Posted on 04/07/2014 9:12:29 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
So last week, Mozilla, the mission-based makers of lagging web browser Firefox, fired its newly appointed CEO Brendan Eich after the dating site OK Cupid publicized Eich's donation to Prop. 8, a California ballot initiative that barred same-sex marriage in the Golden State.
As I wrote here and for Time:
Now that we’re well past a subsistence economy, we live in a world of largely symbolic exchange, where we don’t simply choose something because we’re hungry or naked but because we want to make a statement about what sort of person we are, what sort of taste we possess, and what sort of values we share.
That's especially true of an organization such as Mozilla, which has feet both in the nonprofit activism and for-profit business worlds.
Conservatives - including those who support gay marriage, such as Hot Air's Allahpundit - have been howling that Eich's ouster is an ominous new form of blacklisting that seeks to discredit and silence all opposition to the "hoMOsexual agenda" (as it's often pronounced by detractors).
Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight has generated a table of Prop. 8 donations by top Silicon Valley firms from a Los Angeles Times database:
Opponents of Prop. 8 (that is, supporters of gay marriage) were far more common among tech firms, but the opponents ponied up much more dough.
Allahpundit writes that "what the Eich case is [really] about" is stopping or halting the progress of high-profile business people who oppose marriage equality:
His donation’s been a matter of public record for five years but only after he became the face of Mozilla by being named CEO was it deemed an unforgivable trespass. Prop 8 fans can continue to work in tech as long as they aren’t given positions of significant influence. That’s when the hammer comes down....
When do we get a list of Silicon Valley donors to Obama’s campaign circa 2008, when he was still formally against traditional marriage? True, he didn’t support Prop 8 or other attempts to legally ban SSM (a strong signal at the time that his stated view was a lie), but the whole point of the equal protection argument against traditional marriage laws is that you can’t reserve “marriage” for straights without implicitly slapping a second-class-citizen stigma on gays. Obama was willing to do that, at least rhetorically. Let’s have the names.
Regardless of the specifics of this case, I think the Eich story showcases how technology, symbolically-based economic activity, and access to information has really changed things (and generally for the better). At the same time, I share the ambivalence of many between blurring of lines between private and public activities. All businesses have things that I find objectionable from time to time. Many specific individual artists and creators have been accused of or acknowledged absolutely horrible and criminal behavior (such as Roman Polanski, Woody Allen, and Arthur Koestler). It is no simple calculation for individuals to decide when learning about such things means boycotting a given company or person. Surely, the fact that Firefox has not really been a dominant browser for years makes it easier for many pro-gay-marriage people simply to say they will continue NOT using Firefox in the wake of the Eich affair.
Here are some questions for Reason.com readers:
1. Do you think a business's personnel decisions or corporate actions should ever be a factor in deciding whether to patronize a firm? Don't we rally around banks such as BB&T when its leadership says it won't underwrite deals based on eminent domain abuse? Or Overstock.com when it fights against Internet sales tax plans?
2. Is the problem with Mozilla that it caved so quickly to OK Cupid's campaign? Many stories about Eich suggest that his Prop. 8 donation/stance was well-known within the organization and the subject of controversy. Having made the decision to promote Eich - a giant in tech innovation - is the real crime here that Mozilla didn't push back against a backlash?
3. How important is it that we're talking about the private sector rather than the public or political sector? We generally talk about how different rules can and should apply to private-sector actors than public-sector ones (quick example: Private universities are not bound by the same First Amendment legal principles as public ones are). Many critics of Eich's resignation talk about how Obama himself was against gay marriage back in 2008 and that many sitting Democratic senators still are. Is that in any way relevant?
4. Does the particular issue matter? If you found out, say, that a particular company or CEO was a massive supporter of, say, Venezuela's current strongman, or of any given cause about which you feel strongly? Is it worth mentioning that conservatives call for boycotts of Girl Scout cookies due to alleged ties of the parent org's ties to abortion?
Any CEO who is looking out for the health and wellbeing of his employees would be irresponsible not pointing out the Federal Govt's own warning on "gay marriage" health hazards.
The way things are going , it won’t be long before “Gay Squads” will be burning Straight People at the stake.
Thank god for Tolerance. what a Joke , and the joke is on us.
One point — Mozilla is a private company...they ought to be able to hire and fire the ceo as they please...for whatever reason (unles prescribed by law)...
And as a customer, I am happy to continue NOT to use firefox...
Of course not. McCarthy was doing the right thing.
In answer to the title, NO. It is more like the Salem witch trials.
I was a subscriber to Reason many, many years ago. In short order I found Reason is anything but “Reason.” Most at Reason had a strong bias against Christians. They are much more comfortable with the left.
That’s true. But it seems as if the revisionism-of-history boat regarding what McCarthy was trying to do sailed long ago.
Sodomiteism
What is a good alternate to Mozilla?
I am the furthest thing from a techie...so I heistate to give advice!
Internet Explorer 11 (who knew?) and Chrome are good. Chrome is the fastest.
Mozilla, on the other hand, has taken a corporate stance and made a very clear statement that's contrary to the feelings of millions of people in the country. As a LONGTIME Firefox user, I am very displeased that they have waded hip-deep into public policy, especially one that's antithetical to my personal beliefs.
I have nearly 10 computers that have Firefox as the default browser, but I will express my disgust with Mozilla by moving my allegiance to a competing browser and no longer recommending Firefox to those people who solicit my help with their computers.
Pale Moon, Opera, or Torch are 3 options.
Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the communist party?
Are you now, or have you ever been a witch?
Do you now, or have you ever opposed gay marriage?
Sounds like the same thing don’t it.
Isn't it irritating how the leftists always turn everything on its head. Is this deliberate, stupidity, mental illness or what? They full well know what McCarthy was about. In their professed twisted logic he was a fascist because he was trying to identify and rid the country of treasonous, undermining Communists. The leafists have always labeled McCarthy as the villain so he must be a fascist. Of course, they are the fascists. First, they identify anyone who disagrees with their sick views, then they destroy the individual. It is only a small step before the penalty moves from losing your employment to the Mao style purging (killing) of opposition
More accurately, it is Homofascism.
Sadly There is none!
Just my opinion: Internet Explorer has historically been my least favorite for several reasons, none of which happen to reflect any perceived anti-Microsoft bias on my part.
First, earlier versions of IE 'marched to a different drummer' by insisting on varying from attempts to (loosely) standardize emerging browser technologies proposed by the other major software companies. This often caused rendering differences, which required alternate coding for a page to display in IE the same as it appeared in other browsers. As a webmaster, it's a pain in the ass to keep up with its eccentricities.
Earlier versions were also notoriously insecure, with versions 6 & 8 being absolute security nightmares. (And IE 8 is the last version supported in XP, which means that those clinging to Windows XP and IE 8 are going to be a risk with the imminent demist of XP support.)
I know Google is somewhat of a bad word in these parts, but I will switch my allegiance to Chrome, which I can set up to be virtually identical in features & appearance to my Firefox configuration. One big advantage Chrome leverages is built-in support for Flash, whereas Firefox and IE relied upon external plugins that were frequent attack vectors, requiring regular updates. Chrome will take care of Flash updates on its own, without requiring user intervention.
Secular humanism is the state run religion. It is the religion of government and the business world..
One could say that this religious thought unites the political, economic and societal ‘group thinks’ under that unifying banner with liberty and freedom as their ‘call’...
And the rule is, Cross that religious thought at your own risk...
even your job and livelihood...
Separation of church and the secular humanist state is needed..
Real liberty and freedom is only found in Messiah...and it looks more and more that this means being at odds with the secular humanist religious, political and economic powers of the state..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
