I could be persuaded of this, but I feel like that probably only gets you that it's okay to do this sort of thing to super-fringe people. This is the "shunning neo-Nazis out of society" thing that I mentioned in the other thread. It feels really dangerous to me to say that, what, 60% of the population can decide that 40% need to be dragged kicking and screaming towards anything. I can understand the utility much more readily when we're trying to stamp out the last 10% of something that we basically universally agree is awful.
OKCupid urges users to not use Firefox
- Thread starter jasonng
- Start date
- Status
I could be persuaded of this, but I feel like that probably only gets you that it's okay to do this sort of thing to super-fringe people. This is the "shunning neo-Nazis out of society" thing that I mentioned in the other thread. It feels really dangerous to me to say that, what, 60% of the population can decide that 40% need to be dragged kicking and screaming towards anything. I can understand the utility much more readily when we're trying to stamp out the last 10% of something that we basically universally agree is awful.
John Kowalski
Banned
I'm conflicted in this because i have to assume that, in forsaking my use of Firefox, i wouldn't only be abandoning support for someone i actually want to drop support for but also for many other individuals working in Mozilla which could potentially have ideological alignments very similar to my own.
I think it depends on the sort of social consequences we're talking about. I don't think the legal/social distinction is useful. If the guy's wife decides that he's an asshole and leaves him because of this that's just fine - it's perfectly acceptable to let political views influence who you have very personal relationships with. It's fine to call him a bigot - that's just you making your opinion known, and as long as it doesn't become harassment it's unproblematic. But I don't think it's fine to try to harm him economically. This would be different for me if he were putting tons of money towards anti-gay causes - if he were a Koch brother, say - but what he's doing is well within the norm of how people engage in politics.
Anyway, I have to get some work done today so I'll check back later. I'll read responses but I might be a while. No hard feelings or anything.
Devolution
Member
You could always write a letter about how conflicted you feel about using their product because you find the CEO's actions odious. They can't ignore a flux of emails telling Mozilla how their users feel.
Kano on the Phone
Member
I think my edit on my last post addresses that, so check it out later. He's in charge of people he's actively working against and that isn't fair.
But what is wrong with shunning people with hateful beliefs? If they are ignorant about something then yes we try to educate them but if after they've been educated and they still believe the same nonsense then why shouldn't they be shunned?
Why should society have to be tolerant of someone's intolerance?
NTIETS13A_Superiority
Banned
You are not only "not supposrting someone", you are also "hurting" other people. End justifies the means and all that jizz.
I would cladly wear a fedora if you give me one of yours
wink wink. There is no golden middle road. Everyone is an arsehat.
I do not actually really care if or how people get married. I also really do not care that people even have a chance to. So, ciao.
Coreda
Member
This a valid point. And I can also understand why some wouldn't want Eich in that position, which is mainly what this is about. I take issue with with his apparent stance on same-sex marriage but at the same time recognize his long-lasting positive contributions to the web and the Mozilla Foundation.
It's not hard to feel conflicted about the boycott. It's a brilliant group of talent that has helped build the modern web and a superb browser.
rocketknight
Member
I'm really uncomfortable with a position that amounts to "it's okay to shun neo-Nazis but not okay to shun active homophobes." All that does is highlight how absurd it is that we're past the tipping point on overt racism (just for the sake of argument, we're obviously not out of the racist woods yet either) but somehow still okay with anti-LGBT nonense.
There's no need to handwring about establishing some Unified Theory Of When It's Okay To Shun. Just take things as they come. In this case, it's obviously wrong to try to strip gay people of their human and civil rights, and we should be discouraging these activities. When another issue comes along, look at that issue on its merits and handle it accordingly. There's no slippery slope, here, just a regular staircase with excellent traction.
Kano on the Phone
Member
We only have to in so far as it doesn't affect others. Someone who's a hateful fuck sitting in their house and stewing doesn't matter. Someone who's hateful and in charge of whether or not Gay Dave at the office gets a promotion? Important.
You are not only "not supposrting someone", you are also "hurting" other people. End justifies the means and all that jizz.
I would cladly wear a fedora if you give me one of yours
There is no golden middle road. Everyone is an arsehat.
I do not actually really care if or how people get married. I also really do not care that people even have a chance to. So, ciao.
Your argument won't work on me, I think they're both scumbags who have no business running Mozilla. What now?
It depends but I basically agree with you.
Do you know the work conditions of those 12 year old kids who made those pair of nike free runs, You are going to support such a company.
Do you know about the debacle between Nestle and their powdered milk products in Sub-Saharan African countries?
You can go on and on with the immoral principles of these companies. I don't use firefox by the way, I've always been chrome user.
It wasn't even true to begin with. Obama opposed prop 8. It's not like there wasn't public record of this.
Weltall Zero
Member
I don't even understand the point of this discussion. So far arguments attacking OKCupid's statement are:
1) "Eich should not be judged by his private opinions": but he donated publicly to those groups, what's private about that?
2) "He should not be fired for his opinions": he's not being fired or anything remotely resembling that, so I don't even see what this argument even is, aside from a sloppy "slippery slope" (pardon the alliteration) fallacy.
3) People should be free to do what they want: sure they are, including putting up information and recommendations regarding people directly funding the destruction of your rights.
In general, I'm not sure what's not to understand about a company issuing a statement about their stance, in the hopes of funneling less money towards a company, their CEO and ultimately groups directly against their interests. It's like being surprised that a company with mixed race employees issues a statement against someone publicly funding racist groups. I fail to see what's remotely surprising or controversial about it. "GAF defense force for literally everything" indeed.
Wait, he created the disgusting hack JavaScript is? That's reason enough to boycott his ass.
The "backbone of the web" argument is bollocks; any other scripting language would have filled the niche JavaScript holds now. Pretty likely a much better one.
1) "Eich should not be judged by his private opinions": but he donated publicly to those groups, what's private about that?
2) "He should not be fired for his opinions": he's not being fired or anything remotely resembling that, so I don't even see what this argument even is, aside from a sloppy "slippery slope" (pardon the alliteration) fallacy.
3) People should be free to do what they want: sure they are, including putting up information and recommendations regarding people directly funding the destruction of your rights.
In general, I'm not sure what's not to understand about a company issuing a statement about their stance, in the hopes of funneling less money towards a company, their CEO and ultimately groups directly against their interests. It's like being surprised that a company with mixed race employees issues a statement against someone publicly funding racist groups. I fail to see what's remotely surprising or controversial about it. "GAF defense force for literally everything" indeed.
Wait, he created the disgusting hack JavaScript is? That's reason enough to boycott his ass.
The "backbone of the web" argument is bollocks; any other scripting language would have filled the niche JavaScript holds now. Pretty likely a much better one.
UncleSporky
Member
I don't think there should be any line between public and private.
I mean really it's just encouraging people to donate money more illicitly, so no one can judge you for it.
He donates $1000 publicly and that's a huge problem, but if he had passed off a briefcase with $10,000 on the sly, suddenly he shouldn't be judged for that private opinion?
What if you speak out publicly vs. privately? Is it still an opinion if done publicly, or does that make it something real that affects change, and thus something to judge someone for?
Either he should be judged for both public and private actions, or he shouldn't.
The antigay CEO is the inventor of javascript. If you disabled javascripts you wouldn't be able to use most of the internet.
He has no financial ties with javascript any more. What's your point again?
UncleSporky
Member
So now we only take a stand if money is involved, otherwise we don't care.
blitzcloud
Banned
Exactly. everyone using a computer is partially guilty. smartphones too.
Now they want to make a personal fight against firefox because a CEO made something that has no relation to the program. Okay, I guess.
Guess that we should burn all the data we got from the nazi human experiments (sorry to bring WW2 extreme case), even if that means progress in the field. Yes, it was sinful, and cruel beyond all reasoning. That means the scarce good sides of it have to be discarded?
Firefox boosted the creation of chrome and made IE get better, now they want to make it look like it's somewhat evil because the CEO has a certain mindset and voted with his wallet for his beliefs...
I understand that Okcupid has a certain degree of homosexual users, so fighting this kind of good fight promotes the usage of their website for that specific user target. It's not only a call out for the CEO, it's also publicity.
It's a convenient dodge. You think he didn't hold these abhorrent views way back then?
Would you cripple your ability (since no alternative exists) to use one of the corner stones of our civilization because of his prejudice?
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
Okcupid also has homophobic users using its service. In fact they have questions in their matchmaking system that ask if you support gay marriage.
They should ban anyone that answers against gay marriage shouldn't they?
UncleSporky
Member
If they're sincere in this message, they really should.
I'm not arguing in favor of banning users for their beliefs, but I'm saying that their message comes across as hollow if they refuse to do that.
Because it really is all about the bottom line - gay marriage is popular, so come out in favor of it and benefit from the support you get from your users. After all, getting people to stop using Firefox doesn't affect them personally. Ban your own users, though, and suddenly it's affecting your own bottom line.
What dodge?
If let's say people get their way and Mozilla get rid of him, do you think they'd still boycott Firefox? The answer is no. He would have no financial ties with Firefox any more either.
It's called basic logic.
How would boycotting javascript result in any actual negative consequence to Brendan Eich? Some of you make absolutely no sense.
Mercury Fred
Banned
A CEO of a major corporation donating money to strip people of their rights ≠ consumers who have backward opinions.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
Not according to okcupid.
Makes no distinction of position of power in a major company or otherwise.
And if they wish them nothing but failure, why should they want to help them get relationships? They make money from every page visit with their ads, since they are mostly as-supported. They offer premium services as well, which many homophobes may be paying for directly as well.
UncleSporky
Member
That shouldn't matter. Either OKC is in favor of gay marriage or it is not.
You keep focusing on the issue of public vs. private. I would think that publicly listing in your profile that you're against gay marriage would put you in the same category as Mozilla's CEO, but perhaps not.
How about this: if OKCupid is sincere about their message, then they should ban all users whose profile specifies that they have actively donated to an anti-gay marriage group.
When a skeptic starts telling other people what to do in order to prove they're sincere, the skeptic is less "skeptic" and more "concern troll." People are going to draw their own lines between what they wish to tolerate; this is a normal part of living in a complicated world. No one needs to prove to you that they believe what they believe.
Kano on the Phone
Member
Why? What would not using Javascript matter? Who would this send a message to and what would the message say? Honestly curious. The point of not using Firefox is to say "we don't like your choice of CEO" to a company that has the power to do do something about it. It's saying "you don't get our clicks and therefore our money until you get rid of him as your CEO." What would boycotting Javascript do? "We don't use your product because we don't like the guy who invented it and so..."?
I don't think you understand what activism is? You don't protest a war you think is unjust by jamming your head into a toilet and screaming because Vladimir Putin sat on it once.
blitzcloud
Banned
Fair enough. But homophobes are probably not gonna stop using it as long as they can filter people with questions. I mean, the likely outcome of this is not an homophobe saying: "f**k you cupid i'll stop getting hot girls because I refuse to coexist with your stance". The likely outcome is that gay people feel that okcupid defends their rights and shift from whatever service they were using to okcupid.
UncleSporky
Member
The message you replied to was about OKC banning users who are against gay marriage, not Javascript.
According to these people with broken logic everyone should continue to boycott Firefox no matter what because he was the lead developer of Firefox at the beginning too.
Kano on the Phone
Member
I quoted the wrong post, my apologies. It's fixed, so feel free to answer.
I didn't see anyone say that. Can you quote who you're referring to?
The dodge is exactly what you just said. Since he isn't making money of it now (which is an assumption and not actually known) he isn't getting money to fund his political projects. So what if he was actually making money off of it? What about when he was actually making money off of it?
Would you boycott his product? Can you answer that question without falling back to the dodge? If you knew back then what you knew now would you do it?
If your answer is yes then that clarifies where your principle stands. If you say no I would hope it makes it clear that if you appreciate how boycotting may not be the best method to deal with the problem. Attacking someone's wallet doesn't win them over to your side. It just cows them into submission.
His point is that principles only beginning and ending with money aren't principles at all. Are your morals subservient to the highest bidder? (so to speak)
The posters who keep asking people to boycott javascript, even though it was created while he was working for Netscape which sold its rights to Suns and now Oracle. If you apply their logic to Firefox, then it follows that we should boycott it forever and ever.
See this post below. Ridiculous.
It is not an assumption. It belongs to a different organization. Unless you have proof that he somehow makes money off of it, you are the one making assumption.
Kano on the Phone
Member
And he's clearly wrong, since doing something that sends no message and affects no one I'm taking a stand against isn't activism.
I think the people suggesting anyone boycott Javascript are just making a bad argument, they aren't sincere.
True, and as a result I should stop wasting breath engaging them.
Mercury Fred
Banned
This is ridiculous.
UncleSporky
Member
Ok, just wanted to make sure, but yeah -
This was my point.
I don't think conviction should end at the point where you can actively hurt your opposition. You know, like...I only care enough to take a stand on this issue as long as someone is suffering financially because of it, and if I can't affect change in some small way then I'm not going to bother.
I mean, if you stopped using Firefox right now, I wonder how much it would really hurt them financially. I really don't have any concept of that on an individual user basis. A dollar per year or something like that? I don't know.
And I don't see the point in drawing a line where if you can deprive a company of $1 then the cause is just and it is worth making a change in your own life for, but if you deprive them of $0 then it's not worth it. I would think if it's worth it at all, then it's always worth it.
It can still accomplish something if you let others know. You tell others, "look, I care enough about this that even though this affects no one but myself, I still bother to do it. The issue is important enough to me morally that I still did it." But the main point isn't accomplishing a goal, it's sticking to your principles.
Maybe it's a difference of definitions. Activism means actively harming the opposition and not bothering otherwise, while being principled/taking a moral stand means resisting either way. So to boycott "only if" would make you an activist, but not principled.
I am being sincere. I'm pretty sure some others weren't, because they were being really flippant about it.
Kano on the Phone
Member
What you're saying is basically equivalent to someone suggesting I'm not adequately anti-domestic violence because I'll listen to a Beatles record. Even if I told someone "I'm so against hitting women that I won't even listen to John Lennon!" they wouldn't be moved or impressed, they'd think I was mental for doing something that ultimately makes zero difference to the thing I'm supposedly passionate about changing.
Being so dedicated to a cause that you'll do something that matters zero in the name of that cause isn't noble and it definitely isn't the demarcation line between the sincere and the insincere.
So u want him to lie just to make other ppl happy.... isn't kind anti free will, do we need to lie about what we feel and what we believe just cuz some doesn't like it.
Kano on the Phone
Member
No, you either honestly tell the truth that it's behind you, or don't say it's behind you and accept the consequences for being a bigot.
Devolution
Member
No one is asking for this.
UncleSporky
Member
But you're saying that if you can't hurt the opposition, it's no longer activism, so there is some sort of demarcation line there. Wouldn't you respect someone principled enough to do it anyway?
And again, I don't see the point in drawing the line between incredibly low amounts of money like this. Just with some quick googling, Firefox has 450 million users and makes about $100 million in royalties from their users. That's about 22 cents per user. So you actively change your browser usage, potentially using a slower browser and wasting hours of your own time per year, to hit the company in the pocketbook for 22 cents.
If that is worth it at all, then doing it anyway is also worth it.
Activism isn't only about being able to directly deprive companies of money, either. A lot of protests add up and hurt pocketbooks just by depriving the company of others' donations and grants, because they don't want to be associated with them. In that sense, you're never making zero difference.
Octavion Rex
Banned
Let me guess, you think that support for the traditional definition of marriage is bigoted thinking.
Devolution
Member
If it means marriage is only exclusive to straight people the obvious answer is: YES.
Kano on the Phone
Member
I'm saying doing nothing is doing nothing. You keep conflating doing something small with doing nothing for the sake of your argument.
Which traditional definition? Woman and a man or man with the woman as property? Both seem a little fucked up.
Dude Abides
Banned
I don't see where the Koch brothers have crossed some line that makes them condemnable but not him. They are doing the same thing. To a much larger degree, but not qualitatively different as far as I can tell.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
Pretty much? Whether you use Javascript or not is not going to affect him. Whether you use Firefox or not DOES effect him.
Are people using their brains? A boycott should have a purpose. Things that don't accomplish that purpose are unnecessary. Just because someone is boycotting Mozilla doesn't mean they have to boycott toilet paper. The logic is really out the window for some people.
UncleSporky
Member
Stopping your use of a product without depriving the company of money is not doing nothing, it's allowing your principles and morals to dictate your life.
And even doing that is not doing nothing. I'm pretty sure you didn't read my post? Even if you can't directly deprive a company of money, you're still contributing to the general opinion of them. (If that's the thing that's important to you above all else, rather than sticking by your principles.)
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked