Sadly, I think Mozilla is beyond saving at this point. I was a long time Firefox user until 2021 - since inception, and Netscape before that. I've since stopped using it in favor of Brave - which actually delivers what Firefox had been promising. Mozilla's been hopelessly mismanaged for well over a decade and has been bleeding users the entire time. This is doubly unfortunate because they do have some genuinely solid tech and one of the only independent rendering engines. The CEO should have been shown the door back in 2012.
And we should not forget the Mozilla call for censorship, cyber-bullying and narrative control on big platforms [1]. I'm glad Firefox is dying, the web is safer without extremist actors like this.
I don't think the popularity or lack thereof of the side changes whether or not someone would be willing to work for Eich.
Everyone is entitled to their beliefs but are not entitled to avoid scrutiny and I think he made the right call stepping down. I would personally never consider working at a company where he was in my management chain nor would I champion a browser from a company he leads.
Why? Is it that you don't want to work for anybody that holds different views or that you are afraid that he might discriminate?
As far as I know there were no accusations of Eich treating anybody differently. Just because he opposed something doesn't mean any worker under him was discriminated against.
Do you work for yourself? If not, do you know the views held by every person you work for? Do you know for a fact that none of them hold similar views to Eich and just haven't been "caught"?
My point on the majority position is that you quite possibly work with and for people who hold the same views as Eich.
For certain issues, this one included, it’s because I would never work with someone with those views. Being against marriage equality is one of those disqualifying views.
I do work for myself, but in previous roles if I had found out about that, I would have made a change, but I’m reasonably confident it wasn’t the case in my managers or leadership. That said, perhaps someone was secretly against marriage equality, but I’d rather work with a bigot that feels they need to keep their hateful opinions a secret than with a bigot that feels they can be open about it.
If you work for yourself do you have any clients? I assume you do? Do you know if any of then have the same views? If you don't care or are willing to take their money then I don't see any difference. Do you give your potential clients a political test before you work with them?
I may be misremembering, but I don't think Eich was deliberately public about his support / donations. Political donations are public, but its not like he made a blog post or something. This is for all intents and purposes a private action.
This isn’t about just any old political views, it’s about the right to marry the person you love. If you found out he was against interracial marriage, would we still be arguing this?
I think being against marriage equality makes Eich a bigot, plain and simple. I don’t spend my time going around trying to unmask bigots but he had the unfortunate luck to have his hateful views exposed. Not only was his previous donation exposed, he subsequently made it clear he still felt that way.
I don't think rejecting gay marriage is really a big issue. If he was for calling for castrating gays or something I would be there with you, but he has shown that he can separate his personal views with work and is not advocating for harm against others.
I am going to explain what I perceive his position is. I could be wrong, but am probably decently close.
Eich likely believes the definition of a marriage is something along the lines of: a monogamous relationship which is theoretically capable* of producing new life.
* meaning excluding health situations like infertility. This is an exception not a rule.
You and he have a massive difference of opinion on that definition. You seem to think the purpose of marriage is an expression of love.
The problem with your definition is that it would allow for both polygamy and more than two people in a marriage. Maybe you are fine with those types of relationships being defined as a marriage, but the majority of people are not. Almost nobody would consider it bigotry to deny the right of a polygamist to engage in multiple marriages.
This means the majority of our society believes we have the right to deny marriage to consenting adults even if they are in love. We are now just debating the exact limits we should have.
I think due to your misunderstanding of Eich's views on marriage you don't understand how his views differ on gay marriage and interracial marriage. I'm guessing you think if Eich was alive 150 years ago he would not support interracial marriage. I am not sure if that is the case. There is nothing intrinsic to interracial marriage that would prevent it from meeting Eich's definition of marriage. Interracial marriage has long been a thing for groups that interacted with different races, perhaps for the entirety of the legal recognition of marriage. The denial of interracial marriage only became a thing somewhat recently.
Eich likely believes that marriage is not just an expression of love. There is a more fundamental purpose which is to create the best environment for the rearing and bearing of children. Gay relationships are incapable of causing a woman to become pregnant. That is of course not to say that a lesbian could not be pregnant, but that a lesbian relationship does not cause the pregnancy. There is a secondary purpose which is the automatic inheritance of wealth and titles, however, with wills and blood tests having legitimacy issues is less of an issue.
There is also another issue which is changing the definition to include something that was previously fundamentally excluded. Nobody denies that words can change their meanings, but changing to mean something that is contradictory to the previous definition is questionable. If there was an attempt to change the definition of a married person to include non married people Eich would be opposed to that attempt as well. That wouldn't be bigotry.
Basically, I don't think it is bigotry for Eich to not support the change in the definition. It has always meant a certain thing and he wants it to remain that definition. That isn't bigotry.
This conversation always ends up with a slippery slope argument with polygamy, children, animals, something else equally offensive. Comparing my rights to be be married to these things is precisely why I refuse to work with people “on this side”. I frankly couldn’t care less about how he or anyone else rationalizes their bigotry.
Children and animals cannot consent which is why I didn't use them, but ok then don't answer.
You don't have any answer to provide because if the requirement for marriage is any consenting adult who love each other there is no reason to not expand it to multiple people. The only reason would be an appeal to tradition, but that would discount gay marriage.
lol, a bit melodramatic no? I'm not enforcing anything, I'm saying that in times of the woke movement, you have to be careful, people have ruined their lives.
If you don't understand that, there's nothing else for me to say. Boxing me into some authoritarian stance doesn't really help your argument. Then again, I'm not really sure what your argument is, seems more like pigheaded trolling.
If anything, supporting against same sex marriage sounds pretty damn oppressive, but to each his own.....I guess?
Eich stepped down even when the board asked him to stay on in some capacity. I think it had a lot more to do with losing the trust of the rank and file than a business decision related to appearances.
