BLOG: The Mozilla vs. Gay Rights vs. Mr. Eich debacle

[Moonchild]

Since people apparently take offense with adding my personal note to the FAQ entry, I'm making this a blog entry instead. Excuse the buzz and extra posts this causes, but I've had to make this a separate entry.

I do not agree with Mozilla's management decisions, recent design decisions or the rather upsetting CEO resignation and controversy around it.

This is my personal approach to this whole badly-handled debacle. This is my opinion, and you may take it any way you wish.

Do I agree with the ex-CEO's views and "Proposition 8"?
Absolutely not. I think people should be free to choose whom they want to make a life bond with, regardless of background, race, sexual preference or whichever discriminating factor you want to use. As such, I understand the resistance against it and dissociation people might feel to a company with someone in a leading position actively opposing and attempting to remove existing gay rights, but I think that a CEO's personal beliefs do not make him any less or more fit to perform the job, with the very rare exception where it would be in direct conflict with the tasks he has to perform. This is clearly not the case, here.

Every Firefox user could, individually, make up their own mind if they wanted to continue using the browser, or if they felt that the newly-appointed CEO would be considered an affront and stop using the browser out of principle. Individual, personal decisions of users to stay with the browser or move to some other one.

Do I agree with the Mozilla Corporation's response?
Absolutely not. I think the way Mozilla handled this by making him immediately resign was a display of severe lack of tolerance for different world views. Mozilla should have refused to take any action as a result of the pressure applied by activists and taken "no stand" whatsoever. Unfortunately, they didn't, and even went as far as profusely apologizing for a "mistake", as if Mr. Eich's personal beliefs would be in any way making him unfit to perform his job.

So what do I do about this then?
Nothing at all. I don't take sides here; in fact, I consciously agree with neither "side" in this argument. I neither agree with oppression of people's rights, nor agree with oppression of freedom of one's personal views. I believe in freedom, respect, tolerance and choice. I will always attempt to make Pale Moon and the driving forces behind it reflect that, and will not judge anyone on their personal beliefs, so long as they respect my own.

This blog post/statement here is in place to let people know that if they wish to abandon Mozilla products as a result of either disagreement mentioned, they can feel confident in using Pale Moon as an alternative.

[Night Wing]

You and me think alike.

[Bobberta]

I couldn't agree more! I'm personally very pro SSM. However, here I am after being a loyal FF user for about a decade.

I'm using your browser now and am very happy with it. I've posted info on it online in a few places since many, many people like me are leaving Mozilla.

I think this is going to be the beginning of a beautiful relationship. Hopefully, you're using this debacle to increase your market share.

[x06492]

I've used FF since it was called Netscape. Thank you for providing an alternative.
When those desiring "rights" become oppressors they alienate those who were their allies in the fight.

[SirJames]

After using Firefox for many years, I moved to Pale Moon because of Mozilla's bigotry. I prefer to deal with people who follow the American principles embodied by our Founding Fathers, which include personal liberty. I would never fire someone for their political beliefs or activities, or their religious beliefs or lack thereof. Thank you for your neutrality on this contentious issue.

[tribaljet]

Well put.

One could go on about bigotry and all the perversion of society's progress as a whole, but that would veer way too much into off-topic

[New Tobin Paradigm]

It's kinda sad that needed stated at all Moonchild. I.. just don't know what else to add beyond that. Guess it does clear up the ambiguity but it's sad it NEEDED clearing up.

I however do agree with you, of course.

[KNTRO]

[The next is my opinion.]

This has been a very weird, nuts situation. They all said they were as much tolerant as they could, but their actions shown different things.

This was stupid, but the boycott was more stupid yet. It's like Hey, I like your product, but since you said you don't like Romanian folk music, I'll stop using your product and will tell all of my friends to don't do so no more. Boycott to Mozilla is stupid, as they are a non profit organization. So, if someone boycotts them, they won't loss any incoming, they won't note anything strange at all, except for the freakin' out stuff. So, how some people reacted to this Mozilla intolerance thing? With more intolerance. Problem, Gandhi?

This has been so idiot, the ones and the others. It's like Hey, Mozilla, you really s****** it up hard. You gotta learn from me, since I'm just perfect, I've never s****** a thing — I make no mistakes, you do. So what next? Leaving Mozilla products and using Google's, Apple's or Microsoft's? Are these Mozilla haters sure they won't need to boycott these enterprises anytime? These enterprises sided with the NSA, remember that? Don't these users think that's an enough reason for delivering some heavy boycotts?

Besides, software libre has nothing to do with sexual liberties. Software libre doesn't ask your sexual orientation, so it's no sense to link one thing with the other. Just do whatever you want with your sex; do whatever you want with your software libre. Be free and respect other's freedom.

I have found no innocent people here — Neither the accused ones nor the accusers. Everybody —Mozilla & Mozilla haters— is shouting they're right and that anybody else is wrong. I think they all should just shut up, sit down and chill out.

Just my thoughts.

[Daikun]

Boycott to Mozilla is stupid, as they are a non profit organization. So, if someone boycotts them, they won't loss any incoming

Actually, they do. Google contractually supplies a large chunk of Mozilla's income. If you don't use Google's products or use Mozilla's products, that's less money for Mozilla.

[Moonchild]

If they get boycotted, it will certainly be felt.

Off-topic:
The Mozilla Foundation is non-profit, but the Mozilla Corporation is not. In fact, the Corporation was formed for the sole purpose of capitalizing on Firefox's popularity (an investor-less wholly-owned for-profit subsidiary). The Mozilla Corporation most certainly turns over a profit because there is surplus revenue that is not reinvested into the browser, and for example the annual report 2011 shows over 165 million USD in net assets (unrestricted) at the end of the year, and almost $40 million in cash/liquid assets. I don't care how boldly the Mozilla pair states "proudly non-profit" because in my opinion, they are most certainly not. They may have the luxury of not having to squeeze pennies for investors, and as a result the luxury of being able to have a relaxed attitude towards increasing profits, but that doesn't mean they aren't making a profit out of the Google contract and others they have, that isn't reinvested in the actual products. Another reason why I think it stings even more that they plan to have ads on the "newtab" page.

[LaurentZG]

"...Boycott to Mozilla is stupid, ...."

Actually, boycotting Mozilla for taking part in the hypocrisy going around these days by going against their CEO's right to his personal view would be a valid reason.

As Moonchild perfectly pointed out, they should have taken "no stand" whatsoever.

[Heartfelt]

In my view, MC succinctly puts this into the correct context and draws a logical opinion on the matter. The man's personal views should not have been taken into account by his workplace and they are none of the public's business. I can't see how his views would have negatively affected his ability to manage the organization.

On the other hand, responses like the one we have seen from Mozilla DO have the negative effect of chilling free speech for the general population.

[wareweary]

What I think you said made me even more glad I switched to Pale Moon. Though I am a staunch advocate for human rights, I don't at all agree with how Mozilla handled the CEO matter. Those who think those are conflicting opinions are either under thinking it or are too involved to be rational. It certainly seems to me you are saying you also strongly disagree with Mozilla's response, which of course is different from having no opinion. Perhaps I am misinterpreting something, but I do believe I get the gist of your point. Interestingly, my decision to dump Firefox had nothing to do with these controversies. I doubt it is too hard to figure out which other controversial move Mozilla has made that motivated me to dump them, though that's another topic, isn't it? Also off-topic, I can't help but mention that as if by fate, you have been thrust into a tremendous position to gain from Mozilla's ongoing train wreck of blunders. And to that, I say, good for you!

[Moonchild]

It certainly seems to me you are saying you also strongly disagree with Mozilla's response, which of course is different from having no opinion. Perhaps I am misinterpreting something, but I do believe I get the gist of your point.

Oh, I'm very clear - I do have an opinion: I strongly disagree with Mozilla's response. I never said I had no opinion on the matter

What I'm trying to make absolutely clear is that disagreeing with one point doesn't automatically mean I agree with the other. I disagree with both points there, as I stated already.

[megaman]

Tables have turned. Gay people are coming out of hiding, while the ones that oppose Gay rights should go into hiding, or be shunned. That's how I see it.

This CEO can have decisions of his own, not everyone is "Pro" everything.

Also, this: Support for either side won't change the Mozilla product and it's functionality.

My opinion.

[wareweary]

I don't take sides here; in fact, I consciously agree with neither "side" in this argument

Here your words have strong implications that you have no opinion, even though they don't outright state it. There are indeed clearly stated opinions earlier in your post. Most importantly, I understand your point and agree with you wholeheartedly. We can leave debates of semantics to the linguists.