snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Non-UL Chat > Business Bytes

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01 April 2014, 01:10 AM
St. Alia St. Alia is offline
 
Join Date: 06 October 2010
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 800
Default OKCupid asks users to boycott Firefox because of CEO's gay rights stance

Quote:
Anyone accessing the popular dating site OKCupid with Firefox today is in for a surprise. Instead of the homepage, OKCupid.com is serving Firefox users with a message calling out Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich for his support of California's Proposition 8, highlighted by a $1000 donation made in 2008. "Mozilla’s new CEO, Brendan Eich, is an opponent of equal rights for gay couples," the message tells users. "We would therefore prefer that our users not use Mozilla software to access OkCupid."
http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/31/55...eos-gay-rights

I understand boycotting places like Hobby Lobby, where the beliefs of the owners are apparent in their business practices, but does the different set up here make it less of a positive thing?

Just so I'm clear-I'm pretty much happy with vocally and adamantly speaking against those who would restrict equal rights. I'm just not sure where I stand on this specific issue as the policy of the company seems to be at odds with the personal beliefs of the new CEO.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01 April 2014, 01:17 AM
E. Q. Taft's Avatar
E. Q. Taft E. Q. Taft is offline
 
Join Date: 30 July 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 13,121
Default

Yeah, I have to admit, I'm not wholly on board with this one. I don't use Firefox as my primary browser; I recently did re-install it because Chrome was giving me issues with videos on one of the websites I frequent (there's a conflict issue between its built in Flash-player and the separately installed one) and IE is just frustratingly slow (I have XP, so I'm still using IE 8; later versions may be somewhat better). Firefox did not improve matters, though, so I am not really using it, but that's not the same as boycotting it.

I certainly don't agree with the CEO's views, but I'll bet I don't agree with many political views of a lot of executives of companies whose products I use. As long as it doesn't affect the way they run the company, I'm reluctant to let that overly influence my choices.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01 April 2014, 08:52 AM
Richard W's Avatar
Richard W Richard W is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 24,835
Default

Ironically, they appear to have implemented the warning in JavaScript. Ha. This does seem a bit stupid.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01 April 2014, 11:41 AM
firefighter_raven's Avatar
firefighter_raven firefighter_raven is offline
 
Join Date: 27 September 2008
Location: Bend, OR
Posts: 2,994
Default

It would be better to use firefox to go online and make donations to groups fighting crap similar to Prop 8.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01 April 2014, 02:24 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 23,774
Default

I'm not on board with a website commenting on the political implications of a browser company either for or against it. It gets to close to net non-neutrality for my taste.

Last edited by GenYus234; 01 April 2014 at 02:25 PM. Reason: Had the issue backwards. Still don't like it.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01 April 2014, 03:13 PM
Richard W's Avatar
Richard W Richard W is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 24,835
Default

And as I (didn't quite) say above, the guy was the original developer, or "inventor", of JavaScript...! It's a bit of an empty gesture for an internet company to try to boycott his work by restricting a browser. Especially since they used JavaScript to do so...
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01 April 2014, 05:31 PM
Jay Temple's Avatar
Jay Temple Jay Temple is offline
 
Join Date: 25 September 2003
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 9,104
Default

How does it even hurt Firefox?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01 April 2014, 05:41 PM
WildaBeast's Avatar
WildaBeast WildaBeast is offline
 
Join Date: 18 July 2002
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 14,227
Default

That's what I was wondering. You can download Firefox for free, but Wikipedia says the Mozilla Foundation is primarily funded by "search royalties" from Google. So maybe if you use the search box in Firefox to do a Google search Mozilla makes money?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01 April 2014, 06:12 PM
Chloe's Avatar
Chloe Chloe is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 39,316
Default

Maybe it doesn't hurt FireFox. Maybe it's just a reminder than OKCupid is gay-friendly and doesn't like anti-gay bigotry.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03 April 2014, 07:42 PM
JoeBentley's Avatar
JoeBentley JoeBentley is offline
 
Join Date: 23 June 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 21,796
Default

Brendan Eich Steps Down as Mozilla CEO

Quote:
Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn’t live up to it. We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves.

We didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act. We didn’t move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry. We must do better.

Brendan Eich has chosen to step down from his role as CEO. He’s made this decision for Mozilla and our community.
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/0...s-mozilla-ceo/
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04 April 2014, 11:54 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,605
Fight In Gay Rights Fights, Bullies Love to Play the Victim

In Andrew Sullivan’s assessment of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich’s resignation, the former exec was “hounded” from his job by gay rights “fanatics.” But this was a business decision — and a revealing one.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...he-victim.html
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05 April 2014, 02:13 AM
Richard W's Avatar
Richard W Richard W is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 24,835
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
That's a good article.

I was almost ready to object to the idea of people being "denied" or "forced out of" jobs because of their ideological beliefs myself - even though I don't agree with this guy's own ideology; I just don't like the idea that it might happen to you if you have "controversial" ideas - or a "controversial" lifestyle. But that's a false equivalence. Eich's ideas aren't "controversial", they're wrong - and now seen as wrong. They harm people. And he wasn't "denied" or "forced out of" the job, it was a business decision. There are surely plenty of businesses that will still employ him, if he needs a job. (I assume somebody being employed at that level has money already).
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05 April 2014, 03:03 AM
Errata's Avatar
Errata Errata is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 12,887
Default

He took on a leadership position as the public face of the company. And he didn't just quietly hold personal views. He spent real money in a successful campaign to legally suppress civil rights, and did so listing his employer's name (which to be fair, is required). This isn't some corporation holding a witch hunt to find some file clerk with non-conforming views. His tangible actions in the name of his beliefs, put his company in a difficult position having him in charge.

I think the actions of OKCupid were an aggressive tactic, and I wouldn't have wanted to take that position in their shoes. But I'm pretty OK with how it turned out. I'm not shedding any tears over the homophobe.

Religious fundamentalists boycott companies all the time. Usually unsuccessfully, but occasionally they get concessions to shut them up because nobody is actively protesting the opposite viewpoint. They sometimes flock to businesses that share their beliefs to encourage them. I'm OK if sometimes the fundamentalists face the reverse and find out it's not always perfectly safe and consequence-free to spew hate.

People have a right to think what they want. But other people have a right to do business with who they want and employ who they want. You can't have it both ways. The government can't infringe your free speech in a situation like this, but private people can respond by exercising their freedoms in ways that may have end up poorly for you.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05 April 2014, 03:33 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,605
Ponder

Quote:
Originally Posted by Errata View Post
He took on a leadership position as the public face of the company. And he didn't just quietly hold personal views. He spent real money in a successful campaign to legally suppress civil rights.
But on the other hand, he didn't actively enact his personal views by imposing them on others in the business world. He didn't, for example, refuse to hire gays, or decline to extend employee benefits to same-sex couples, or the like. He contributed money to a political proposition under which the people of the state got to democratically decide how they wanted to deal with the issue. And he was hardly an outlier in that regard: over 7 million people voted for the proposition, and it passed handily (by a 600,000 vote margin).

As odious as most of us might see that cause, is participation in the democratic political process something we really want to stifle and punish?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05 April 2014, 05:21 PM
Jay Temple's Avatar
Jay Temple Jay Temple is offline
 
Join Date: 25 September 2003
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 9,104
Default

To take snopes' point further, I remember the story (I don't remember whether it was true or a UL) about an employer who said that since Obama's election was going to make layoffs necessary, he was starting with the people who had Obama stickers on their cars. Boycotting the company because you don't like the side on which the CEO participated is, in principle, the same thing.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05 April 2014, 08:11 PM
Errata's Avatar
Errata Errata is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 12,887
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
As odious as most of us might see that cause, is participation in the democratic political process something we really want to stifle and punish?
If the CEO donated to ban interracial marriage, then stifle and punish away. You have a right to try to use the legal system to suppress the rights of others for no good reason. But I have the right not to buy your product. Shareholders have the right to protect their investment from their dumbass CEO's crusade against human rights.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05 April 2014, 09:01 PM
diddy's Avatar
diddy diddy is offline
 
Join Date: 07 March 2004
Location: Plymouth, MN
Posts: 10,850
Default

Indeed. Companies have several obligations, one of them is to protect itself against the actions of their employees to make sure they don’t comprise their financial interests. In this case the CEO’s donations put them into a very nasty situation where their company was put in jeopardy. As people have pointed out before - he has the right to say or express himself how he wishes, but there are consequences to speech.

In this case, he has every right to support Prop 8 financially. However his employer doesn’t have to accept that and the board can coerce him to resign so that they can protect their business from people that may not like that speech either.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05 April 2014, 09:04 PM
UEL's Avatar
UEL UEL is offline
 
Join Date: 01 August 2004
Location: Ottawa/Fredericton, Canada
Posts: 8,398
Baseball

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chloe View Post
Maybe it doesn't hurt FireFox. Maybe it's just a reminder than OKCupid is gay-friendly and doesn't like anti-gay bigotry.
Just a jumping off point...

It was pointed out on coverage up here that this guy had the same point of view that President Obama held in 2008, and the president held until last year.

I've got my concerns about the issue in principle. This could be the top of a very slippery slope.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05 April 2014, 09:16 PM
Errata's Avatar
Errata Errata is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 12,887
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UEL View Post
It was pointed out on coverage up here that this guy had the same point of view that President Obama held in 2008, and the president held until last year.
It's a bit facile to label their positions as "the same". While he didn't yet support gay marriage at that time, he also didn't support Prop 8 at that time.

Prior to that, Obama was already on the record as supporting civil unions with the same legal protections. Which, while not going quite as far as marriage, is not very indicative of the sort of person who would personally donate to pass a constitutional amendment against it. There's a big difference between not yet being sold on marriage vs. civil unions and actively wanting to entrench that distinction in the constitution for all time. The Prop 8 supporters hardcore enough to fund the campaign were probably not huge fans of civil unions either. While it did pass with a slim majority at the time, I think it's fair to say that the majority of voters who swung it were as a group rather more ambivalent on the issue than the die hards actually funding the campaigns pro or con.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05 April 2014, 10:49 PM
Chloe's Avatar
Chloe Chloe is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 39,316
Default

Not only didn't he favor Prop 8, I don't even think he was genuinely against gay marriage. I think he said what he had to say to not have the media go crazy. The tides have changed a lot in the last few years, thank DOYCON.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Facebook Is About to Lose 80% of Its Users, Study Says snopes Techno-Babble 9 24 January 2014 05:04 PM
Firefox Web browser to move ahead plan to block tracking snopes Techno-Babble 0 20 June 2013 08:18 PM
PCP users eat (their own) tongues snopes Horrors 7 18 August 2007 07:33 PM
No draft for LSD users snopes Military 4 29 January 2007 11:29 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.