Social media was credited with helping topple governments during the Arab Spring. Now, in America, it can act as a vigilante "justice system" and American companies, like Mozilla, are susceptible to this social vigilantism. Techie Brendan Eich, CEO and co-founder of Mozilla, creator of the JavaScript programming language, was recently promoted to Mozilla's top position. A position which he was well qualified for and probably deserved, but less than a month later, he resigned that position under pressure. He also resigned his seat on Mozilla's board. His transgression? He made a $1000 donation to support passage of Prop 8, the California anti-gay marriage act, back in 2008. Dating website "OKCupid" lit the flame of social vigilantism by greeting its users with this message: "Hello there, Mozilla Firefox user. Pardon this interruption of your OkCupid experience. Mozilla's new CEO, Brendan Eich, is an opponent of equal rights for gay couples. We would therefore prefer that our users not use Mozilla software to access OkCupid". Mozilla reacted quickly. Eich was gone in no time. Then, executive chairwoman, Mitchell Baker issued this statement: "Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn't live up to it. We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it's because we haven't stayed true to ourselves. We didn't act like you'd expect Mozilla to act. We didn't move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We're sorry. We must do better." The Link I'd say that Eich had every right to support a cause he believed in by donating to Prop 8. I have never used Firefox, Mozilla's main product, but I sure as hell would never use it now.
You have the right to use or not use a product based on your political beliefs, and so do those who boycotted and pressured Mozilla Firefox for their beliefs. The power of the economic boycott is one that every person can use on a daily basis, and I certainly exercise this right. Usually it is to try to support small, locally owned businesses, but sometimes it is for political beliefs.
I agree that people have the freedom to choose how and when where to spend their money based on whatever belief system they have. When a company borderline or maybe actually slanders another company because of a $1,000 donation that's misleading customers to believe more than might actually be true without due diligence.
Well I'm sure there are homosexuals being lynched in the front yard oak and being put in the back of the bus and shut out of the voting booth due to this pro 8 donation. At least that's what the left extremists and the thin skinned ignorant posters on Shaggy would lead you to believe.
But I'm sure you all think it is just fine for millionaires to spend unlimited amounts buying politicians, er, donating to politicians, per our fine Supreme Court defining money as free speech. We can't be applying pressure on people through social media though, can we?
An individual choosing to not support a company or individual who they feel is causing damage to the values they hold dear is ok. A corporation or large org. that uses their economic power to single out an individual for ruin simply because they hold a personal view they disagree with is anti first amendment an IMHO racketeering. Ive removed mozilla from all of my devices due to their belief that individuals cannot engage in free speech outside the workplace and still remain gainfully employed. I dont encourage anyone else to do unless theyve come to that decision on their own. I am and have always been pro-gay marriage even before BO realized it was OK. Shame on some of you on the left. You have completely squandered your designation as the torch-bearers for the first amendment in under 3 decades.
We live in an era of politics and society pulling at our minds, bodies and souls, from every direction. I have but one remedy. As follows:
The first amendment controls governments. Corporations can and do impinge on the free speech/political activity of their employees, particularly when it's bad for business. I think Mozilla certainly comes out looking bad on this. By the same token, how many of you on here have sympathy for Angus T. Jones of 2 1/2 Men who criticized his show for the amoral filth that serves as the plot lines on the show that made him a millionaire?
he did not say it was against the 1st amendment but anti 1st amendement, thus the nuance difference of being a governmental entity and illegal versus at worst stupid but legal.
I would have just loved to read you guys' discussion of those boycotting segregated lunch counters in the sixties.
the fascism exists in the idea that if a person such as Eich donates to a cause that contradicts a movement such as the gay marriage movement, then such a body or supporters thereof can forcibly suppress and subjugate an individual or entity into various forms of punishment, ranging from loss of job, as in Eich's case, or professional/political/emotional shame. Liberalism, along with the movement for gay marriage, has not become a movement bringing intelligent debate, but one that abounds in fearful intimidation and social regimentation. It has reached a point of narrow mindedness, intolerance (ironic) and very much resembles a movement, not one seeking a cause of it's own freedom, but one who uses intimidation to force conformity in society, as long as it fits their own view. If society can not function with respective discourse when it comes to these movements, we have reached a very dangerous point in time where ANY person could lose their jobs or livelihood, no matter what their position or company and that especially in positions of prominence and power? Is that the type of society we want to be a part of? is that how we want to live our lives, fearful of our inalienable rights and those rights defined in our very first ammendment, that of free speech? If I was Eich, i'd sue Mozilla for wrongful and/or forcible treatment in a scenario that had NOTHING to do with the company.
And you would lose the suit. He has zero claim against Mozilla. I am moderately against their firing him, but I do understand the decision from an economic and practical viewpoint. He supported with a significant cash donation the attempt to ban gay marriage in California. That this action would have significant economic repercussions for Mozilla is hardly shocking. This is basic capitalism and free markets at work. As I posted earlier, I probably would not have made this decision and I think it is pretty ******, but I understand a company in the tech world based in Silicon Valley making it. From a pure bottom line, they had to do this.
I wonder who combed through the donor list that the LATimes published This was a 1k donation by a private citizen 6 years ago 6 years ago BO also felt marriage was between a man and a woman. . But of course it is the right of whoever complained to complain. Mozilla seems to hae lost a good CEO who according to Mozilla chair Mitchell Baker admitting that “I never saw any kind of behavior or attitude from him that was not in line with Mozilla’s values of inclusiveness.” '
The problem here isn't that there was public pressure put on an employee. The problem is that the donation came to light at all. It was information that was illegally leaked.
mona I think in Calif it is legal to publish a list like that but there were over 70,000 names on that list it is amazing that someone took the time to comb through that list of people who 6 years ago made donations as private citizens
Just to set a little context, he made the donation in 2008, which was the same time Obama was telling people that he was opposed to gay marriage, and that he accepted the definition or marriage as between a man and a woman. One got fired six years later, one got elected president and didn't change his stance until election year and vice presidential lips forced him to do it.
Thanks for clarifying - much better to know that you're in the clear so long as you don't contribute to a conservative politician. And spare me the "far right-wing" thing about Buchanan. I'm not a fan by any stretch, but the comment that he was "accused of racist and anti-Semitic attacks" could be said of just about any conservative at any time. I'm not really sure that being driven off MSNBC should really be the benchmark for deciding if a politician is "far right-wing." For that matter... Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton have been "accused" of those types of comments. Appreciate the opportunity to clarify that... in fact, it brings up another point. We really ought to start looking at people's voting records, too, because who knows what these people have been doing in the privacy of their own ballot boxes.
Mich, what would it take for you to make a decision to "step down" from a CEO position of a company that you had worked very hard to build?
