Mozilla CEO Forced to Resign After 10 Days

[CapTon 592]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/04/03/298777259/a-week-into-his-new-job-controversy-forces-mozilla-ceo-to-resign

 

I find this topic quite stupid but at the same time I find it worth talking about I will keep my opinions about gay marriage to myself.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Ridiculous. He used his own money to support a cause he believed in and tried not to associate that cause with Mozilla. Some people who think they are open-minded don't know they are ignorant and narrow-minded.

--Ocram

[Bdub01 201]

I would not have stepped down myself. Then when i was fired I'd sue the hell out of the company. What happened to freedoms in this country? So does it mean if someone spent their own money and time against the proposition they won't be able to be CEO either?

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

Seriously the Mozilla CEO resigned because of that? It sounds like some kind of cover story to hide the more substantial factors which led to Brendan Eich's resignation, or maybe this is just another overreaction in the overly PC nanny state USA (I add in England to).

 

I hope this resignation isn't the prelude to Mozilla being gobbled up by Google or one of the tech companies who have collaborated with the NSA. So far Mozilla has gone on a limb ensuring user privacy and promoting Adblock plus, lest we forget Adblock is a HUGE threat to internet advertisement revenue since adverts on Youtube, Twitter and Facebook are hidden when using Adblock plus- thus your 'view' is not recorded.

 

Perhaps this resignation is the first step to bringing Mozilla back in line, so I would imagine in the next few weeks or months there will be an announcement from Mozilla that it's either going to be merged with one of the Internet tech giants, or Mozilla relaxes user privacy laws and stops promoting Adblock.

[Fatherted 129]

I really have no idea what to say other than if you discriminate be ready for the consequences. If 10% of his employees are gay and find out how anti-equality he is, there goes 9.9% of the workforce out the door to a more accepting company.

 

Deserved it.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Ridiculous. He used his own money to support a cause he believed in and tried not to associate that cause with Mozilla. Some people who think they are open-minded don't know they are ignorant and narrow-minded.

--Ocram

 

 

I would not have stepped down myself. Then when i was fired I'd sue the hell out of the company. What happened to freedoms in this country? So does it mean if someone spent their own money and time against the proposition they won't be able to be CEO either?

The problem is not so much that he supported a certain cause, it is simply that Mozilla's clients and community have certain expectations of their company and as a result did not like having someone as CEO who does not meet those expectations. As a result, he became a liability to their business. If as an organization you sort of advertise yourself having certain standards and views, it becomes part of your business identity and it is what attracts people to you as a business. It does mean that yes, people who have different views and standards that are not compatible with those of your company is going to hurt your business. 

 

Think for a moment, would you be happy to shop at a store if you knew the CEO of that store was donating his money to white supremacist groups? And would you be happy if you knew that store advertised itself as anti racist? 

[Fatherted 129]

The above is a good analogy. If he had donated to the KKK I doubt he would have so many supporters.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Whatever happened to the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America?  Does the mob rule?

[Ocram's Razr 964]

The thing is that he did not donate to any oppressive groups. He made a donation to allow the voice of the people be heard on an issue relating to who gets a certain privilege. Unfortunately, the higher up court stretched the constitution once again and undemocratically struck it down.

--Ocram

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

^ one is forced to conclude that the prior poster is against gay marriage (whatever that means).  If the purpose of gay marriage is simply to gain a few civil rights, then well and good.  I believe marriage has to do with the continuation of the species.  It is all a matter of definition (semantics) you see.

 

I don't care what affectionate people do as long as they do it in private.

[basty_goofy 24]

The thing is that he did not donate to any oppressive groups. He made a donation to allow the voice of the people be heard on an issue relating to who gets a certain privilege. Unfortunately, the higher up court stretched the constitution once again and undemocratically struck it down.

--Ocram

 

He didn't donate to an oppressive group. He was part of the oppressive group. As a fellow user noted above, if he would have went against giving racial minorities rights, people wouldn't rally around him so easily. But it's about gay people, so let's respect his right to disrespect them? I don't think so.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

^ one is forced to conclude that the prior poster is against gay marriage (whatever that means).  If the purpose of gay marriage is simply to gain a few civil rights, then well and good.  I believe marriage has to do with the continuation of the species.  It is all a matter of definition (semantics) you see.

 

I don't care what affectionate people do as long as they do it in private.

That conclusion would be mostly wrong. I support Civil Unions granting the same rights (but come with the same responsibilities) for all couples. I also support abolishing "marriage" from the legal dictionary. Marriage is a religious term so it should carry no weight in the legal world. I voted in favor of the proposition in my state of Washington to legalize "gay marriage." It is just that the voice of the Washingtonian people agrees with the agenda of the national federal government so it was not struck down.

--Ocram

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Ha!  We are in agreement.  The term 'marriage' implies organized religion.  I am all for privilege-and-responsibility-granting Civil Unions.  What churches do is no business of the state.

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

All I can say is good.

You may have the right to say stupid things, but at the same time you must take any criticism of such actions.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

You could say that you have to watch what you do because it may come back to bite you, eh?

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

You could say that you have to watch what you do because it may come back to bite you, eh?

 

These days ANYTHING will come back to bite you no matter how small. I see it all the time in British politics; some MP misspends a few hundred pounds several years ago and only now does it become a problem. Scandals are only occur because forces inside a company, a government or an organization either deliberately bring out into the open certain misdemeanour's or crimes of an individual, OR an issue is made of the individuals personal politics and it only becomes an issue once social media and MSM get hold of a 'story'. But really the scandal is the art of removing a person by disguising the motives of the party involved.

 

Lastly, to show I'm not just off my rocker, read this article from NPR (http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/03/31/297342868/the-new-mozilla-ceos-political-past-is-imperiling-his-present) about Brendan Eich which was published just before his resignation. In particular the second paragraph is rather important, the important part I've highlighted-

 

"At issue is Brendan Eich, a co-founder of Mozilla, inventor of the much used Javascript programming language and the newly appointed CEO of the company. Eich made a $1,000 donation to the campaign for , which defined marriage as only between a man and a woman. The donation had come to light in 2012, but fizzled."

 

Hmm... So it seems Mozilla was perfectly happy to support Mr. Eich two years ago, possibly longer since the donation may have been made earlier. I think Mozilla forced Mr. Eich out for other reasons aside from a donation made a couple of years ago.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

In this particular case it could well be that Mr. Eich had simple reached his Peter Principle level and had made himself eligible for hierarchical exfoliation.  It is often the case that good technical people make very poor managers, so a move upstairs is closer to the door.  In this case, any good port in a storm.

[Duke87 1,070]

Sometimes I think people are too quick to get riled up. We're talking about the personal opinions of one person who happened to become the CEO of an organization... which can be kept separate from the opinions of the organization itself. I don't really care if the CEO of a company is anti-gay, anti-Jewish, anti-American, or anti-gravity. So long as the company he is at the head of does not start taking action on these issues under his lead, it is irrelevant.

 

Now, if a company starts pushing anti-gay propaganda or whatever, then boycott away.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Whatever happened to the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America?  Does the mob rule?

His first amendment rights were not breached. He is free to say and support whatever cause he likes. However, the first amendment does not protect you from any consequences that your views might have. All it does is protect you from legal persecution, but that is not the case here. He resigned himself after pressure from inside his company and their customers, and that is not legal persecution.

 

The thing is that he did not donate to any oppressive groups. He made a donation to allow the voice of the people be heard on an issue relating to who gets a certain privilege. Unfortunately, the higher up court stretched the constitution once again and undemocratically struck it down.

--Ocram

Sure, and white supremacists also only voice their opinion on who gets certain basic civil right privileges. Only in their case that group is based around skin color instead of sexual orientation. 

 

But that aside, he is completely free to hold those views and support such an issue. But that might mean that he is unsuitable to work let alone lead a company that has a differing stance on the issue. Again, a company that advertises itself as clearly opposed to racism probably won't hire a white supremacist let alone make one into their CEO. Would that be discrimination or violating his first amendment rights? Of course not, it just means that such a person is incompatible with the companies values, corporate culture and vision. 

 

Sometimes I think people are too quick to get riled up. We're talking about the personal opinions of one person who happened to become the CEO of an organization... which can be kept separate from the opinions of the organization itself. I don't really care if the CEO of a company is anti-gay, anti-Jewish, anti-American, or anti-gravity. So long as the company he is at the head of does not start taking action on these issues under his lead, it is irrelevant.

 

Now, if a company starts pushing anti-gay propaganda or whatever, then boycott away.

Yes it can be kept separate, but only if the company does not publicly makes a stand on these issues and turns them into a part of their corporate culture and in this case also their outward image. Its just bad business to hire someone as CEO who is openly against the public image of the company. It can cost the company business, loss in profits, and it might also hurt the internal corporate culture. Therefor, you don't hire such people or you get rid of those people as soon as possible. 

[AcmeSigns 97]

An 'oppressive group'? Seriously?

Proposition 8 passed with 52% of the vote in California.

California is a heavily-leaning Democratic state (meaning that the majority of voters vote Democratic).

Proposition 8 was not passed by just by those on the Right. A huge number of Democratic voters also voted to pass Prop 8. They just won't come out and say so for fear of retribution. Much like Mr. Eich experienced.

The online dating site OKCupid called for a boycott of Mozilla/Firefox. Intimidation...pure & simple.

 

Wait...who is the 'oppressive group' again?

 

The Left is only 'tolerant' as long as you agree with their beliefs.

[LexusInfernus 908]

An 'oppressive group'? Seriously?

Proposition 8 passed with 52% of the vote in California.

California is a heavily-leaning Democratic state (meaning that the majority of voters vote Democratic).

Proposition 8 was not passed by just by those on the Right. A huge number of Democratic voters also voted to pass Prop 8. They just won't come out and say so for fear of retribution. Much like Mr. Eich experienced.

The online dating site OKCupid called for a boycott of Mozilla/Firefox. Intimidation...pure & simple.

Yes, lets talk about the Oppressive group. Proposition 8, which had the express aim to take away an established civil right of a specific minority based on religious reasons. In other words, proposition 8 was a successful attempt of a group of people to push their views on religion and homosexuality through peoples throat and in the end take away their rights (which resulted in annulling established marriages). Yeah, that is not oppressive at all, just like hypothetically it wouldn't be oppressive if 52% of the people in the state of Tennessee voted on measures taking away the right for interracial couples to be married because interracial marriages are deemed by that 52% as an abomination against God. 

 

No, the real oppressors are the people who openly voice their distaste and opposition against such people and as a result have the freedom to boycott any such individuals who are involved in taking away other peoples rights. Because that is totally not cool under the first amendment, opposing the majority rule and letting that influence your behavior towards them. 

 

And surely in a free market corporations are under no circumstances allowed to voice their distaste about working with a certain business that is run by a CEO who was actively involved in taking away peoples right. Because free market actually means that corporations are not free to decide to not work with specific businesses anymore.

 

Wait...who is the 'oppressive group' again?

 

The Left is only 'tolerant' as long as you agree with their beliefs.

 

Yeah because the real intolerance is being intolerant towards intolerance. Its perfectly okay to take away peoples rights based on your religious belief and by extension cram your religious beliefs down their throats, but openly voicing opposition to that and basing your behavior towards people who do that is unacceptable. Right.... 

[Ocram's Razr 964]

BTW, Marriage is a privilege, not a right. It was available as a religious ceremony for millennia before it became a legal process with paperwork for governments.

I think that remarriage should be illegal as well as group marriage but that is a different topic.

--Ocram

[Xander Dax 310]

Wow, i must say that as a gay man i find this all so COMPLETELY unsurprising (but still offensive at the same time), the fact that at this modern day and age this kind of hate,discrimination and intolerance against LGBT exists is really ridiculous.

I mean come on it's the 21st century here people!, get with the program, me or any LGBT being married is not hurting anyone or , "ruining" the institution of marriage.

 

As for the CEO well i am sorry but he got what he deserved, Mozilla prides itself on certain standards, and obviously he could not meet those same standards so he had to go.

I mean if nothing else it would be awkward for a company know as "LGBT" friendly, to have a known Homophobe as there CEO wouldn't it?, therefore he simply became a liability to Mozilla.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Also, as pointed out earlier, he was an important co-founder of Mozilla and no one cared that he donated to Proposition 8 until very recently.

--Ocram

[Xander Dax 310]

Well either way no offense but i think he got what he deserved, i have no time or sympathy for Homophobes. 

[Ocram's Razr 964]

I would not consider donating to get a voter's initiative running to be homophobic. Running a smear campaign would be but that is different. That is not to say that he is not homophobic because of something else though I don't see any signs of it. Whatever... some people's minds are just poisoned by the likes of NBC and other propaganda stations.

--Ocram

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Liberals will always carefully examine both sides of the same side.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Does he still get his $100M severance package?

[LexusInfernus 908]

Also, as pointed out earlier, he was an important co-founder of Mozilla and no one cared that he donated to Proposition 8 until very recently.

--Ocram

Eh, wrong, back when he made the donation it was also an issue. But back then he wasn't CEO and he wasn't the face of the company. 

 

Furthermore, initially the people from Mozilla themselves (including LGBT employees) didn't mind that he was going to be the new CEO. Until the controversy hit and he failed in a rather spectacular way to put an end to the controversy. The problem was that he didn't apologize and that he took no responsibility for his own actions. That pissed off a lot of people. 

 

Also, marriage is a right when its codified into law and includes a bunch of government benefits. Proposition 8 was aimed at retracting that right from a certain right from a very specific group of people while leaving everyone else alone. 

 

http://groupthink.jezebel.com/how-brendan-eich-failed-as-ceo-in-under-two-weeks-1559328347/+burtreynoldsismyspiritguide1

 

http://groupthink.jezebel.com/marketplace-acts-conservatives-libertarians-cry-foul-1559255241

 

These are both interesting articles. 

[Xander Dax 310]

I would not consider donating to get a voter's initiative running to be homophobic. Running a smear campaign would be but that is different. That is not to say that he is not homophobic because of something else though I don't see any signs of it. Whatever... some people's minds are just poisoned by the likes of NBC and other propaganda stations.

--Ocram

Donating money/Supporting something which aims to discriminate and withold rights from LGBT people IS homophobic, and quite frankly wrong.