[BearOso]

It's just my opinion, but yes and no. There's still quite a few decent people working on the browser, and they deserve props. The browser is really good code-wise. The problem is everything else around it.

The current CEO, Mitchell Baker, is clearly in it for the money. She got a salary increase while cutting 250 employees last year, and still had the audacity to say it wasn't enough. Brendan Eich had a bit of political controversy, but being a technical person I think he would've been better as far as focusing on the actual browser.

[isaacremuant]

> Brendan Eich had a bit of political controversy, but being a technical person I think he would've been better as far as focusing on the actual browser.

He didn't have a political controversy. He was pushed out because he didn't subscribe to the US democrat partisan allowed views, but quite the opposite, which is a fireable offense, apparently.

I don't agree with him on that stance but it shouldn't matter to run a tech company.

I absolutely know that those who censor and fire for political differences definitely don't have my best interests at heart and, while claiming to represent me and my "diversity", they'll brush me aside with a label as soon as I'm not convenient to them or go against their power hungry messaging.

Brendan Eich was a sign of the authoritarian and censorious movement which also tried to bring down the likes of Linus Torvalds or RMS but ultimately failed because it doesn't really produce value and they do, far too much.

Just because someone says they're doing good while claiming you're evil if you don't agree with their non debatable measures doesn't mean they're right, consistent and/or honest.

[CamperBob2]

Eich was in a position to benefit from the size and scope of Mozilla's user base, much as Mitchell Baker is today. The difference is, AFAIK Baker doesn't use her money and influence to rally the electorate to deprive other people of their rights.

It's disingenuous in the extreme for you to cite Eich's victimhood at the hands of a mythical "cancel culture" when the real cancel culture is powered by government-backed forces that he helped to nurture and guide.

In short, if you want to leverage your celebrity and influence to make the world a worse place rather than a better one, you can't expect people to ignore it. There's a fellow named Musk who is likely to learn the same lesson if he doesn't step off the path he's on now.

[isaacremuant]

I wrote a whole reply and then deleted when you're basically: - pushing for deplatforming based on your own authoritarianism. - claiming whatever you do is right and should allow no debate. - threatening Elon mask för some weird reason.

Authoritarians who feel right to censor, attack and deplatform are a problem no matter if they're Religious conservatives or identity politics fanatics.

Both are rabid and don't make the world a better place.

You seem to be one of them and your threats are tired at this point.

[CamperBob2]

No one censored Eich. They just exercised their right to determine whom they associated with... a right I suspect you'd defend to the death in other circumstances.

It's all fun and games until the guns come out. At that point, the person who initiates force, or who supports those who do, is the bad guy. That would be Eich.

[isaacremuant]

> No one censored Eich. They just exercised their right to determine whom they associated with... a right I suspect you'd defend to the death in other circumstances.

That is semantic bullshit. Anyone who is paying a modicum of attention knows that a mixture of woke/US democrat pushed causes have a very specific narrative that, when you oppose them, your person, job, funding, etc might be attacked no matter how many people agree with you. It's not about democracy or diversity but power. BLM or trans issues are the most obvious ones at the moment.

I don't agree with Eich on that particular point but that doesn't matter. Most of the woke mob didn't think those things either until suddenly "they had to".

A very apt man for the job was set aside because he had dared contributed politically to a cause that US democrat narrative decided in "current year" that was bad (funny how current year - N, they might be held those positions).

> It's all fun and games until the guns come out. At that point, the person who initiates force, or who supports those who do, is the bad guy. That would be Eich

No. That would be you and the woke mob, camper bob. Because you posit that words or political opinions are guns or force, which is insane. You call speech violence in order to justify using violence or censorship yourself. But you're the very type of thing you claim to be against, the bully that attacks pretending they're the victim and simply responding in kind.

You're the problem because you think your moral superiority should allow you to exert violence whenever you want for you have the "righteousness" on your side.

In any case, people are wising up to it. If all ethnicities, country of origin, creeds, etc. They don't want to be attacked (themselves or their livelihoods) because they don't hold the right opinion TM: Identity Politics, the current year war (Iraq, Libya, Ukraine) or whatever else US centric thing people push down our throats.

[lisasays]

That is semantic bullshit.

No it's not. It follows directly from the dictionary definition of what "censorship" means. Which unfortunately is widely misunderstood.

You think your moral superiority should allow you to exert violence whenever you want for you

They don't, and the conversation is starting to go way off the rails here.