[koenigdavidmj]

The lesson Mozilla learned here is that the angry Internet mob can get whatever it wants. It doesn't really matter which side of history the mob is on. The lesson that other boards learned with this is not 'hire socially-conscious people', but 'keep your head down and maintain the status quo'.

Fifty years ago a similar uproar would have developed if a company hired a black CEO. The press release announcing his removal a week later would have been the same, some fluff words about being unable to effectively lead when he's spending all his time dealing with this.

[ryandvm]

Indeed. I don't agree with Eich's personal views on gay marriage, but I'm kind of disappointed that everybody seems to be cool with getting people fired because they stood up for their personal views.

People are comfortable with his firing because they feel his views are "wrong", but pretty much all progressive views, by definition, started out as "wrong" as well...

[dragonwriter]

> I don't agree with Eich's personal views on gay marriage, but I'm kind of disappointed that everybody seems to be cool with getting people fired because they stood up for their personal views.

No one got fired here. Brendan Eich quit a job that, from all reports, he was dubious about taking from day one.

[thumbtackthief]

What if it came out that his personal views (and political donations, more importantly) were against interracial marriage or women's suffrage? No one would bat an eye at his losing his position as CEO (voluntarily or not). Everyone is just shocked because our society is finally starting to recognize anti-gay bigotry as abhorrent as racism or sexism.

[stcredzero]

The lesson Mozilla learned here is that the angry Internet mob can get whatever it wants.

The typical angry Internet mob is, frankly, stupid, ill informed, incapable of clear thought, not sophisticated enough to appreciate detail and nuance, and unable to comprehend that principles of justice and tolerance apply evenly to all. The typical angry Internet mob has most of the disgusting qualities of the people who bullied me in school. It's just that now, they label themselves as "geeks" and "nerds."

The Japanese have a saying that it's only through suffering that one truly comes to understand kindness. Many geeks and nerds used to value principles and a sense of scientific/technical rigor and honor, which they deeply understood because they knew firsthand what it means to be subject to the power of groups lacking such principles.

There's a famous Feynmann story about how he discovered that Brazilian science students were able to recite the book-knowledge about the polarization of light but were unable to apply the basic physics to actual examples. The typical Bay Area 20-something Computer Science/Programmer geek will now stare at you blankly when you mention "frequency response." (or even prejudicially flip the idiot bit on you because you said something "audiophile" sounding) However, almost all of them will tell you enthusiastically about studying Fourier Transforms.

[devindotcom]

I don't understand why the "angry internet mob" is any different from thousands of people boycotting a company for unfair labor practices, or doing a sit-in somewhere, or picketing? How is the internet mob different from these other forms of nonviolent political activism?

[stcredzero]

It's worthy activism to repeal unjust laws, or help to pass other laws to protect people's rights. It's something else to merely attack the people you don't like, no matter how noble your justification is.

A more accurate description of this action would be as a boycott of a company with fair labor practices, for an exercise of free speech the CEO made 6 years ago. Does that even make sense? It sounds like a gratuitous witch-hunt to me.

If one's activism is going to further the notion of tolerance and social justice, then it had better hew to the principles of tolerance and social justice. Merely resembling other civil rights actions on the surface is just "Cargo Cult Activism."

[noddingham]

Based upon the thoughtless drivel that I see spewed across Twitter, I don't see how it could be considered political activism of any sort. It takes no effort and no risk to shout something on Twitter.

[devindotcom]

It takes little effort or risk to walk down the street and shout, either. What matters is that the people in both situations are expressing their support for one side of an issue. That it doesn't meet your standards for intelligibility isn't really material. A vote is not eloquent, but it is a powerful statement when millions do it at once and with one object. It is the same for public demonstration.

[stcredzero]

A vote is not eloquent, but it is a powerful statement when millions do it at once and with one object. It is the same for public demonstration.

Just because something is a vote or a demonstration doesn't make it good or just. Just because millions say or do something doesn't make it good or just either. It's justice when what the millions say or do is just because they are applying first principles of justice. If you look at history, when millions have enacted injustice, every single time they also had flowery-sounding justifications for it. Also, if you dig deep enough, along with any injustice, you will find some kind of double standard accompanied by a notion that amounts to "but we're right and they're wrong."

[koenigdavidmj]

My point was that conservatives can do witch hunts too. Mozilla gave every indication that it just gave up when the pressure overcame them, rather than actually deciding this on its merits, bad publicity be damned.