Dev.SN ♥ developers
Sections
Dev.SN
from the i-guess-they'll-unfriend-mozilla dept.
The controversy around Mozilla's new CEO Brendan Eich continues. Eich made a personal $1000 donation to California's Yes on Proposition 8 campaign in 2008. Now, dating site OkCupid has started redirecting Firefox users to a page explaining Eich's views against marriage equality, and asking users to switch to IE, Chrome, or Opera.
If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly 8% of the relationships we've worked so hard to bring about would be illegal. Equality for gay relationships is personally important to many of us here at OkCupid. But it's professionally important to the entire company. OkCupid is for creating love. Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure.
Visitors are then provided links to alternative browsers, or they can continue to the site by clicking a hyperlink at the bottom of the page.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bradley13 on Tuesday April 01 2014, @07:37AM
This all seems a bit over the top. Sure, the guy is a public figure, but this was a private political donation, and not even for all that much money. Someone dug deep to find this little tidbit.
And just why is it so awful? An earlier comment calls him a "dirtbag" - but according to Wikipedia Proposition 8 passed with a comfortable majority. re more than half of all Californians "dirtbags", or is it possible that there are valid concerns about the legislative expansion of "marriage"; concerns that may have little to do with LGBT issues?
I'm not in California (or even close), so I cannot say for certain, but it seems likely that there is more to this than is being reported. I do note that none of the articles mention trying to get his side of the story, not even the usual cop-out "did not immediately return our call". Wouldn't want to risk having facts put a damper on outrage, after all...
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Tuesday April 01 2014, @07:41AM
this voting push was bought and paid for by NON-california based mormons.
if calif was left alone, I doubt they would have voted so anti-gay. its not fair to say that half the state is filled with hate. I live here and I just don't see that. I see a lot more acceptance and a 'live and let live' attitude.
in fact, the money he donated probably helped the mormons with their anti-freedom cause.
he really should be kicked out of the CEO position. he's not a moral leader and he does not fit into the california way of doing things.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @10:46AM
If your argument can be countered in voters' minds by someone splashing some money around, perhaps your argument isn't as strong as you thought it was.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @11:23AM
More interestingly it seems that the campaigns for and against P8 raised more or less the same amount of cash so I'd say this was a very democratic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @12:22PM
Since when are votes on official topics decided by the strength of arguments?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday April 01 2014, @11:20AM
Also, the Jews stabbed us in the back in WW1.
A Discordian is Prohibited of Believing what he reads.
(Score: 3, Informative) by lhsi on Tuesday April 01 2014, @07:56AM
I'm not from America so don't know much about this Proposition 8 specifically, but had a look at the Wikipedia article. There it says that "Yes" was only 52.24% and also notes that voter turnout was 79.42%. A majority yes (of those who voted), but how is this considered "comfortable"?
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Tuesday April 01 2014, @08:50AM
In many countries, certainly including the US, a voter turnout of 79% is amazing. Typical is anywhere between 30% and 50%.
People who do not vote are effectively accepting whatever result happens. A result of 52.24% yes and 47.76% no is a 5% margin, which is very comfortable. Consider that, in the last US presidential election, Barack Obama only received 51% of the vote.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Tuesday April 01 2014, @10:10AM
It is common, but I would not agree with comfortable. Any decision that goes against the wishes of almost half of the people cannot be considered comfortable.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday April 01 2014, @11:23AM
Comfortable compared to having the Supreme Court have to rule because Florida can't get their ballots straight and it's almost exactly 50-50...
That's the way U.S. politics is set up. It kind of sucks.
A Discordian is Prohibited of Believing what he reads.
(Score: 2) by mth on Tuesday April 01 2014, @08:29AM
Personally, I can't think of any good reason to be opposed to gay marriage. But is that such a terrible opinion that a site should ask its visitors to boycott Mozilla for something the CEO did privately?
I think the best way to get gay marriage accepted is to show that it leads to more happy people and doesn't in any way diminish the value of traditional marriage, not by shunning people who oppose it. The more pressure you put on the issue, the less likely that people will change their mind.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday April 01 2014, @11:26AM
Well put. You don't convince people to change their viewpoint by calling them horrible and bigots, but by explaining respectfully and in detail why they should change their mind.
A Discordian is Prohibited of Believing what he reads.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @02:39PM
No, you don't change their minds with either approach. [boston.com]
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
--Jonathan Swift.
The only thing you can hope for is that you convince the fence sitters looking on. Calling a bigot a bigot makes it clear to the audience. You'll never persuade the entire audience, you will alienate some of them, but you'll also convince some of them by being straight-up and direct with no room for doubt.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Wednesday April 02 2014, @12:23AM
Personally, I can't think of any good reason to be opposed to gay marriage. But is that such a terrible opinion that a site should ask its visitors to boycott Mozilla for something the CEO did privately?
OkCupid's business is the online facilitation of relationships, many of which are gay. So it seems pretty much on point for them to have a public and vocal opinion on this topic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @08:35AM
It is NOT over the top. The CEO is the public image of the company. That's what he gets paid for. His job.
If he got paid for doing real work, he wouldn't be the CEO, he would be just another guy on the floor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @10:21AM
> more than half of all Californians "dirtbags"
California does have that reputation, but I think this applies to humanity broadly as well.
(Score: 2) by metamonkey on Tuesday April 01 2014, @11:32AM
You had me until you suggested that half of Californians are not dirtbags.
Left a beta website for an alpha website.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 01 2014, @02:54PM
> "... and not even for all that much money."
$1,000 pays for two people to work an entire day on a commercial. As many as four outside of Los Angeles, where rates are lower. More than enough to create a 60 second commercial intended to influence the ill-informed.
> And just why is it so awful?
Besides his own employees calling for his resignation, it's also weakens the Mozilla Foundation's claim they're about freedom and equal rights.
> I'm not in California (or even close), so I cannot say for certain, but it seems likely that there is more to this than is being reported.
The 'more than being reported' is the employees doing the actual call for the resignation, that's why it's a story. When that failed to get a reply out of him another interested party turned the heat up on him.
> Wouldn't want to risk having facts put a damper on outrage, after all...
Careful what you wish for, half of your outrage about the outrage is fueled by lack of understanding of the situation.
To put it in a better perspective: Let's say there was a ballot in your county to prohibit divorce in your area. Once you're married, that's it, till death, no exceptions, not even domestic abuse. Then let's say a religious group from California (or any area that has utterly no business sticking their noses in your county...) put substantial resources into airing ads promoting this ballot. If this thought makes your backside twitch then you're starting to understand where the heat from this story is coming from. (If it doesn't and you're just sitting there with your cursor hovering over the reply button, just stop and reread it again. There's no point in arguing just to argue.) Then imagine you heard that a new chief of police in your area is starting his job, but the officers under him found out that he donated a significant amount of money to this cause. Did his donation to that campaign indicate that his values may not reflect those of the police department? He didn't answer those concerns, but the PD made a statement that said: "we help everybody, yadda yadda yadda".
So, yeah, it's not so petty or black and white. He still has his chance to address the concern, when he takes it we'll certainly hear about it.