for equality. The fact that nobody even seems to have considered it shows that, as usual, equality is just a buzzword, and this was really about a group advancing their own specific interests (and as long as they got what they wanted for themselves, screw everyone else). Which is ok, that's how politics usually works. But then, please drop the sanctimony and stop acting like you have the moral high ground. I am still paying higher taxes and getting less benefits because I do not conform to a state-sanctioned model of relationship, and you are my oppressor.
The only witch hunts are the with counts against LGBT people. There are people who want to ban mention of LGBT topics, who want to imprison LGBT people, who think those people are wrong and immoral, and think it's right to best this people up and kill them.
If you want to see a witch hunt, look at how many people treat LGBT people.
Calm down a bit. For one you're incoherent, second what you wrote can be read in two different ways which is why you're getting a whole pile of downvotes. I understand what is at stake for you here so I'll write this comment instead of downvoting you, if you want to help your cause if you're getting riled up like this then you are actually doing it a disservice.
> * if you want to help your cause if you're getting riled up like this then you are actually doing it a disservice.*
This is a common statement, but historically groups without rights have had a lot of success with arguing and fighting and pushing back. If something (being nice) is demonstratidly not effective, why should I do it?
Mozilla is a tech company AND a political organisation. Having a leader with controversial views that are outside of the organisations remit is distracting at best.
Any company leader has to consider the things that they say and do and the impact on whether people will want to work for them and buy their products. Mozilla also has to consider volunteers (who they can't just offer more money to unlike a commercial companies employees) and supporters.
Oh, I agree fully. Please don't mistake effect for cause here. Given a mob-minded populace, it's best to select leaders with a more safe, socially-minded approach to leadership.
What I'm saying is that, it's unfortunate we accept and glorify the mob-mindedness in the first place. The specifics of this case should have played out exactly as they should have. All I'm saying is that, if people were more thick-skinned form the get-go, then the hard decisions played out by the Eich incident wouldn't necessarily had to have taken place.
I'd like to understand what you mean by "mob". Do you people individual choices about who to work for and volunteer for being influenced by what they feel about the political views of the leaders of organisations?
Are you saying that people who are in group that has been oppressed in recent history and people may feel still is oppressed or unequal who feel that Eich was trying to deny them equal rights (in society) should be "more thick skinned"and carry on working for his organisation rather than speak their mind.
I am aware that there is a certain spin to the above paragraph but saying that victims (at least in the recent past) should be "more thick skinned" sounds pretty offensive from a certain viewpoint.
Nope. I'm referring to something different in kind. I think it's fully okay for rational individuals, separate from emotion, to come to the conclusion that working with a specific person or business doesn't align with their long term interests in how they feel a society should be run.
I believe, however, what was on display during the Eich incident was nothing of the sort. It was a direct example of mob mentality[1], which is a very distinct mode of thought that operates more off of emotion, peer judgment, and myopia than rational thought around what we should consider unjust and punishable if the case were brought to, say, a formal trial.
The concept is kind of a fundamental underpinning in modern judicial systems. I personally think that "mob" mentality is on the rise given our current configuration of clickshare happy, shallow media outlets, but this is a harder thesis to defend and beyond the scope of this comment.
I think that perspective is needlessly individualistic. You can take a view that something isn't in someone else's best interests. The bigger issue with Mozilla is that people feel it represents them, and it does in its lobbying for the the open web. If it is led and represented by someone who you feel[0] is opposed to your very being it is hard to imagine it representing you and easy to see how you could oppose the appointment.
[0] Some may see opposition to gay marriage as opposition to homosexuality. In some cases this is probably the case in others it may not be.
Mozilla is a political organisation fighting for the open web and information freedom. Those are politics most of us here probably support but that doesn't make them non-political.
[I'm guessing that the down votes were for describing Mozilla as a political organisation but it is just a guess. Responses can change my mind, down votes alone can't.]
Eich was already in a position of technical leadership at Mozilla with minimal controversy. Significant controversy only arose when he transferred to a position with the authority to affect employment policy and the ability to represent the company in public relations.
Mozilla lives and dies on its ability to attract and retain the best talent. Eich as CEO was only useful if he could support that end.
You are exactly correct, but this is circular reasoning.
Let's just presume that all of us do something from time to time that the mob might find unpalatable: we cheat on our spouse, we evade taxes, we contribute to unpopular causes, and so on.
The question here is basically "What the hell are we doing?" Do we want a world where a few folks can research random corporate CEOs, dig up something to stir up the mob, then end up getting him fired? Because you're absolutely right about the role of CEO: once he's smeared with so much mud, he becomes a terrible liability for the company. The question is whether or not we're going to allow current political passions to influence where we start slinging the mud. You can't on one hand participate in this kind of attack on this guy because he was "wrong" and then on the other hand proclaim that sure, he has freedom of speech, but we also have the right to punish him. Or rather, you can, but it just basically means you can punish whomever you like.
And the end-game here is terribly clear as well: young leaders in tech will learn that it's completely fine to hold unpopular opinions; just don't ever let them out to where they can be observed publicly. This destroys open public discourse and creates a society where there are certain things you can say and certain things you can't. If you cross that line we will hunt you down and econmically punish you. That's crazy.
> Do we want a world where a few folks can research random corporate CEOs, dig up something to stir up the mob, then end up getting him fired?
An alternate moral frame for the same concept: do we want a world where social pressure can be used to make particular political actions risky for people who are otherwise immune to or insulated from risk? There are precious few other options for discouraging wealthy, influential people from disproportionately wielding their wealth and influence in the service of reactionary ends.
When it comes down to it, I think Eich's supporters and detractors mostly differ on where the line should be drawn, not on whether there should be a line at all. There is unquestionably some level of private expressive action by a CEO that would be almost universally acknowledged as incompatible with holding the position.
If it were to turn out that Tim Cook was a die-hard white supremacist who had donated repeatedly to the cause and appeared on video speaking passionately about the need to ethnically cleanse the United States, I think you'd have only a tiny fraction of holdouts defending him on the basis of free speech. Similarly, if the CEO of BP was ousted for being critical of the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia, I think you'd hear rights-based arguments against it from people who reject such arguments for Eich.
I was one of the signers of the CREDO petition calling for Eich to step down. I wound up regretting that -- and I had some second thoughts even at the time -- but at the moment I signed it I had not yet read his statement pledging to uphold Mozilla's diversity policy, along with his claim (which I have never seen contradicted) that he treated everyone at Mozilla with respect. Had he failed to do those things, this would indeed have been an easy call.
I really don't understand the argument that it's necessarily 'bad' to attempt action against someone based on their opinions (or direct actions), especially if they're being put in to a position where those opinions run counter to their responsibilities.
Should say, a CEO be free to donate to a white power group and not have it affect their career? What if they donated to a group trying to have black people declared as property? Would it be 'destroying open public discourse' or 'crazy' if some of the future property then protested or boycotted said company? If I'm understanding all the arguments of this type correctly, the answer appears to be "yes".
Mozilla is different as well. They have a significant reliance on the volunteer open source community. If you isolate the community, you shouldn't lead.
I feel like every time I comment on this, people hone in on the practical aspects of this case and attempt to justify "what happened" in spite of considering "what should have happened" if we're considering how an ideal society should behave.
I want to clarify. Branden Eich should have absolutely been fired given the circumstances. In fact, the board should have considered the political climate, done their due research, and not have appointed him in the first place. We are entirely in agreeance on this point.
My comment goes a step beyond this situation, and tries to look at society as a whole. You're right in that, given a society full of trigger-happy ideological mobsters, you need to be extra careful in who you choose to represnt your company as leadership. I don't think many people are disagreeing with the logic of the board in removing him as a CEO of a community-driven organization.
I am simply commenting on the fact that we have come to the point that people view a person's social viewpoints as so vital and important to their position as a leader that it interrupts the (IMO more ideal) flow of aligning tech hierarchies in accordance to what I think should be the most important principle -- technical merit in designing technology and orchestrating the business strategy to achieve whatever objectives the organization has in mind.
It is my belief that socieites that prioritize technical leadership above social safeness will flourish over time above those that value social cohesion and not-rocking-the-boat-ness. There's a better phrase for that, but it's 1am.
Even if your belief were true, it is an odd definition of a "flourish" that assigns all weight to the material dimensions of a society and none to the moral.
It becomes particularly odd when discussing the leadership of an organization with a substantial moral component to its stated mission [1].
This is a good point. Flourishing does not imply moral behavior. I think the "flourish" comment is an embellishment to my main argument, which does center around the morality of holding somebody accountable for a view they expressed six years in the past.
Taking it a step further, I do feel that, given enough space, I could defend the idea that a society's moral imperatives are quite tied to how it gets its corn-pone [1]. This is several levels beyond the scope of my comment, though.
A view they expressed six years ago, have not rescinded or clarified, and, oddly enough, is largely supported by their political donations going back 20 years [1].
That 'mass mob' was quite vocal but definitely still a minority. It's a pity that Eich decided to add insult to injury, if he had not done that I'm pretty sure Mozilla would still be headed by him. As it was I don't think he left them much choice.
What would you consider a viable alternative to "majority-is-right" morality? I've always personally taken a moral action to mean the one that a majority of people, over and by whom the action is to be judged, consider to be the right one. If there is an absolute set of morals, what principles would they have to be evaluated by?
(Not to say that your argument about democratic morality doesn't have its merits, I'm just curious about your take on it)
I'd say there's a specific "populist" train of thought that elevates immediate mob judgment above more nuanced principles of justice developed and agreed upon by philosophers that spend a lot of time thinking about this stuff.
In the US specifically, a huge basis of our political history is based on circumventing this particular view of morality. A lot of this sentiment is captured in the phrase "Tyranny of the majority"[1], and was formally laid out in the Federalist papers, which form a strong underpinning of American political thought
This may have just been in the communities I visit but in the after-math there was a lot of people who expressed regret at their extreme reaction, which makes me think that the "spiral of silence"¹ may have also played its part.
Yes, the government's implementors were rabidly anti-democracy. Which is is what we'd expect from some rich slaveowning elites, who looked down aristocratically on their fellow countrypeople as "the mob". John Adams wrote:
"if we take into the account the women and children, or even if we leave them out of the question, a great majority of every nation is wholly destitute of property, except a small quantity of clothes, and a few trifles of other movables. [...] if all were to be decided by a vote of the majority, the eight or nine millions who have no property, would not think of usurping over the rights of the one or two millions who have? [...] the time would not be long before courage and enterprise would come, and pretexts be invented by degrees, to countenance the majority in dividing all the property among them, or at least, in sharing it equally with its present possessors. Debts would be abolished first; taxes laid heavy on the rich, and not at all on the others; and at last a downright equal division of every thing be demanded, and voted."
This is the "tyranny of democracy" they feared, an Orwellian notion. I recommend Graeber's "The Democracy Project". He was one of the many Occupy founders, and is every bit as "American" as any of these government guys.
> People who work against gay rights will not be able to work. This is a good thing IMO.
No, it is not. People who work against gay rights should not be in a position to decide who gets to work and who does not. That is a good thing. But people who work against gay rights should be given a platform, and should then be shown publicly how ridiculous their position is in order to educate them and whoever was listening. Bigotry is best dealt with by education, not by shunning.
In 30 years you will go from a free thinking liberal to a reactionary dinosaur without changing a single opinion. When you find yourself out of step with "the kids", remember this.
So the only way for a position to be correct is for it to have been widely seen as right and important by a large group for a long time? Obviously the number of people interested in gay rights was smaller in the fifties than it is now.
Are you one of those moldbugian jackhats? This kind of simplistic thinking smacks of their pseudo-intellectualizing...
Correct IS "widely seen as right by a large group". People in the 1950s were not evil or stupid, they were much as people are now: well-meaning and sincere in their beliefs. Their correct is not our correct, but in context, it's not "worse" than ours. If you'd been an adult then, you'd have beliefs in tune with the zeitgeist too.
You are assuming that your views wouldn't change over time. Ideas aren't static. You said that one would end up being reactionary over time when the new ideas disagree with your own...but that assumes that yours wouldn't change...
What would you think if it was instead popular to segregate women or race? Their favour for religiously harsh revenge-justice for insignificant crimes? Just a con to majority is right mentality. Not justifying Eich or discrimination but it could work against us if it becomes law in a world that is obsessed with exploiting/exposing private matters.
It's too bad and everyone lost out in the end. I was also angered by the donation, and disappointed in what had up until then been a personal hero of mine, but even then I still respected Brendan Eich for his many contributions to not only web technology but my own life through Mozilla products and JavaScript.
He could have done many things differently. He could not have taken the CEO position. He could have had a change of heart about his donation. There was also a bit of weirdness in his defense during the storm that struck me as tone deaf. In the end he stuck to his conviction, which might be admirable if his position wasn't about limiting the rights of others.
I don't mind having leaders who respect people of all walks of life and the argument that criticizing intolerant individuals in leadership positions is a form of intolerance is a specious argument. Yet in the end we still lost a great person doing good things on behalf of everyone. Life is weird that way, it's not all black and white.
Ousting Brendan Eich as CEO of Mozilla is a big mistake.
People who opposes gay marriage are not evil. This was the law of the land in the US since for ever until recently. For people to turn on him in supporting his belief is despicable.
I am glad the tide is turning everywhere that gay marriage is being implemented widely but punishing people for their political actions is a dangerous slippery of slopes.
Gay marriage issue is winning by changing people's mind one by one. There are tons of people that previously oppose to it. Heck even Obama 'evolved' on this issue. Are we going to revenge on them as well? (
What's next? Shall we fire pro-choice candidate as well? How about purging people that vote (Democratic/Republican) party?
He never 'evolved' though. It says right there in the article, he never articulated a change of heart/mind, just that he was sorry he offended anyone - the ultimate non-apology, apology.
It wasn't about his personal belief. He actively donated. He picked a side in what is still an ongoing globalized war for human rights.
Secondly, freedom of speech does not entail freedom of societal consequences of speech. It just means the government can't punish you for being an asshole. It doesn't mean anyone is forced to hang out with assholes. Nor are we forced to use products of which appearantly funds end up trying to oppress other human beings. The answer to moral criticism of corporatism is always 'vote with your wallet'. Now you are saying we are not allowed to do just that? That we must treat every company equally irregardless of their political actions? (actions yes, not opinions)
Also, the exact position of gay marriage in the US is completely irrelevant -- that notion alone testifies a misplaced arrogance. Mozilla operates in a very large globalized world. A world where in many countries gays are still oppressed -- and i don't mean in the you-cant-get-married-way but in the we-are-going-to-kill-you way.
This is a large globalized war for human rights, and he picked sides. That has consequences. Here's a question: what if he contributed to Al Queda? He didn't fly those planes -- it's just freedom of speech, right? He should be able to be CEO of Mozilla, right? What an assholes we are if we would stop using Firefox because of that, right? I realize it's a straw-man argument. His actions are not on the same level. But it proves that the notion that political actions should be free of consequence is plain wrong. The whole point of political actions is that you want something to change. People who believe that change is for the worse, are free to fight you with any legal means including voting with their wallet or refusing to work for somebody who they perceive to be their moral enemy.
Yes, that makes a person less qualified for certain types of jobs. It made sense for Mozilla to fire him for financial reasons -- but i kind of hope, moral reasons played a part as well. And he did choose to stick with his guns, so he lost a standoff he chose to be in.
> This is a large globalized war for human rights, and he picked sides. That has consequences. Here's a question: what if he contributed to Al Queda? He didn't fly those planes -- it's just freedom of speech, right?
I think this is why it's difficult to have a sensible discussion on the matter, because the overwhelming stench of hyperbole frightens off everyone else but the flies.
I am for gay marriage. But I also understand that not all oppositions to gay marriage are rooted in intolerance, bigotry, or hatred. I respect the right of Eich to express his opinion and donate funds within the confines of the law & his personal life. It's a shame that an organization like Mozilla couldn't understand the intricacies of this situation.
It wasn't the Mozilla organization that didn't understand -- it was a substantial fraction of their user base. With only a handful of exceptions, the Mozilla employees supported Eich, and felt he had already adequately demonstrated his commitment to inclusiveness.
It was really a tidal wave of pressure from outside that forced their hand.
> Yet in the end we still lost a great person doing good things on behalf of everyone. Life is weird that way, it's not all black and white.
This seems an odd way to put it. Yes, people are full of contradictions we'd rather didn't exist, and politics especially seems to bring them out. The examples are endless, from great artists who are racists to religious leaders who make powerful social contributions but also molest children. One might equally say that "evil people can do beautiful things" or "great people can make poor choices."
Either way, we're just fighting the cognitive dissonance of the two things co-existing when we wish they didn't. Which actually seems pretty black and white to me, and not weird at all.
That said, I wonder if the mass-mob of people calling for Eich's head really understood the full reprecussions of what their witchhunt meant for how leaders are selected in the tech world, if you're thinking about the general question of "which individuals should be qualified as leaders in major tech companies?" I personally suspect society is much worse off by applying social justice criteria to unrelated leadership positions that are attempting to improve a completely separate area of society (technical transmission of data across a standard-driven medium).
Given our current fetishization of "majority-is-right" morality in the US, however, I suspect this subtelty is lost on most of the mob.