[_yosefk]

OK Cupid blocked Firefox, a non-profit with less questionable business practices than most tech companies and certainly Uber, over Eich's quiet private donation which ought to be a smaller deal than systematic sexual harassment with consequences for victims instead of perpetrators (although the donation was proven while the harassment is alleged; I doubt this tips the scales of public sentiment though.) The overall reaction on HN was mostly positive. I'm sure an Uber boycott can be figured out. (Is it a good idea? I dunno, in Eich's case the question is different from this case and there's much to discuss, I'm just saying that people these days are fairly eager to boycott and fairly good at it once the proper mood sets in.)

[gkya]

The two cases are incomparable. What happened to Eich was injustice, as in a democratic state, he is (read: is supposed to be) free about supporting whatever idea he wants. We might not like it, yet "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." What happened was hypocrisy pure, and OkCupid got some positive PR from the situation. In a world where this sort of stuff works, we'll quickly end up with Inquisition and witch-hunts, reversed.

WRT Uber, their business model is shady to begin with, and that's not the only shady thing about them. Yet, the post is anonymous, and sincere though it sounds, nobody can be sure that the allegations are true. If cost of a lawsuit is the concern, I believe there are many organisations out there who'd help with the case.

[specialist]

So. Eich funding discrimination is free speech, whereas OK Cupid blocking his browser is not. Because why?

Aside: great insights into the victimhood mentality of the free speech zealots.

https://psmag.com/on-the-milo-bus-with-the-lost-boys-of-amer...

[gkya]

There's no discrimination issue here. Just like one can support a given law, they can oppose it too. OK Cupid's move has nothing to do with free speech at all, and I believe in neither the sincerity nor the aptness thereof. Eich's actions were legal, peasurable or not, and within the protection of basic human rights.

(WRT same-sex marriage issue, I believe that civil unions should replace all kinds of marriage we've today and it should be left to the individuals to decide what their partnership(s) mean to them, wrt their philosophical/religious stances.)

[acomar]

Why is it a free speech issue for Eich to make a donation but not for OKC to choose not to associate with his organization? I fail to see the distinction, especially since the right to free association is closely linked to free speech. This argument has never made any sense to me. Eich's actions were protected from retaliation by the government; if you argue that the same must hold true for private individuals and organizations then you're really saying some speech needs to be more protected than others. How do we draw those lines?

[gkya]

- Firefox does not belong to Eich, and Eich's words are not representative--good or bad they be--of Firefox users or Firefox developers.

- OKCupid blocking a certain browser to access their website means that who uses Firefox to use their service has to either agree the company and boycott Firefox themselves too or not use the service. That is, they forced those users to participate in the boycott.

- OKCupid is a company, so all of its actions are not only in the name of their executives, but also in the name of the users.

- What they did boiled down to a public shaming campaign, hurting, unjustly, not only a person who used their freedom to support a given political quest, but also a huge community around Firefox and Mozilla that had nothing to do with Eich's political tendencies. Free speech is not useful at all if we let the loudest to win.

What OKCupid did is probably defendable in front of law, but is completely unethical and exploitative. They tried to start a lynch to silence someone. It's no different to shaming someone for being homosexual or calling someone with the N word and excluding them. And it was an attempt to suppress freespeech, not an act thereof.

[acomar]

I mean, I can tear down Eich's actions the same way to justify what OKC did. That's entirely besides the point however, and my previous point still stands. Even if I buy your premise that OKC's actions are unethical, their speech should be exactly as protected as Eich's! I happen to think Eich's action was unethical for a number of reasons, but I'm not arguing against his right to make it.

EDIT: Let me also say it like this: who decides which speech is ethical or honest enough to be protected as free speech? You don't have to agree with what OKC did, like them, or even want to do business with them ever again. But you can't deny they're exercising their free speech and free association rights.

[vacri]

OK Cupid behaved poorly in that matter - after getting what they wanted (Eich resigning), they didn't act to resolve the reputational damage they'd done. All too quick to pop up a message saying "mozilla is the devil"[1], but afterwards, no message saying "okay, the situation has been resolved in our favour, you should go back and try it out". I lost a lot of respect towards the site from that.

[1] despite gay and lesbian developers coming out and saying that Eich's personal opinions on the issue didn't translate to company culture and they felt a positive atmosphere working there.

[Justsignedup]

an interesting debate. if i build my company on abuse and shady tactics, but i now employ 10,000 employees, is it okay to let me get away with it because so many depend on me? This is the too-big-to-fail issue.

[CaptainZapp]

This whole too-big-to-fail reasoning really galls me.

When a company is too big to fail it means that if it fails there's a systemic risk for an entire economy. Banks (and it's mostly banks), which are too big to fail are so interewoven with other banks, multinational companies and the economy as a whole that a failure can bring other institutions to the brink of exctinction and by extension wreck havoc on the entire economy.

Thousands of people out of a job does not mean too big to fail. No more being able to hail an Uber may be inconvenient, but it's no systemic risk to the economy.

Look at Enron. They had north of 20'000 employees when they imploded. And they where in a far more critical sector of the economy than Uber can ever dream to be. While it was brutal for the employees (who partially lost their life savings) and while I think there should be a special place in hell for the responsible executives Enron's demise had hardly any effects on the economy as a whole.

I'm not jumping on you personally. It's just that this too-big-to-fail nonsense in combination with Uber is thrown around an awful lot recently.

And it's utter bullshit.