[AmericanChopper]

There's also another selection bias against talking in support of somebody who's being cancelled by an internet outrage mob. Perhaps the only reason anybody would feel safe in doing so is if they were a member of the group the mob was purporting to be outraged on behalf of.

[TimTheTinker]

Yes, and I'd argue this is the strongest form of selection bias in such circumstances -- and the one that takes the most courage to avoid falling to.

    First they came for ... and I didn't say anything.
    Then they came for ... and I didn't say anything.
    ...
    Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.

When people select themselves out of speaking up for others because of fear, the purity/outrage spiral can get out of control.

[goto11]

Good point - the pressure goes both ways. Supporting an ousted boss and thereby criticizing current leadership is also risky.

I think the real problem was that Mozilla had built a strong community support on representing certain values and freedoms in contrast to Microsoft (which was the dominant competitor at the time) as being perceived as more trustworthy. Firefox only became successful because lots of supporters advocated it and web sites made an effort to support it.

But this support only exist as long as you are perceived as honest. During his week (?) as CEO Eich (and other Mozilla spokesmen) emphasized that Mozilla as an employer recognized same-sex marriages and provided equal benefits to same-sex spouses. The CEO clearly disagreed strongly with this policy, but at the same same swore to uphold it. Who cares if he believes in it then, right? But it clearly shows that the leadership does not actually care about the values they espouse, which is a broader problem that this particular issue.

I don't really think a browser or other software should have a stance on marriage equality. But the fact remains that Mozilla as organization and employer did have a stance, and the CEO disagreed with this stance - but claimed it wouldn't matter at all.

If the mission of Mozilla has just been to make money, nobody would have considered it problematic. But then again it would never have become successful in the first place without the community support, based on trust.

[AmericanChopper]

I think that’s the sort of perverse reasoning that gets you into a purity spiral in the first place. I disagree with plenty of things, morally or otherwise, why would that mean I don’t think other people shouldn’t be able to make up their own minds, and decide for themselves how to live their own lives? The premise of this seems to be that anybody who has a stance on anything can not be expected to tolerate anybody else having a difference stance. I can see how the people of Silicon Valley might come to expect that, but it’s not normal.

[goto11]

But a CEO is expected to lead representing certain values. Often a CEO is chosen exactly due to their values and expected to further them through leadership. You would also think it was weird if the Mozilla CEO was funding campaigns against open standards or open source. Whatever your personal stance on marriage, Mozilla as organization had one stance which the CEO strongly opposed. So it would not be crazy to expect he would want to change their policies.

The damage control strategy was to insist that his values would not affect Mozilla, which is kind of a weird stance to have as CEO.

> would that mean I don’t think other people shouldn’t be able to make up their own minds, and decide for themselves how to live their own lives?

In this context it is worth noting prop 8 was exactly about preventing other people from living their lives a certain way. There is a big difference between disagreeing with somebody life choices and then to actively try to destroy their marriage!