LGBT News Firefox CEO supported ban gay marriage

Damn it I"ve been using that to keep my google chrome updated :tantrum:

 

<---- Not someone who uses Firefox.

Nor will I. This is just another reason not to.

 

I use Internet Explorer. I don't personally care for Firefox, but back in elementary school I always had to use it. >< This is just another reason for me to dislike it...

 

Well, I'm never using Firefox again, but that's OK.
I prefer Opera, anyway.

 

Wow, that's sad to hear. I tried it, but it seemed to be really slow.

I always called it 'Slowzilla' Firefox.

 

I think this is funny because I am using firefox right this moment. I tried google chrome and it keeps on freezing on me and won't load videos right and web pages take forever despite clearing my history and searches and browsing cookies and data. Firefox is the only one that works for me. Damn now I gotta go use Opera and anyone who has used Opera before knows how bad it sucks and it has way less features and stuff.

 

Meh, I will still use Firefox for everything. Just like how I will eat chick fil a for lunch...

 

I'm a GNU Icecat user.

 

Chrome and soon to be IceCat user

Firefox is slow and buggy as hell

 

I'm still holding out hope that the boycotts from within Mozilla will lead to this clown stepping down. Really stupid for the board of Mozilla to have put such an idiot in control in the first place.

I use Firefox and Chrome. Rarely do I use Internet Explorer. But it's not like I'm a paying customer of Mozilla any way, I downloaded Firefox for free, and if I stop using Firefox it's unlikely to have any impact on who the CEO of Mozilla is.

 

Ugh. Reading the comments to the article over there, it seems that people are missing the point. They look at the actions of those boycotting Mozilla / Firefox as somehow being an attack on the guys freedom of speech. Basically, 'It's unfair to have the guy fired for what he believes, so long as it doesn't impact his work performance!'

They appear to view this as political, and it is to a limited extent. However, viewing it strictly through such a lens misses the point entirely.

This is about values. The values that Mozilla stands for as a company. It's one thing to hire a faceless employee to do some back end work who may hold some unsavory views, it's another thing entirely to make that person the public face of your company.

Many people would be shocked and outraged if Mozilla had made their public face someone that openly supported the reinstitutionalization of racial segregation; someone who believed in white supremacy. Equally, people would be shocked and outraged if they had hired and made their public face someone who believed that there should be laws restricting women to "traditional roles"; someone who believed in male supremacy.

Very few people who defend Mozilla's actions would fail to understand the implication of what they've done - the message they're sending. However, there is fundamentally no difference in either of those two things than what Mozilla has done. They've decided to make their public face someone who has openly campaigned for and donated to causes that support the legal segregation of people based upon sexual orientation; he's a man who believes in straight supremacy. He's a man who believes that people in same sex relationships should be denied the same rights, privileges, and benefits that straight people enjoy.

Does this mean that he can't act professionally? No. Does this mean he's bad at his job? No. These things aren't mutually exclusive. However, the issue isn't about him. It's about Mozilla and their decision to make him their public face by naming him CEO.

This is less a question about politics, and more a question of values. What values does Mozilla really represent? It's a very difficult argument for Mozilla to make that - all things being equal - they would make him their public face if he held similar discriminatory views about people of color or women. ...because they wouldn't. The implications would be immediate, clear, and obvious to everyone.

Why isn't it obvious when it comes to sexual orientation? Because it's still acceptable, socially and culturally speaking, to discriminate against us. It is not socially and culturally acceptable to discriminate against people of color or women. That's the only difference.

This is why the boycott and the response is appropriate. It's sending the message that this is not okay and it isn't acceptable. This man is entitled to believe whatever he wants, and is free to express himself however he sees fit. However, he's not entitled to be CEO and speak for others - unless those other people are willing to stand behind him as their leader. That's really the question for Mozilla: Are you really going to stand behind someone who believes in discriminating against people due to their sexual orientation?

If the answer to that question is "yes", then can Mozilla really believe in equality as a company?

The implications also go further than Mozilla, whether or not they cave to public pressure, if enough bad press or brand damage is done to them as a result of this - it sends a message to other companies. They will ideally think twice before making someone who is anti-LGBT equality their CEO.

 

I use firefox, mostly because it is what works best on my laptop. I think that by working on here, that's a big enough protest to his views. I'm using his browser to work on a website that works to help the people he wants to take rights from.

 

^ I was going to say, I'm not sure what would hurt them more: Boycotting them or sending them my browser history (most of which is LGBT-related)

 

Im a google chrome and rarely internet explorer person ^.^

I dont like him i decided :3

 

Another reason for me to hate FireFox

 

I use Firefox for EC haha!

 

More reasons to use Google Chrome

<---- Chrome user. Firefox never worked for me anyways.

 

The only reason I use Firefox is when I'm at work and I need to help people with technological issues. I use Chrome for everything.

 

Investopedia's definition of CEO is "The highest ranking executive in a company whose main responsibilities include developing and implementing high-level strategies, making major corporate decisions, managing the overall operations and resources of a company, and acting as the main point of communication between the board of directors and the corporate operations. The CEO will often have a position on the board, and in some cases is even the chair." If you were on the Mozilla eboard, wouldn't you want your CEO to be a computer genius, say, the inventor of Javascript? Because Brendan Eich did just that.

People's personal beliefs shouldn't interfere with running a company, or by developing that company's products. If you don't like the CEO, that doesn't mean that the company supports his beliefs, or that its employees have to suffer because of one man. I'm sure that there's been CEOs that have hired callgirls, but that doesn't mean that everyone champions their decisions, or that one person should be an accurate representation of everyone's beliefs.