Brendan Eich Steps Down as Mozilla CEO - <AUTHOR> https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/03/brendan-eich-steps-down-as-mozilla-ceo/ <comment><USER2> I am a strong supporter of gay marriage, but I have to say that I find this very unfortunate and worrying. Apparently many Mozilla supporters seem to think it is okay to bully a qualified person out of his job only for his political views, even if they had absolutely no effect on his qualification or his actions on the job.

I can't help but feel like this campaign has done a lot more harm to him than his $1000 donation could have ever done to anyone.

<comment><USER3> I generally agree with you but I think the problem here is that being against gay marriage is more than just a "political view." Being for low taxes is a political view. Being for smaller government is a political view. Believing a certain group of people don't deserve to live their lives like other simply because of who they love is not a political view. It reads as extremely hateful and that makes people uncomfortable. I would be uncomfortable if the head of the company I worked for felt that way.

<comment><USER4> So Barack Obama, the President of the US, was against gay marriage in 2008; I'm confused as to why he gets a pass here, but the head of Mozilla doesn't?

<comment><USER5> I can understand why he gets a pass: He probably was only publicly against it in 2008 in order to win an election, and when it was politically convenient he had a "change of heart" and has repented.

What I can't understand is why _anyone_ who espouses the view that opposition to gay marriage is akin to the most heinous racial bigotry could possibly have voted for Barack Obama in 2008. I'm a pretty reliable GOP voter, but I wouldn't think twice about voting for a Democrat for president if the Republican candidate expressed support for segregation! I'd vote for a third party if they both did.

My point is that it's basically free to express outrage at Eich. Six years ago (when Eich actually made his donation), a lot of folks here and at Mozilla who are so worked up about this issue now were not so unforgiving about it when it came to getting "their guy" in the White House.

<comment><USER6> Opposing something right because it's politically convenient isn't any more ethically defensible than opposing something you truly disagree with. You, as liberals tend to do, are giving Obama a pass -- he can't _not_ do the right thing, by your logic.

I suspect that many Republicans nominally against gay marriage are privately for it, but the political ramifications for saying so would be much graver for an older, whiter and more religious constituency. Do we give them a pass, too?

<comment><USER5> Politicians say one thing while believing something else all the time. It's almost a qualification for the job.

I don't care about that (much). 'Twas always thus...

I'm pointing out that there are surely things 2008 Candidate Obama could have said and positions he could have taken that would have disqualified him in the eyes of many of the folks here, _even if they suspected he didn 't really mean them_. I'd like to hope some of those would include expressing support for racial segregation or opposing interracial marriage. But many in this discussion are claiming that BE's 2008 opposition to gay marriage is morally indistinguishable from support for racial segregation or opposition to interracial marriage, and that he should be judged accordingly. Then how can they square that with a vote for Senator Obama in 2008?

The analogy with the Civil Rights Movement to end racial discrimination absolutely has some force behind it, but I don't think making that analogy ends the debate over how to treat folks on the other side.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> From the recode recap - [http://recode.net/2014/04/03/mozilla-co-founder- brendan-eich...](http://recode.net/2014/04/03/mozilla-co-founder-brendan-eich- resigns-as-ceo-and-also-from-foundation-board/)

>"It's clear that Brendan cannot lead Mozilla in this setting," said Baker, who added that she would not and could not speak for Eich. "The ability to lead — particularly for the CEO — is fundamental to the role and that is not possible here."

The most damning aspect of this was their a) inability to predict this would be an issue and b) their inability to deal with it once it did.

All he had to do was lie and say "I understand how my activities can be seen as divisive and wrong and inconsistent with my commitment to upholding the diverse values underpinning the Mozilla community and I apologize for my behaviour at the time. I will do everything in my power to make up for it and I hope the community can judge me based me on my record from this point onwards".

Then, find ways to anonymously engage in whatever political causes he supports, or wait till he's no longer CEO.

The tone deafness of his last interview was kind of the last straw.

<comment><USER8> It speaks a lot to his integrity that he didn't. Would you rather have a CEO who says one thing in public and then goes and does another thing surreptitiously, or one who stands up for his beliefs even when they're unpopular?

<comment><USER9> I don't think 'integrity' in the face of an opinion that is becoming more and more unacceptable to hold in our culture is a good thing. Changing your views, and admitting you were wrong is the best thing you can do.

<comment><USER8> This line of reasoning is very troubling to me, because 20 years ago it was pretty much unacceptable in the U.S. to hold the opinion that gays were entitled to full legal rights, let alone the ability to marry. That changed only because some very courageous people stuck their neck out, weathered all the flack and negative personal repercussions towards themselves, and gradually made the point of "Why not?"

I fully support gay marriage and I personally think Brendan is on the wrong side of this issue, but I also fully support the right of people to hold their own opinions, even when other people find them unpopular. If they weren't allowed to hold unpopular opinions, then pretty much all the social progress we made in the last century - racial equality, feminism, gay rights, etc. - would never have happened.

<comment><USER10> There's two sides to that -- the first is that, yes, he _absolutely_ has the right to hold _any_ opinion he wants to, no matter how noxious I or others may find them. To paraphrase Hall on Voltaire, I'll defend to the death their right to be assholes. (Full disclosure: pro- gay marriage, anti-Prop 8, not a CA resident, so doesn't really affect me.)

On the other hand, there's no absolute right to be a public-facing CEO, and it's not unreasonable for the public to name-and-shame companies for their stances on public issues and the people they choose as corporate leaders.

In some cases, this means right-wing activists boycotting and gay-marriage advocates praising Target for same-sex wedding registry ads; in others, it's blue-staters deciding not to eat at Chik-Fil-A for its right-wing political donations, and red-staters buying that 24-piece combo for the exact same reason. Personally, I do think that Eich did all the right things as far as policy and PR goes, and I'm actually a bit sorry that he's stepping down.

I think that the real sin here was not his political donations, it was the fact that he and MoCo didn't make at least cursory efforts to wargame out the possible PR issues that they ran into, which meant they were unprepared to deal with the firestorms.

It's obvious that a significant number of board members weren't happy with Eich's promotion on strategic grounds, and the Prop 8 issue was just the icing on the big poisonous cake of bad publicity. Generally speaking, if you're the CEO, the _company_ should be in the news, not you, and Eich was getting hammered left and right.

<comment><USER11> To piggyback, there's an additional difference between being a public-facing CEO of, say, McDonald's, Exxon or Apple, and being the public-facing CEO of a non-profit which exists due to the donations of primarily liberal and libertarian internet people. The prior case might cost them a little revenue due to boycotts but if the person's effective, you can make a case for 'private views' and 'shareholder value'. When your whole company is an activist platform, it's a bit harder to say that political positions of the CEO don't matter.

<comment><USER12> > When your whole company is an activist platform, it's a bit harder to say > that political positions of the CEO don't matter.

I see the point that it's different for a non-profit than it might be for a for-profit, but I'd also think differences in primary focus matter too.

If I was looking at the conversation over the last week as a representative, I'd suppose that Mozilla is more of an LGBT standard-bearer than an open-web advocacy group.

One could argue that's a ridiculously narrow window to focus on, and that's probably correct, but it's no more narrow a focus than that turned on Eich's donations vs the whole of his behavior and what he had to offer as CEO.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> As a gay man this makes me sad.

Eich gave a relatively small amount of money to a cause that happened to be supported by a majority of voters at the time(disclosure: I am gay, I don't care). For the first ~200 years of America NO ONE supported gay marriage beyond fringe gay groups. 20 years ago a celebrated sitting Democratic president signed DOMA. It was a long time ago and not a lot of money and Eich's (edit: technical)contributions outweigh his political opinions. "Not supporting marriage equality" should not be an "unacceptable" opinion. Why can't we respect people's opinions? How is this any different from railroading a staunch Catholic or Mormon or Muslim out of an organization(because if you say "god told me to feel this way" it turns into a protected class). I'd be delighted to work with him, because I don't tend to work with people on software projects with their political views in mind. It just bums me out when people capitulate to angry mobs, in either direction(just last week an organization capitulated to an anti gay agenda...World Vision, and that made me sad too).

Edit again: Why don't all you folks put your money where your mouth is and refactor all of your JS code to dart or something, just so you don't have to be tainted by evil Eich.

</comment><comment><USER14> My father-in-law is a high-level official in the "Alliance Defending Freedom", which is essentially the conservative counterpart to the ACLU, providing legal advice to conservative causes.

For years, he's been telling me about the "gay liberal agenda", which, to him, was not just about promoting gay rights, but also about silencing any freedom of speech advocating opposing viewpoints. I always pooh-poohed him and gently asserted that he was on the wrong side of history.

Now, I think he's right. That someone can be ousted from their job because of privately held opinions and personal donations is extremely scary to me -- and I'm in favor of gay rights and gay marriage. You can't correct injustice and intolerance with more injustice and intolerance.

<comment><USER15> I fail to see how a CEO facing criticism for personal political contributions to be evidence of some sort of "gay liberal agenda". He has every right to donate to Prop 8 or whatever cause he likes. He has every right to vocally advocate his position.

He does _not_ have a right to be the public facing chief executive of a private organization. I would see no issue with a pro-gay rights CEO being forced to leave Hobby Lobby or something of that nature. It's not censorship to be unable to represent an organization that is expected to have a certain political/social/cultural alignment.

<comment><USER14> I have a problem with the very idea that a mostly apolitical organization like Mozilla should have a sweeping political/social/cultural alignment.

If Eich were opposed to net neutrality, or against open internet standards, etc, _those_ would be damning beliefs for someone in the Mozilla CEO spot. Gay rights, however, have nothing whatsoever to do with Mozilla. (I agree with you that Hobby Lobby would fire a pro-gay-rights CEO, but we probably shouldn't be taking lessons on reasonable behavior from Hobby Lobby.)

If Mozilla _does_ represent any kind of broad social alignment, I would hope that it would be one in favor of diversity of opinion and free speech.

<comment><USER16> _free speech_

Which includes the right of others to criticize your speech.

If I get up on a soapbox and preach something you don't agree with, so you get up on a soapbox of your own and preach your disagreement, I am not being persecuted or denied my freedom. Nor am I being persecuted or denied my freedom if your arguments convince a majority of people to disagree with or choose not to associate with me.

This is, ironically, a fundamentally _conservative_ position, that maximizing individual rights to speak up is what produces the best results, by causing the best ideas/most persuasive arguments to prevail.

<comment><USER17> > This is, ironically, a fundamentally _conservative_ position

Isn't it much more a libertarian position? Christopher Hitchens was a vociferous supporter of 1st Amendment rights, but you'd hardly call him a conservative.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm not sure how I feel about this one.

On the one hand, Brendan Eich had some beliefs that were against Mozilla's core values, but on the other hand we just showed that when a mob on the Internet wants something - they get it. It's scary because this mob has global reach, unlimited power, but isn't always right.

<comment><USER19> _on the other hand we just showed that when a mob on the Internet wants something - they get it._

I don't think that this follows. In this particular case, someone was promoted to a role which many felt was incompatible with his personal views; they made that known, and the person in question stepped down. That's kind of how things should work in a community enterprise.

That said, I understand he's received wildly disproportionate abuse, like death threats. That's totally unacceptable, and frankly I'm surprised that anybody feels that strongly about the issue.

<comment><USER20> Were there actually threats? I just googled "Brendan Eich threat" and didn't see anything relevant.

<comment><USER21> There was at least one mozilla employee that reported on their blog that they received death threats when they blogged about support for the new CEO (despite initially conflicting feelings, the blogger is gay). I'm not linking to the blog because they might end up getting more abuse.

When controversial stuff like this happens, it is sadly common to receive death threats on the internet. Given that employees merely voicing support received death threats, I would be surprised if the CEO did not receive such things as well.

<comment><USER22> Why would you not link to it? It is a public blog it is meant to be read. Respectful your point makes no logically sense. You think the HN crowd is the youtube crowd? Is it this one: [http://incisive.nu/2014/thinking-about- mozilla/](http://incisive.nu/2014/thinking-about-mozilla/)

<comment><USER21> I was talking about a different blogpost actually.

While I agree with you that the HN crowd is not YouTube, there are still many people reading this and sharing with others etc., and since the blogger I am talking about has already been harassed, I don't see a point in drawing more attention there. It doesn't help our discussion anyhow, there are only downsides.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> From the article: "We have employees with a wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public."

Clearly people with socially conservative views are not welcome at Mozilla.

<comment><USER24> "any opinion is ok, as long as you're not conservative" I used to get this constantly in HS and now in college. This type of thinking is extremely toxic and I think can be very damaging for an institutions reputation. Mozilla is no longer about "openness" it's now about a much more generic liberal world view.

<comment><USER25> Bullshit. Any opinion is okay but if you are actively working to remove existing rights from other people, you can expect opprobrium. This applies especially when leading an organization with values like Mozilla's.

<comment><USER26> >but if you are actively working to remove existing rights from other people

How is opposing _redefining_ marriage (in the context of law) working to remove _existing_ rights of people? Its framed in terms of removing rights/civil rights because it suits the cause. But this characterization is not supported by a dispassionate reading of the issue here.

<comment><USER27> Untrue. If you read Judge Walker's decision against Prop 8, or the recent judgment against the Michigan Marriage Amendment, you'll see that both Prop 8 and the MMA failed because they violate the 14th Amendment's grant of equal protection: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause)

In particular, both Prop 8 and the MMA failed to meet the Rational Basis test: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review)

That is, both courts found that there was no rational basis for keeping gay people from getting married. The rationales offered by proponents didn't measure up.

<comment><USER28> >All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Proposition 8: Section I. Title

            This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."

        Section 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read:

            Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Which part of this denies equal protection to someone under the laws?

<comment><USER27> The part where gay people are treated as not as good as straight people. The state has a legitimate interest in promoting marriage. Basically, because families. If you want to exclude gay people from that, you can't just presume they're inferior. You have to demonstrate it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I honestly feel like Brendan is the victim here. He might have religious or moral views on gay marriage that some of us don't agree with, but being forced to step down as CEO because of those views... well that's something I don't think any of his critics should be proud of.

<comment><USER30> On the other hand, those that didn't agree with those views were free to boycott and criticize Mozilla. Mozilla Foundation was also free to live with those consequences or decide that they didn't want their brand to be associated or muddled by its CEO's accidentally public position on a very sensitive topic. My view: It's a shame that Eich decided to stand his ground on this issue. It's a real shame that he felt so strongly about his position that he sacrificed his job for it. I wish he would have found something more important to stand his ground over.

<comment><USER29> More important than his morality and/or religious views?

<comment><USER30> Yes, it's a real shame that he sees support for gay-marriage as an affront to his moral or religious values.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> This really saddens me.

It is a black-mark on the gay rights movement.

Eich made a mistake when he supported prop 8. History will clearly show this, like history has shown those who opposed interracial marriage were wrong.

Being on the right-side of history isn't about stomping out those who opposed you when you finally win. It's not about retribution for past slights.

Did we learn nothing from Nelson Mandela?

<comment><USER32> > Eich made a mistake when he supported prop 8

Nothing proves that Eich think he did make a mistake. He never apologized for that and refused to talk about it.I'm sure he would not need to resign if he did apologize. People make mistakes, and most people will forgive if an apology is issued.

<comment><USER31> It doesn't matter what Eich thinks. History isn't going to reverse course so there's no need for those who are wrong to fall to their knees and beg for forgiveness. Being graceful in victory is about letting those who opposed you to get away with their mistake.

<comment><USER33> How many lives need to be ruined before an oppressed community can fight back? Sainthood should not be a bar that everyone must meet in order to avoid being labeled with a black mark. This guy attacked a large group of people and that group defended itself by explaining their displeasure at his recent privilege. He then suffered the consequence of having his privilege removed. Good.

<comment><USER34> @OpieCunningham - _How many lives need to be ruined..._

That's a great question, actually. How many lives _were_ ruined by Prop 8? (which, by the way, was overturned by the Supreme Court)

Are there gay people in jail in California as a result of Prop 8? Are there broken marriages? Was there an increase in anti-gay violence? Not that I've heard of.

Prop 8, which apparently very few people seem to know (or care), was about preventing _legal recognition_ of same-sex marriages, not about preventing those marriages per se. Legal recognition means next-of-kin and hospital visitation rights and some taxation differences. Really, other than that, people could perfectly well exchange vows and call themselves married, and the state has no authority to change this.

<comment><USER33> Clearly it is a rhetorical question - Prop 8 was discrimination - how many people need to be discriminated against in order for a defense to be mounted? The minimum answer is 1. The larger the answer the larger the defense.

If the law had not been overturned, the answer would, by definition of the law, be far greater than 0. If you propose that the actual answer was 0 before the law was overturned, I don't believe that - how many partners were refused next-of-kin, hospital visitation rights and some taxation benefits? More than 0 I would estimate. Is Eich in jail? Was his marriage broken up? Did anyone physically attack him? No. He lost the privilege of being a CEO.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> To summarize a sentiment I see underlying some of the "conservative" positions on HN on Eich: all of us who are pro gay marriage (me very much included[0]) might want to think pretty carefully about the political culture we want to create.

Regardless of how exceptional and crystal-clear this moral issue is, if we accept personal attacks against political opponents, we are clearly "upping the ante" and creating a huge chilling effect against honest dialogue. Somewhere in the vicinity of 50% of the US holds the immoral view here, and if we believe they deserve shunning and serious personal consequences, then we are... well, pretty aggressive.

Even if aggression is warranted, are we sure we want a culture tolerant of this much political aggression? You might be in the wrong 50% next time, and unfortunately there may not be a way to create a culture tolerant of aggression only by those who are morally right / agree with us.

Clearly none of Eich's fundamental rights are violated here, but that still doesn't mean we should want to "go there".

[0] You can see from the very high volume of statements like this how scared people are to be associated with the wrong side here.

<comment><USER36> I agree with you. I recently read on reddit a report by someone who was fired by his conservative company because he had an Obama decal on his car and found that incredibly crazy and toxic. This is now from the other side.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> My #1 question -- is Eich returning to CTO, another position, or quitting altogether?

All in all, I think this was a pragmatic move. I am not a fan of this "CEO = literally the company" logic, though. I saw no reason to believe that he would use Mozilla to further an anti-gay agenda.

<comment><USER3> > I saw no reason to believe that he would use Mozilla to further an anti-gay > agenda.

I agree. However, it's a little weird if you say you are a company who values diversity and different lifestyles but you have a CEO who is openly against a particular group of people. That kind of contradiction at the very top makes things weird.

<comment><USER38> Has he ever said anything against gays? Being opposed to gay marriage is not the same as being opposed to gays.

<comment><USER39> Yes it is. Lets not make useless differences here, it is. To think there isn't is somehow thinking someone having fewer rights than you do is still legally equal to you.

<comment><USER40> Does being against polygamist marriages make you against polygamists?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> "We have employees with a wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public. This is meant to distinguish Mozilla from most organizations and hold us to a higher standard. But this time we failed to listen, to engage, and to be guided by our community."

The irony is when Brendan Eich shared his belief in public, he was forced out of his job. Yay openness. It's really awesome until someone says or believes in something you don't agree with. Then, get the pitchforks.

</comment><comment><USER42> "Congrats" \- All that makes me feel personally is that the people who pushed for this are extremists as well.

I don't know if that's a good move by Mozilla as well, although my guess is that it's a personal move from Eich who couldn't handle the pressure and the death threats (which, to be honest, I understand - even if some will say a CEO is supposed to be stronger than that).

<comment><USER43> _> the people who pushed for this are extremists as well._

Suffragettes were extremists. Worker-rights supporters were extremists. Gandhi was an extremist. M. L. King Jr. was an extremist. Sans-culottes were extremists.

In the history of civilisation, there are winners and there are losers, and when the revelation of who is who eventually comes, it can be a bit ugly to watch.

<comment><USER44> This is true. I've always liked the distinction made here: [http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbli...](http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2007/11/the- government-.html) between extremism and fanaticism. Extremists are those with views beyond the mainstream, and fanatics are those with views that, mainstream or otherwise, are so strongly held that they cannot accept disagreement.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I feel bad about this because several good people did defend the _principle_ that an employee's personal views should be allowed to remain purely personal, that we should be able to get along in society even with those who we are vehemently opposed to in the political sphere.

I worry that this will now be seen as a defeat for that principle, as proof that your political views _will_ be held against you if you become prominent enough, and given the data trails that we all leave behind us, that could get ugly. Some (but not all!) of the people who campaigned for him to quit were themselves dismissive of this principle, and if they 'won' then I can't really say I'm happy about it.

EDIT: clarity

</comment><comment><USER45> Extremely saddened by this. I hope "activists" with misguided anger will realize the web is worse off today than it was yesterday.

Why I supported him as CEO: [https://medium.com/p/5f43d452bd89](https://medium.com/p/5f43d452bd89)

</comment><comment><USER46> So what's the next step at Mozilla? Going through all department heads and eliminating those that are conservative cristians as well? Also those that don't agree with Obamacare?

Considering I've lived in a socialistic country where political party you belonged to was critical to attaining any leadership position... I'd really rather not return to that world. It was toxic, inefficient and downright unfair. Politics, religion and personal beliefs shoud NOT be a factor when choosing a person for position at a company.

<comment><USER32> > Going through all department heads and eliminating those that are > conservative cristians as well?

It has nothing to do with being a conservative christian.

> Considering I've lived in a socialistic country where political party you > belonged to was critical to attaining any leadership position

i'm sure this country wasnt gay friendly either...was it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> No one should feel victorious or good about the outcome of this thing. An individual, who apparently incredibly qualified and talent enough to lead an org like Mozilla, was forced to step down because of his socio-political views. No allegations of discrimination or misconduct on his part were made, but because he donated $1K to a cause that goes against public opinion he is forced out. What if his alleged opposition towards gay marriage (I say alleged because we don't really know why he donated $1K) was due to religious or moral convictions? As long as he didn't discriminate in the workplace, who's the victim here?

</comment><comment><USER34> This outcome makes me sad. Although I support legally recognized gay marriage with all the accompanying benefits such as hospital visitation rights and next-of-kin status (arguably these are the two real benefits), I most emphatically do not support the political correctness attacks on Mozilla's co- founder.

Mozilla and the open source community have been gravely hurt by this move. The witch hunt to oust Eich from Mozilla was not just unfair, it was a travesty. He co-founded Mozilla and created some of the key technologies in Mozilla products.

I am much less inclined to support Mozilla monetarily or in any other capacity from this point on. Call me a hypocrite, call me whatever you like, but I feel that strongly. This guy should not have been treated this way.

What's more, I suspect that were he a white female or a black person or an Asian instead of a white male, the voices of hate would have been more muted. It's much harder to criticize a person "of color" or a female in this politically correct era, out of fear of being called out as a hypocrite. Which I believe them to be, anyway.

This has done nothing to improve the lot of gay Americans; in fact, it is a sorry blot on the history of gay rights and decent people of whatever sexual orientation will ultimately distance themselves from it. Mob rule is nothing to be proud of.

<comment><USER47> > _I am much less inclined to support Mozilla monetarily or in any other > capacity from this point on. Call me a hypocrite, call me whatever you like, > but I feel that strongly. This guy should not have been treated this way._

There were many more saying they would stop supporting Mozilla if he _remained_ CEO. Brendan Eich is a victim not of Mozilla, but of the controversy-generating journalism industry. Keep supporting efforts for an open web and make sure you're running Adblock to avoid funding these parasites.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Wow, good for Brendan for putting the company ahead of himself.

I didn't notice if it said what Brendan's new role would be. I hope he continues to act as a defacto CTO and that the community will allow him to continue in this role as he's proven that he's more than capable of doing so.

This whole ordeal reminds me of the Steve Jobs parable about the janitor and VP. I guess the take away is that a rank and file employee can have what ever political beliefs they want, but once you become the CEO, there are certain beliefs that you just can not have anymore.

"Jobs imagines his garbage regularly not being emptied in his office, and when he asks the janitor why, he gets an excuse: The locks have been changed, and the janitor doesn't have a key. This is an acceptable excuse coming from someone who empties trash bins for a living. The janitor gets to explain why something went wrong. Senior people do not. "When you're the janitor," Jobs has repeatedly told incoming VPs, "reasons matter." He continues: "Somewhere between the janitor and the CEO, reasons stop mattering." That "Rubicon," he has said, "is crossed when you become a VP."

<comment><USER49> He left the foundation board also. If anything I think he's going to be keeping his head low for a bit, internally and in the press.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> I'm saddened by this development... not terribly surprised, but saddened to the point that I got a sick feeling in my stomach when I read the headline.

In all seriousness, should this be seen as a kind of warning/signal? That is, if you take the moral teachings of your church seriously enough to act on them in the context of democratic processes and/or public discourse, then you need not aspire to, apply for or expect to hold on to a publicly visible secular job, such as CEO of a corporation.

<comment><USER51> There is no separation. Secular vs. sacred is an artificial divide, because every action has consequences in reality. Mr. Eich here did not simply _take seriously_ some moral warnings, he acted on them in the form of donations to political organizations which worked to enact laws which affect real people's real lives.

When your job involves leadership of a large publicly visible organization, you are going to want to be on the right side of history slightly in advance of the people under you.

Everybody and everything is connected, and it's not just a matter of your sect vs another. Being at the head of a large organization means having a massive pyramid of people under you, supporting you. That pyramid is composed of an increasingly diverse group of people. It used to be almost entirely white men (imagine IBM or any other major corporation 50 years ago). Now, look at an organization like Mozilla, supported by legions of Internet-connected hackers with a staggeringly diverse range of views on social matters, with one in common: openness and inclusiveness.

You cannot expect a stable platform to lead from if an increasing number of the people who support you find your views that repulsive.

You almost sound like you think that someone _owes_ this guy a CEO job? He could easily find a leadership position with a group composed of people who could support him based on his views.

<comment><USER50> I said nothing about him being owed a job, nor did I mention anything about a separation.

In fact, the "everything is connected" principle is exactly what would motivate, say, a serious-minded Catholic to vote, donate and set public example in such a way as to promote the Catholic Church's social and moral doctrines. That is to say, "everything is connected; these aren't just truths for me, but truths and norms that deviated from on large scales will lead to societal decay, proliferation of evil, and everyone will suffer all the more. Therefore I will act, vote and speak publicly so as to see these truths reflected in laws and policies that will affect society around me, in my own time and for generations to come."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> I think the big takeaway from all this will be an increase in anonymous contributions in politics. We've seen this already at the SuperPAC level (where the goal is mainly to contribute huge amounts of money, more so than anonymity), but this might bring it down to the grassroots contributor.

I'm pretty open about RKBA/2A issues, and donate a small amount of money to things like SAF, but that's not a _hugely_ controversial issue.

Pro-MAPS/LEAP/etc. (ending the drug war) could be controversial, but much less so from the "the drug war is racist and ineffective and should be replaced with harm reduction" perspective, vs. "drugs are great!"

If I were anti-abortion in Silicon Valley, or anti-gay, or anti-immigration, or anything else which were deeply unpopular in the majority of the community, there's no way I'd want any record of my contributions now. In other communities, the inverse views would be criticized.

When the donations aren't tax-deductible, or where the deduction isn't significant, I guess I can see people moving to fully anonymous contributions. Making viral content, anonymous financial contributions, advertising purchases online in small enough amounts that they can be made with throwaway payment instruments and nothing really linking them, etc. Anonymously funding things like an iOS game which happens to include a political message -- is that advertising? etc.

</comment><comment><USER53> Really torn about this. On one hand it seemed pretty clear that Brendan was not letting these views carry over into his professional life. On the other hand, using his power (in this case, money) to actively stand against equality makes him, in my mind, an active and willing participant in the overall power structure that denies and marginalizes gay people. If I were gay I can imagine that being a bitter pill to swallow from someone who is the head of an organization that I worked for or supported. And likely not a great match for an organization that specifically prides itself on inclusiveness.

<comment><USER54> Congrats, this is possibly the best comment in the entire thread. Issues like this are rarely black and white, and this is grayer than most.

As a former Mozillian, I'm frustrated that a great person to lead Mozilla held such destructive views about other human beings. Brendan is, in my limited interactions with him, a wonderful person who has done great things. It's very difficult to know how to combine that with the idea that he is opposed to equality for a large group of people.

<comment><USER55> I spent a lot of time on construction sites doing inspections early in my career. It was hard to fathom some really you got to know as really nice people being really bigoted. Weirder when the targets of those comments worked with the person making the comments.

Archie Bunker is truer to real life than I had possibly imagined.

I think this will be best for Mozilla. Its an organization that needs the good will.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> I'm not going to comment on Brendan Eich or the mob. I want to comment about friendship. Marc Andreesen could have done the politically correct thing and thrown Eich under the bus. He didn't.

Whatever Eich is, whatever happens with Eich, whatever the mob is, the thing I get out of this whole thing is that Andreesen is a classy guy. Don't know if that's the biggest lesson I'm supposed to be getting out of this whole situation, but it is what it is.

Much respect to Andreesen for being willing to stick his head out in a cool and calm manner. No stoking the fire. No running away from the drama. Just a clear statement that he is able to care about his friends.

[https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/451800039925374977](https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/451800039925374977)

</comment><comment><USER57> All of this over a $1,000 donation, apparently. I think it's a bad cause and a bad donation, and I don't have any sympathy at all for the anti-gay-marriage types, but it's crazy to me to hang someone over a thousand dollar donation. What percentage of the total money donated to prop 8 do you think that represented?

<comment><USER58> Eich didn't make that donation yesterday, you know. But I agree. He made a small donation to a political cause. Are we going to start ritually sacrificing people who don't line up with our personal causes and opinions? I think this sets a draconian precedent. If this is where the culture in the Valley is headed, I'm incredibly glad I'm not a part of it.

<comment><USER19> _Are we going to start ritually sacrificing people who don 't line up with our personal causes and opinions?_

No - we are hopefully going to continue objecting to the appointment of people whose personal views are incompatible with the values of the organisation they are supposed to represent. That's totally legitimate, and I absolutely fail to see what is wrong with doing so.

<comment><USER58> A software developer and friend of mine wrote this just now, upon hearing the news. I thought I'd share it here because I thought it was apt:

 _Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard._ You also need free speech to discuss what equality means, but apparently that is no longer possible; our culture-makers have now decided there is a univocal conception of equality that must be imposed on everyone.

<comment><USER19> _You also need free speech to discuss what equality means, but apparently that is no longer possible; our culture-makers have now decided there is a univocal conception of equality that must be imposed on everyone._

This is a gross misreading of the situation. It's actually pretty simple:

\- Eitch is appointed to important, visible community leadership position \- His personal views are incompatible with those of the organisation and actively harmful to many members of that community \- He does not engage with or deal with this controversy, such as by apologising for his actions \- People in the community who are directly or indirectly affected by his actions object to the appointment \- He resigns.

I'm really, really struggling to figure out what exactly you guys who are banging on about "cultural imposition" and other hand wavy nonsense actually think should happen in a situation like this. Is the suggestion that nobody should ever complain about anything? Should we complain, but avoid calling for resignation? Should we turn a blind eye to people who are trying to strip civil rights from us, our family, or our friends?

<comment><USER58> _Call it left-wing anti-liberalism: the idea, captured by Herbert Marcuse in his 1965 essay"Repressive Tolerance," that social justice demands curbs on freedom of expression. "[I]t is possible to define the direction in which prevailing institutions, policies, opinions would have to be changed in order to improve the chance of a peace which is not identical with cold war and a little hot war, and a satisfaction of needs which does not feed on poverty, oppression, and exploitation," he wrote. "Consequently, it is also possible to identify policies, opinions, movements which would promote this chance, and those which would do the opposite. Suppression of the regressive ones is a prerequisite for the strengthening of the progressive ones."

Note here both the belief that correct opinions can be dispassionately identified, and the blithe confidence in the wisdom of those empowered to do the suppressing. This kind of thinking is only possible at certain moments: when liberalism seems to have failed but the right is not yet in charge. At such times, old-fashioned liberal values like free speech and robust, open debate seem like tainted adjuncts of an oppressive system, and it's still possible for radicals to believe that the ideas suppressed as hateful won't be their own._

[http://www.thenation.com/blog/179160/cancelcolbert-and- retur...](http://www.thenation.com/blog/179160/cancelcolbert-and-return-anti- liberal-left)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> Well, now, since we've got this all straightened out, let's just do it right the next time.

Reply below with your suggestions on what political views will be litmus tests for CEO positions in the future. We can compile a list, and then dig into the next candidate's background to make sure that all of her or his views are within the realm of acceptability.

A lot of people just want to apply this to the CEO position, but frankly a hostile work environment can be created by coworkers, too. So, I propose that we dig into the backgrounds of all the people that work at Mozilla and make sure that the organization is thoroughly purged of people who could possibly offend someone with her or his views.

<comment><USER38> A CEO should be a woman.

<comment><USER60> Bonus points if she was formerly a man.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> This is just sad. Brendan was bullied for his personally help views that _never once_ affected a working relationship he had with a colleague. This is the inventor of _javascript_ does he not deserve some respect?

</comment><comment><USER62> Just wanted to put myself on record as thinking what happened to Brendan Eich as being something that is totally shameful. Nerd/geek/tech culture totally intolerant of anyone outside of exactly a certain mold.

People should be able to donate to what they want to, and one 'misdeed' (which is arguable) should not undo every good deed. Amazing someone doesn't 'deserve to keep their job' for donating to just about anything, let alone for a prop that actually passed in a popular vote!

So guess the lesson is that according to 'gay rights' over half the voting population in CA shouldn't have a job. Right on.

</comment><comment><USER63> Mozilla's stance on respecting people's private, personal decisions (as a company working on a communication medium) is way more important to me than its stance on same-sex politics. Where did all the privacy advocates suddenly disappear to?

I'm staunchly pro-gay-rights and would've debated Eich vociferously on the issue of gay marriage back in 2008 if he had chosen to make his opinion public (which he didn't), but frankly Mozilla firing somebody based on a private donation to a political cause makes me want to boycott it more than the donation ever did. This seems like a textbook case of the privacy abuse that the tinfoil-hatters are usually getting so worked up about.

<comment><USER34> That's basically how I feel as well. Almost anyone has a skeleton or two in the closet that some enterprising journalist might dig up, just to ruin his career. We Americans are scandal-happy and rather intolerant, including those who think of themselves as "more tolerant than thou" which in fact is an insidious form of intolerance!

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> i've stood my ground for my beliefs when people were ridiculing me for doing so. it's a lonely position to be in.

i didn't share eich's views here, but he's free to have them, and the reason for the problem is, ironically, the intolerance of other people (people forcing their "tolerance" down his throat).

he has my respect. not for his view on gays. but for staying true to what he did. i think this is a shame.

<comment><USER65> Except he didn't stand his ground at all. He never once explained his beliefs. If he had done that I think people would've been a lot more tolerant of him. I don't think it had to end this way.

<comment><USER66> Sure it did. The knives were out.

Is it a requirement to explain what you believe? You can't just state it? I mean, there's no rational reason to oppose gay marriage, so attempting to rationalize it just comes off sounding stupid. Should we force a person to say stupid things?

Maybe what you mean is to demand a conversation. Forcing someone to participate in a conversation doesn't seem right either.

Does a person have the right to be close-minded?

<comment><USER65> > Is it a requirement to explain what you believe? You can't just state it? I > mean, there's no rational reason to oppose gay marriage, so attempting to > rationalize it just comes off sounding stupid. Should we force a person to > say stupid things?

Someone who is CEO of a very public, very community driven company? I think it's reasonable to expect him to participate in a conversation about his beliefs, especially when those beliefs do not seem to reflect those of the community he represents and the community is a core part of the business. That conversation seems to me to be a part of the business itself.

He doesn't have to believe certain things, but to be an effective CEO he has to have the community respect the integrity of his beliefs. He didn't even give them the opportunity to do so, and then complained that he was being witch hunted. All he had to do was say "No, actually I'm not a witch." Instead he said "I promise I wont speak any spells." This analogy is getting a bit silly, but you get my point.

> Does a person have the right to be close-minded?

Absolutely, and a person has the right to be close minded and run a company as well! This has NOTHING, let me repeat NOTHING, to do with Eich's _rights._

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> "our large, global, and diverse community is what makes Mozilla special"

Apparently diversity is narrower today.

<comment><USER19> _Diversity_ as a concept cannot legitimately be defined to include intolerance as an attribute to be protected. Swap out "anti-gay-marriage" for "racist" or "anti-semitic" – it would be difficult to argue that calling for the resignation of an active campaigner against racial equality was "anti- diversity"; the same applies here.

<comment><USER68> I was against prop 8, it was stupid, but people act like it was going to throw members of the LGBT in prison or death camps or something.

<comment><USER69> Not sure if you're a member of the LGBT community or not, but it sounds like your argument here is that because the reactions of others against Prop 8 were stronger than your own, they were invalid.

It's not a very tenable position to take. Do you really believe the outcry over putting minorities in prison would parallel that of Prop 8?

<comment><USER68> No, I don't think they're invalid, I just think such strong visceral reactions are counterproductive. Prop 8 supporters and/or fence sitters are much less likely to have an open mind when someone is screaming at them that they're a bigot.

Prop 8 supporters are wrong. Not Evil.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> In Communist times organizations used to have a commissar figure that monitored people for "incorrect" political opinions. He/she exercised power over people for reasons that had nothing to do with the organization's business.

These days apparently the Internet will allow anyone to fill that role.

</comment><comment><USER71> Well it happened. I think this is a little extreme and that he shouldn't have succumbed to the pressure. Apparently freedom of speech is no longer accepted by plenty of people in the US. It is okay to put money towards and protest for equal rights, but anytime someone says something negative against it all hell breaks loose. That being said, in general, I think people are a little too sensitive toward anything non-politically-correct these days. At the end of the day, everyone can voice their own opinion. Some people will be supportive, some won't.

<comment><USER72> Nah freedom of speech is alive and well. Freedom of speech does not mean you're immune from other people exercising _their_ freedom of speech.

<comment><USER71> touche. touche.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Gay-Rights McCarthyism Takes Brendan Eich's Scalp [http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/brendan- eich-g...](http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/brendan-eich-gay- rights-mccarthyism/)

<comment><USER32> _Gay-Rights McCarthyism_ : novlang and oxymoron, you folks are used to twisting things to the max... what's next ? pro black neo nazism ?

<comment><USER73> I mean, unless we're talking about Roy Cohn. ZING

Seriously, I'm in full-agreement, but I try to get in a good Roy Cohn diss any time I can.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> This is sad. I wish I lived in a world where your personal beliefs, even very unpopular ones, could be kept separate from your professional life. Unfortunately we seem to need to put people in a single box.

<comment><USER75> It means that there is now a precedent for anti-gay folks to argue against homosexuals being employed against the principles of the company, even when those principles are not the core product. "This hardware company espouses conservative Christian values - you can't work here because of your opinions". Separation of personal opinion and professional life goes beyond CxO staff.

<comment><USER76> > It means that there is now a precedent for anti-gay folks to argue against > homosexuals being employed against the principles of the company, even when > those principles are not the core product.

Actually, no, that precedent has existed for a long time -- in the form of fairly widespread and _legal_ workplace discrimination against homosexuals -- which is one of the reasons that supporters of LGBT rights have sought to have sexual orientation enshrined in state and federal law as an explicitly prohibited basis for employment, housing, and other discrimination, as it is currently not in federal law in the US [1], or in the laws of many of the states (though it is in _some_ states.)

[1] Although, in the sphere of employment, there are recent executive decisions at the federal level to treat orientation discrimination -- and other forms of gender stereotyping -- as sex discrimination, and thereby prohibited by laws that prohibit sex discrimination. But whether that interpretation will stand up in court remains to be seen.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> Also in 2008

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage."

\- Barack Obama

<comment><USER77> Barack Obama's full quote:

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that's not what America's about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them."

Candidate Obama opposed prop 8 in 2008 and strongly supported civil unions.

[http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1598407/did-barack-obama- an...](http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1598407/did-barack-obama-answer-your- question.jhtml)

<comment><USER74> Sounds more like a politician trying to have it both ways. Prop 8 had nothing to do with civil unions and said almost exactly what 2008 Obama said he believed. Then as the polls changed so did his "beliefs". Just politicians being politicians.

Another great example of this behavior is Hillary Clinton who as of 2013 supports same sex marriage but back who 2000 said:

"Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman."

So obviously everyone against Eich as CEO of Mozilla will be against Hillary for President. Right?

Maybe be we should just ignore people's personal views when it comes to their employment. Especially when those views have nothing at all to do with your job as in Eich's case (not the case with Obama or Hillary).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> So Mozilla supports diversity and freedom on many vectors -- as long as they are the correct positions.

Certainly not a very courageous stance.

<comment><USER79> Brendan chose to leave, because it was hurting Mozilla. This is not a "corporate decision".

<comment><USER80> It's hard to say whether or not that's true. Such resignations are asked for at least as often as they are volunteered.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER81> This is a dangerous precedent. On one hand this is the only thing Brendan can do its clear that the community at large will not accept dissenting opinions, but its really a small step between holding this line for a CEO and holding it for any employee.

<comment><USER82> Slippery slope argument? Really?

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Suppose conservative activists push out a CEO because he contributes to Planned Parenthood or otherwise supports legal abortion. Would the Eich critics be OK with that? Many conservatives believe that stopping abortion is as much about human rights as liberals think gay marriage is. Both sides can play the game of getting people fired for views unrelated to their jobs. It would be better if neither side did.

<comment><USER83> Many oppose companies that push a "gay agenda" or support abortion.

In 1986, 7-Eleven stopped selling Playboy and Penthouse magazines after a two- year boycott by the AFA.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Family_Association](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Family_Association)

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> "We believe in free speech, therefore this guy who has an unpopular opinion has to step down".

Yeah right... (And I am pro gay marriage, but I can respect if people oppose it).

</comment><comment><USER84> I see many people discussing freedom of speech and the right to be against gay marriage (or some metaphors thereof). While this is partially true, I believe that this is largely missing several points.

Brendan Eich made a _private_ choice in a democratic vote. This private choice was leaked 4 years after the fact. Two more years later, this private choice prevents him from stepping into a new position. Brendan Eich went out of his way to avoid discussing this private choice, and still his privacy on the matter (and a few others) was turned into a public thing and put into the front of a mob. Not good.

Also, people seem to forget that Brendan Eich was (briefly) CEO of an organization that has as many ties and contributors in parts of the world where homosexuality is problematic, forbidden, or even punishable by death. While Brendan Eich's fall from position is a win for some, I can imagine the whole campaign having nasty and unwanted consequences for open-source communities (not just Mozilla's) around the world.

<comment><USER85> You seem to not be very familiar with the facts. We can guess that he voted for prop 8, but his vote is truly private and nobody but him knows how he voted.

What do know is that he gave $1000 to an organization that campaigned for the proposition. This is a matter of public record, by law in California. It was not "leaked" (well, it was leaked, but it was also publicly available in 2008 if anyone had bothered to look). You can find his contributions by searching here:

[http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/](http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/)

It would have been clearly stated on the form that he filled out to make his contribution that contributions over $200 would be made public. He knew that, and made the contribution anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER86> Well, I won't use Firefox anymore and I won't use anything related to Mozilla, I can't tolerate this injustice.

<comment><USER87> I'm kind of conflicted. On one hand, there's Chrome, but it's used by Google to help US government spy on you. On another hand, there's Mozilla. Both good browsers but are being developed by pretty evil people.

<comment><USER88> Mozilla employee here.

Please remember that Mozilla is not one person. Mozilla is a global community of people, staff and volunteers, working to protect and care for the web in a way that no other group of people can. We are not perfect, but we are generally good people, and we are trying our hardest to do good, selfless work.

Be angry about Brendan, but please do not let your anger cross over to the project itself. Mozilla is about so much more than one executive.

<comment><USER86> No, if the Mozilla staff can't grow a pair and stand by one of his employees then I don't want to have any relationship with them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER89> I wish he'd just weathered it out. If there's a side of this that thinks this is pretty ridiculous, I'm on that side.

I'm sure there are a million things that my CEO believes that I don't agree with, but the only thing that matters is that he takes the company in the right direction.

Who is there better to lead Mozilla than Eich? The next CEO will be the second best choice or worse. I wonder who would want to step into the middle of this.

</comment><comment><USER90> While this is a good first step, we're also going to need to boycott JavaScript and the companies that use it until JavaScript is replaced with a non-discriminatory alternative.

<comment><USER91> Ruby on Rails? ;)

<comment><USER92> Fu*k You!

:)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER93> This is awful. I never thought I'd see the tech community target a person like this for a witchhunt because of what are presumably religious beliefs. Eich did nothing illegal. All he did was exercise his First Amendment right. There's no reason to believe that he would ever allow his personal beliefs to affect his decisions as a CEO.

Basically, this is thoughtcrime.

<comment><USER94> No-one is saying he did anything illegal, and this certainly isn't 'thoughtcrime' \- he actively donated money to a bigoted cause, an action incompatible with the values of the organisation that he was the public face of. That is the core issue here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER95> To me this is a win for freedom of speech and free markets. You're free to express your close minded opinion, but the market is free to reject it and you.

<comment><USER96> This was the opposite of a win for freedom of speech.

<comment><USER97> "Freedom of Speech" does not mean "Freedom from the Consequences of your Speech."

<comment><USER98> No, freedom of speech means exactly that people shouldn't be punished for speech. What else could it possibly mean?

<comment><USER99> No, it means freedom from _state_ censorship and _state_ punishment (imprisonment for instance). The public can punish you all they want.

<comment><USER98> Well, that's a bug in freedom of speech then. Other freedoms don't work like that. They protect you from all actors, not just the state. For example, your employer can't fire you for being gay. They shouldn't be able to fire you for your political views either.

<comment><USER99> Plenty of other freedoms work exactly like that.

The freedom to assemble doesn't mean that private owners can't keep you from assembling on their property. The freedom of press doesn't mean that the editors can't censor your work. The freedom to bear arms doesn't mean that private businesses can't bar you from the premises.

<comment><USER100> Which means, in practice, that people can't necessarily use those freedoms. If most or all public spaces are privately-owned how do you exercise your freedom to assemble? Now that most of the communication channels people use are privately owned, how much freedom of speech do we really have?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> The ritual sacrifice is now complete [http://www.firstthings.com/web- exclusives/2014/04/mozilla-mo...](http://www.firstthings.com/web- exclusives/2014/04/mozilla-mo-problems)

</comment><comment><USER101> One thing that is clear is that any corporate executive who holds an anti-LGBT viewpoint will be destroyed. Eich was made an example of.

The ability for internet mobs to create chilling effects could lead to a movement for _less_ transparency for smaller political donations. Where I'm sitting, that wouldn't be a bad thing.

</comment><comment><USER102> I fear this is a sign of things to come. Today it is CEOs, tomorrow it is someone lesser. Eventually it will reach the common worker.

Have an incorrect viewpoint on anything? Better keep quiet if you want to be able to take care of your family.

</comment><comment><USER103> This is unfortunate. We're accepting that bullying is ok as long the bullied is the one with the unpopular ideas. Pretty sad.

</comment><comment><USER104> Wow. The bullying of Brendan Eich really makes me question whether I should support Mozilla any longer. And ashamed I have donated in the past.

This is pure fascism.

<comment><USER105> Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, combined with a regulated economic structure of cooperation between major corporations and the government.

This is rather different.

<comment><USER104> You are right, this is McCarthyism. I didn't find the right word at the time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> vezzy-fnord I guess it's for the best. He simply became a magnet for controversy, so hopefully this quells people's sensibilities and lets the foundation focus on what it's meant to do.

</comment><comment><USER106> I find this whole ordeal disappointing. Eich's personal beliefs should have only been criticized insofar as they impacted his ability as CEO. I'm not sure how much that would have been, but the attacks targeted Eich as a whole, and shouldn't have.

Regardless, his stepping down seemed to be the only way to move Mozilla forward, which is a shame.

</comment><comment><USER107> Personally I don't know what to think when organizations mix their core business (e.g. making a web browser) and politics (e.g. support for free speech). I'd like to see politics and business as separate as possible. What do you think?

<comment><USER108> A little difficult to do when part of what made the Mozilla Foundation what it is is supporting equality.

It would be hard to see a Skinhead leading a Kosher brand for the same reason.

<comment><USER34> It would be hard to see a neo-Nazi appointed head of NAACP, too. Or a rabidly fundamentalist Baptist put in charge of Union of Reform Judaism.

But that's not what happened here. Eich is not an extremist. His views were well within the mainstream, at least 4 years ago when this proposition was on the ballot. Heck it passed with 7 million voters in favor. Had he voted yes but not donated that $1000, no one would have even found out. What a stupid thing to pillory someone over, with all the problems in the world.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> This is astounding to me. In an industry which claims to be a meritocracy, at a nonprofit pledged to promoting openness, a legend is no longer allowed to contribute because he dares to agree with the majority of his fellow Californians on a political issue, on his own time, with his own money. For shame.

<comment><USER76> > a legend is no longer allowed to contribute

Er, since when is Eich not "allowed to contribute"?

> because he dares to agree with the majority of his fellow Californians on a > political issue, on his own time, with his own money.

Either he voluntarily stepped down (in which case, the reason stated is clearly wrong) or he was forced to stepped down by the Mozilla Corporation board and/or the Mozilla Foundation (which owns Mozilla Corp), in which case its a lot more likely that the reason is that they lost confidence in his ability to lead because of the way he _responded_ to the controversy, rather than that they were upset by his political stand. In any case, there is very little basis for the characterization you present.

</comment></comment><comment><USER109> It's kind of sad and ironic to see his career take such a beating with what he helped create.

</comment><comment><USER110> The article is not clearly saying it but he is leaving Mozilla, not just stepping down as CEO.

<comment><USER111> Mozilla is dead

<comment><USER112> I hope you're right.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER113> In a sad way, all the activists have really done given a good example for why political donations records should be kept away from the public.

</comment><comment><USER114> This is all wrong. Brendan was wrong, however others were wrong essentially forcing him out. I feel Mozilla will lose some in this, taking a few self- inflicted wounds because they are open and that is unfortunate. It is the reason CEOs are plastic.

Part of Mozilla's culture is now throwing someone who helped build it up under the bus. Yes his personal beliefs may be dated on this one issue, lots of people are on the wrong side of the issue but it had nothing to do with his contributions to Mozilla. This makes me more disappointed in Mozilla just when Firefox is really killing it with gaming.

Should a person's life work be wrecked because of one bad choice? Social changes of that magnitude will have people on the wrong side of the wave for a time, it takes time to educate. I think this is the wrong way to educate, it feels a little bit like a witch hunt.

<comment><USER34> Definitely the wrong way to educate. It sends the wrong message. For a lot of people, it has exposed the ugly side of political correctness and the cowardice of the organization, that it would toss overboard one of its founders.

</comment></comment><comment><USER115> I think the whole thing is sickening. Why? Because there are CEO's and companies that you and I use and love that are not boycotted. That are not hounded. That support the murder of people around the world. That support the exploitation of people. That pollute the environment. That invade the privacy of people's lives. That make the world a worse place. That we and our governments support.

These are the targets that should be addressed.

</comment><comment><USER116> This disappoints me, because I wanted to see Brendan overcome this by apologizing, sympathizing, and connecting. From my point of view it seemed like Mozilla had a train wreck of a PR nightmare and for reasons I cannot understand decided to throw in the towel and give up. What was learned? What trust was gained?

This was a chance for tackling a large issue in a meaningful way and for whatever reason he didn't try.

<comment><USER116> To expand on my comment, I am woefully uneducated on the entirety of the situation. I was speaking as someone who knows Brendan and his work and wanted to see his appointment resolve positively, not fail.

</comment></comment><comment><USER117> How come the only way you can be open-minded is to have all your opinions narrowly placed in the current politically correct mindset?

</comment><comment><USER118> Mozilla won't even summarize what happened. They don't appear any "truer to themselves" now than they did last week.

Didn't move fast enough to engage with people? What does that even mean? What would they have done if they had been true to themselves? As far as I can tell, there still has only been a single action taken: Eich chose to step down.

</comment><comment><USER119> This is terrible. Way to go, Internets.

</comment><comment><USER120> If it was correct for Brendan Eich to resign, would it be incorrect for any company to now offer Brendan Eich a job?

<comment><USER34> None of the people piously denouncing Brendan Eich as a "homophobe" or trouncer of gay rights would have the courage to face him across a desk and say, "We can't hire you because you supported Prop 8."

Instead they will lie and say, "Your skills are not the right fit. Best of luck with your search."

Very few people have the courage of their convictions. Eich could have caved and said something like "I've changed my thinking about Prop 8 and I deeply regret supporting it."

Instead, he stayed true to his convictions and did the best thing for Mozilla which is clearly an organization he cares deeply about.

<comment><USER121> _It 's just a poor culture fit_ :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER122> Just remember free speech and an open mind are encouraged. Unless you disagree with the LGBT agenda.

</comment><comment><USER123> HN, my congratulations! You managed to destroy a talented person for having a view different from yours. All under the flag of tolerance. Next destination: Gulag. You are almost there. Why is it OK for him to be CTO if he is a people's enemy? Nor can he go to any other place, regardless of position other than a janitor, and even that I'm not sure. "10 years of corrective labor without the right of correspondence" \- does it say something to you?

</comment><comment><USER124> If diversity does not include people with opposing political viewpoints, it's not diversity.

</comment><comment><USER125> Holy crap, I thought the OKCupid thing was an April Fool's joke. I had no idea.

Whoa.

<comment><USER126> Will we get a new "it's ok that you're using Firefox page from them now"?

<comment><USER75> Nope. Just checked, and it silently takes you to the regular login page.

Poor form, OKC.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER127> So, now that's done. Are we boycotting JavaScript now?

<comment><USER128> If he becomes the new CEO of the Javascript Corporation, possibly. There weren't boycott calls when Eich was CTO of Mozilla.

</comment></comment><comment><USER129> I wouldn't be surprised if this scenario will be repeated within the free software tech community for other contentious issues. As we see with recent Supreme Court actions taken by Hobby Lobby, company leadership's personal viewpoints do influence people's relationships to those companies.

It appears the most vocal against Eich view, I imagine, same-sex marriage as a fundamental human right.

Will other topics go this way, like, for example, the "climate change" debate, especially as those topics evolve? There seems is a rising group of people who view skepticism/denial of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change akin to that level.

Mozilla's Manifesto doesn't speak to holding any particular viewpoint outside of promotion of a free, accessible Internet and free, open software.

However, the principle of "transparent community-based processes promote participation, accountability and trust" must have influenced both the internal culture and its users, who felt that Eich's actions didn't reflect their views. Chick-fil-a is in the reverse scenario but doesn't seem to experience this kind of thing.

</comment><comment><USER130> This is bad. Not just for Mozilla and tech community but also for LGBT community.

LGBT community's witch hunt reflects less on Eich but more on the LGBR community who will now be viewed as "risky recruits".

</comment><comment><USER131> If OKCupid are against Brendan for his stance on gay marriage, they need to stop using javascript. Brendan Eich invented javascript.

</comment><comment><USER132> Is there anything besides his donation to the Prop 8 effort that led to the controversy and him stepping down?

<comment><USER133> He supported an anti-gay marriage candidate with campaign contributions. Essentially, if he'd not had the Prop 8 donation, and only the campaign contributions, no one would have made a connection. His donations would've shown that he supported Republican candidates (since he, outside a response to the Prop 8 donation, made no statements regarding gay marriage that anyone ever linked to) and nothing else.

<comment><USER134> How do you know that he donated to these candidates primarily because of their anti-gay rights views anyway? Correlation != causation you know?

<comment><USER133> We don't, but no correlation would have been made without the Prop 8 donation. That was my point.

<comment><USER134> Okay fair enough. If your point is that it can be used to argue for more character flaws or whatever then yes, I agree, it can.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER135> Sad and wrong. But I guess Mozilla didn't want to deal with all that flaming directed at them.

</comment><comment><USER136> I wonder what would have happened if he had an opinion on other sensitive topics, let's say he would have been for making heroine available over the counter just like beer in a supermarket. Would this be too much even for the liberal Mozilla?

</comment><comment><USER32> First, i want to say to Eich,that he is entitled to his opinions and noone is going to go after him with pitchforks and torches for that.

Next, I believe that was the right decision. Because it put Mozilla into a difficult position. You might think all this anger was excessive perhaps it was, yet it casted a negative image on Mozilla,since the CEO is a public figure for a company.

I hope this event will open up a real debate about gay rights and why it equal rights matter, because more rights for gays doesnt mean less rights for straight people,like civil rights for blacks did not end up reducing white people's rights, and then we can move on to other things,like you know , technology.

<comment><USER137> >I hope this event will open up a real debate

Seems like it will discourage people from expressing their view. Who wants to endanger their career?

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> What I still can't understand is how Eich was ever approved by the board to begin with. His qualifications aside, the very fact that this had already become public before and was clearly antithetical to the ethos of Mozilla's position as a company should have excluded him from ever getting the job.

As CTO, people might have disagreed with his opinion, but it's hard to make a salient argument that he should be forced out for having that opinion.

It's a bit different when your job entails overseeing an entire organization -- including HR -- and you financially contribute to causes that aim to exclude some of your current or future employees.

<comment><USER34> Slippery slope. No one should ever be "forced out" for having an opinion. If there are employees who feel he doesn't properly manage them or "represent" them or they feel he is "oppressing" them, well maybe they are the ones with the problem and should go work some place else, or just work harder to defend their rights during their off hours without bringing it into the workplace. There's no evidence that Eich was bringing it into the workplace. This whole thing is based on a contribution to a successful ballot question several years ago.

</comment></comment><comment><USER138> So, are we going to stop using JavaScript now?

</comment><comment><USER139> [http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/01/mozilla- ce...](http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/01/mozilla-ceo-brendan- eich-refuses-to-quit)

</comment><comment><USER28> >Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness. We welcome contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views. Mozilla supports equality for all.

_Unless one of your cultural or religious views is that marriage is between one man and one woman._ We're inclusive of everyone! Unless you voted for something we don't like... I'm not saying you _should_ hire anybody, but don't pretend like you will then don't.

</comment><comment><USER140> I wonder how much of an impact if any this will have on hiring at Mozilla.

</comment><comment><USER141> The first person to lose his job to homophobo-phobia.

</comment><comment><USER101> Eich's outing was as a result of a leak from an IRS employee.

Could he sue the US government, and/or the IRS employee that leaked the donor list?

It pains me to use a _National Review_ blog as a source but it seems that the Obama administration hasn't made an effort to prosecute the leaker: [http://www.nationalreview.com/article/362667/investigation-i...](http://www.nationalreview.com/article/362667/investigation- ids-irs-leaker-eliana-johnson)

<comment><USER85> Campaign contributions over $200 are public record in California. This information has been publicly available since 2008, it's just that nobody bothered to look before. You can see his contributions here (the site is really slow for me right now):

[http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/](http://dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER142> It seems, from the comments here, that speaking and donating against equal rights is a protected freedom but as soon as anyone is called out for it then that isn't allowed.

</comment><comment> m-photonic Another day, another demonstration that the loudest voices on any given issue are never those that are most nuanced. The squeaky wheel gets the grease indeed.

</comment><comment><USER143> Really sad to see Brendan go, I work full time as JavaScript dev. So to a certain extent I owe my livelihood too him. Really sad to see him lose his livelihood. Sad for Mozilla too, in their time they did a lot of good. I am thankful for the work they did in setting the Internet free from IE.

I don't believe in the kind of freedom Mozilla now stands for. I do not know Brendan's religious views. But I am a Christian, and as Christian I am opposed to gay marriage. I could not change my view on gay marriage without abandoning my faith. I could not read the Bible with any honesty and say it supports gay marriage. I cannot apologise for my view without apologising on God's behalf. Those demanding an apology from Brendan are perhaps in reality asking him to renounce his faith. By asking Brendan to step down, Mozilla has made a statement to me that as Christian that I am not welcome in their community. And by extensions nor are Muslims, Jews, Mormons, JWs etc.

Is Mozilla destined to become an echo chamber for those who support gay marriage? Is freedom just freedom to agree? Sadly whoever becomes CEO now is now second best on technical merit.

<comment><USER85> The wonderful thing about living in a country with a separation of church and state is that you don't have to change your views! You're welcome to believe whatever you want, and even to talk about it! The only thing you have to do is not try to turn your beliefs into laws that affect other people, like people that don't share your religion.

\--

And for the record, many Christians, Muslims, Jews, and members of lots of other religious do support gay marriage. Please don't attempt to speak for billions of people all at once.

</comment></comment><comment><USER144> Disgusted with the treatment of Brendan Eich by the community. You guys _bullied_ , slandered and libelled and individual. Your behaviour towards him is far _worse_ than his views. As far as I'm concerned, Mozilla no longer exists. I'm not interested in anything that a organisation that supports this kind of community says or does. Fucking hypocrites, every last one of you.

</comment><comment> mkr-hn It's sad that people calling for his head screamed louder than people asking politely for clarification. I just wanted to know why a company that says it's pro-equality hired as CEO someone who donated to an anti-equality campaign.

The action was inconsistent with the claim. A lot of people changed their minds in the years after 2008, so I was ready to believe he changed his.

<comment><USER145> > I just wanted to know why a company that says it's pro-equality hired as CEO > someone who donated to an anti-equality campaign.

Clearly because it hadn't affected his work or the way he treated any of his colleagues over the many years he worked there, and because he was extremely well qualified for the job?

</comment></comment><comment><USER146> Making a great job for many years. Forced to step down by social justice warriors.

Such is the dictatorship of political correctness. A scary world to live in.

Learn from his mistake as it might happen to you. Today's witch hunt is about gay marriage, in ten years it could be polyamory, underage drug usage or being forced to wear a burqa. You just cannot predict.

</comment><comment><USER147> ... with all this BS, I wonder what the new Javascript will be! But in all seriousness, I wonder what his coworkers thought of him, if he was parading around his views or would focus more on work (bc that's what's important after all), any blog links for me to discover more?

</comment><comment><USER148> Everyone has a right to opinion. Brendan has his opinion. The internet also had it's opinion. Nobody is right or wrong here, just the way it is. OKCupid was well within it's rights to denounce firefox - just like brendan was within his rights to support prop8.

</comment><comment><USER149> I do not share Brendan's views but he is entitled to have them. People who target individuals because they do not have the sames views as them should be ashamed. Is this not what freedom is all about?

</comment><comment><USER130> So if I support Gun ownership and my CEO has supported some Gun Ban movement should I leave the organization or should I demand that the CEO step down ?

I wish Mozilla showed some balls here.

</comment><comment><USER150> Really sad about and disappointed in the way the whole internet reacted to Mozilla choice of CEO. To the homophobic it's wrong to be gay and to the gay it's wrong to be homophobic. If we accept LGBTQ as a circuitry of the mind, why don't we treat homophobia the same? And if it's ok to publicly admit to being gay why isn't it the same for homophobic? Where's the tolerance of political views?

<comment><USER151> > If we accept LGBTQ as a circuitry of the mind, why don't we treat homophobia > the same?

Are you telling me that you think some people are biologically predisposed towards homophobia?

Just because people have the right to exercise free speech does not indemnify them from the consequences. Drawing broad strokes about how we should respect people's rights to express opinions while not judging them for those opinions is not practical. It's all shades of gray.

</comment></comment><comment><USER152> I do not think anyone won here as Mozilla had an opportunity to call both BE and the other parties into some type of meeting with real dialogue..but instead will still have thins not solved..

Here are the still smoldering issues:

1\. Religious right still wants to hold the marriage license as their property..Separation of Church and State occurred over 500 years ago in Western Cultures an governments.. 2\. Bigotry and Ignorance

</comment><comment><USER153> What we've learned today:

Most commenters on Hacker News don't know what freedom of speech is. They also don't understand, or maybe don't care, about the responsibility of society to protect minority groups. They also haven't read the bible or understand any of the history behind religion-based attacks on gay rights. I had no idea we had so many Fox News viewers here.

</comment><comment><USER154> "Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn't live up to it"...

Bla bla, shame on these platitudes!

Bad times when a ceo no longer can act according to his opinion (in private). Reflects very badly upon Mozilla: no spine, get rid of Eich and talk about 'we are stronger with you involved'.

Deeply disappointed (and fwiw i'm pro gay marriage).

</comment><comment><USER155> Let's watch a speech by Tim Cook. [http://business.time.com/2013/12/15/apple- ceo-tim-cook-gives...](http://business.time.com/2013/12/15/apple-ceo-tim-cook- gives-remarkable-speech-on-gay-rights-racism/)

A quote he mentions: "Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance."

This is progress. This is the exact opposite of Eich's actions. Sure, he stood up for his "ideal" and didn't back down, but he objectively hurt others. Opinions, fine. But Eich took _actions_ to hold others back. Along with those who tried to deny interracial marriage in the past, he stands on the wrong side of history. There is no lynch mob--just other folks on the internet who have the right to speak against those committing actions of hatred.

"Basic human rights. Basic human dignity."

</comment><comment><USER156> Hey, Joe, do you support marriage equality?

Of course I do.

You know, I'm not sure I believe you. After all, you pretty much have to say that to keep your job.

</comment><comment><USER157> Its sad this guy is losing his job over an unrelated personal choice.

But:

Who donates money to stop same sex marriage? I mean I have much bigger things on my plate than stopping someone from making a lifestyle choice. And I have _MUCH_ better things to do with my money.

</comment><comment><USER158> For every people who says that "the CEO is the face of an organisation": can you name all the former Mozilla CEO's? Or any CEO who wasn't Jobs or Ballmer?

Honestly, I am curious.

<comment><USER72> Larry Ellison, Eric Schmidt.Carly Fiorina. Meg Whitman.

</comment></comment><comment><USER159> "HN's approach to comments". if it meant anything, every flame-fanning article on this subject should have been [dead] before it reached 5 comments.

</comment><comment><USER160> I guess your views are a part of your performance review.

</comment><comment><USER161> Competency be damned! He held controversial opinions and supported like-minded causes! _Destroy him!_

Edit: Downvotes, but no replies. Come on, kids...if you think I'm wrong then explain.

<comment><USER19> He held personal opinions which were incompatible with those of the organisation he was leading, and were actively opposed to the interests of many in the wider community he was a visible and important leader of.

That's why there was so much backlash against the appointment, and in itself stands as evidence that he was not a suitable choice for the position.

<comment><USER161> First: thank you for responding, regardless of your up/down/no vote.

But I disagree that his personal opinions were incompatible with Mozilla. They make software, Eich makes software.

Mozilla has nothing to do with social activism. Well, at least, they didn't _until now_.

<comment><USER19> Mozilla explicitly states that one of it's goals is to foster an inclusive and diverse software community. In their position, where they do so much work related to community engagement, do you not see how the views of their CEO conflicting with their stated mission is a problem?

<comment><USER162> Whatever your beliefs, I'm not sure how this saga fosters either inclusiveness or diversity, and I'm afraid the word community has lost all meaning.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER163> I've seen some people defending him for various reasons, most prominently because he has a right to free speech. Of course he has a right to free speech, and he exercised it. He also has the responsibility to accept the consequences. His actions/speech made enough people angry enough to exercise their speech to the extent that Eich's position was no longer tenable.

People too often forget that rights don't mean that there will be no consequences to exercising those rights (within the bounds of the law, and other things).

</comment><comment><USER164> JavaScript is a utterly horrible language. How could you let someone who designed that monstrosity become your CTO much less your CEO?

</comment><comment><USER165> Was it not an option to make a public statement to back down on the stance? I can't help but feel this is entirely unpragmatic.

</comment><comment><USER166> I feel like this could have been completely avoided if Brendan Eich said "I'm sorry. I was wrong. I supported a cause that I no longer believe in."

Since that was in 2008, and people can change their opinions & beliefs.

This assumes of course, he no longer believes that marriage only applies to straight couples.

</comment><comment><USER111> As inventor of javaScript, working for Netscape and later for Mozilla, without Brendan Eich the project is dead.

Homo or hetero... You all have problems with your sexual fantasies. Did I miss to say "fucking"? Should I give a "fuck" about you? Back in your pants, stupid!

</comment><comment><USER167> So freedom of expression is to support Gays but not to oppose them?

</comment><comment><USER168> The bigots win. I will stop using Firefox now.

</comment><comment><USER169> This contents me. Good choice Eich.

</comment><comment><USER170> This is an example of what a hate-driven vocal minority can do. It's scary.

<comment><USER171> What, getting ousted as CEO for unrepentant bigotry? I'm not that scared.

<comment><USER172> And this "unrepentant bigotry" directly affected how many peoples' lives? No one's?

<comment><USER99> The thousands of gay couples who wanted to get married but couldn't because of donations like his? The denial of rights of gay couples who were married before prop 8?

There are actual people who have been denied inheritance, denied the right to visit their partner in the hospital, denied the ability to go their loved one's funeral by their family _because_ of prop 8.

<comment><USER27> Whoever's downvoting you should be ashamed. The exact effect of Prop 8 was to strip marriage rights from people. And part of why it worked (until struck down in federal court as the civil rights violation its opponents always knew it to be) is the well-funded campaign in favor of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER173> Half of the people in this thread are deeply confused about the relationship between civil rights and popular opinion. The latter is a perception of the former, not the cause or definition.

</comment><comment><USER112> Good riddance.

</comment><comment><USER174> I am stunned at how many people on HN seem to thing Eich should not be judged on his personal so-called "political" views.

If he was a racist in favor of segregation would people still take that position? I seriously doubt it.

<comment><USER120> Taking a view is one thing, persecution is another.

<comment><USER175> Right. And he donated to help eliminate gay marriage in California; to me, that counts as persecution.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER176> Good. I hope his career is over and he falls into obscurity.

He's just like someone championing segregation a few decades ago. History will not look at him kindly.

The world has no place for those that discriminate.

</comment><comment><USER177> FireCEO GayFox

</comment><comment><USER178> First it was Ryan Dahl, then Ben Noordhuis, and now Brendan Eich... I can't really believe it's happening again.

<comment><USER32> > First it was Ryan Dahl, then Ben Noordhuis, and now Brendan Eich... I can't > really believe it's happening again.

what? what the heck are talking about ?

<comment><USER179> I'll take a stab at this one.

The CIA/NSA/Government is setting up Javascript for failure (to save all of us sane programmers). Eich is just the next in their list to discredit and undermine Javascript's leadership.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER171> > 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.

Oh, Mozilla, you acted exactly like we expected. You spouted some condescending PR BS instead of apologizing for making an unrepentant homophobe your CEO.

</comment><comment><USER180> Comments here are pretty supportive of Brendan but I see this as nothing but a victory for Mozilla and a victory for consumer activism. It should be clear by now that you cannot run a large company in the public eye while you espouse vitriolic and discriminatory views that belong in the last century.

<comment><USER58> Except that he didn't "espouse vitriolic and discrimatory views." A majority of voters in CA pulled the lever for Prop 8. 70% of African-American voters in CA voted "yes" for Prop 8. Doesn't sound discriminatory to me. What it sounds like is political correctness run amok, and punishment for thought crime.

<comment><USER181> You seem to be under the impression that no majority vote can be discriminatory. I cannot rightly apprehend such a confusion of ideas.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Does anyone use Apple Ping? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> Nope.</comment>


The Fuzzy History of the Georgia Peach (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/fuzzy-history-georgia-peach-180964490/?no-ist <comment><USER2> Incredibly, peaches aren't in the state's top exports (source: [https://www.census.gov/foreign- trade/statistics/state/data/g...](https://www.census.gov/foreign- trade/statistics/state/data/ga.html)) and aren't event mentioned in the state's agricultural section on Wikipedia: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_(U.S._state)#Agricultu...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_\(U.S._state\)#Agriculture).

How the heck did they come to be associated with peaches?

<comment><USER3> They were the first state in the US to grow them in quantity, although these days they are 3rd behind SC and Cali.

Peaches are just a niche fruit. Worldwide production is ~25M tons a year, mostly in China, with just under 1 million tons in the US. Oranges do about triple that, even more in the US.

<comment><USER4> For some reason, peach juice hasn't really caught on.

<comment><USER3> Low yield? I mean, it's still a fruit and has moisture content but it's much more...solid than an orange.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Georgian here: South Carolina grows a better Eastern Peach.</comment>