5 ms·

Marc Andreessen: I regret not doing more to support and defend Brendan Eich

37 points by becausepc 2y ago

ggm 2y ago
Did Eich use his position to advance his advocacy? That's really the only question of merit. If he applied his views to hiring or firing decisions, that's an HR and legal matter all of its own.
- SuperNinKenDo 2y ago
  The entire thing was simply that he had donated to some Christian organisations, some of which spent some of their time advocating against gay marriage. That was it.
  - michaelmrose 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - bjord 2y ago
    incorrect—eich donated to the campaign for california proposition 8, which was "a state constitutional amendment intended to ban same-sex marriage", and actually passed at the time, but was later overturned in court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_8
    - weberer 2y ago
      This was also back in 2008 when even Obama was quoted as defining marriage as "the union between a man and a woman" [1]. So that begs the question: Why did Eich get so much more scrutiny than even Obama? Why did the media seemingly coordinate to do hit pieces on him? And why the CEO of an open-source browser with < 5% market share, and not the massive big-tech incumbents? [1] https://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2008/08/obama-says-marriage-is-between-man-and-woman-011026 https://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2008/08/obama-says-...
      - bjord 2y ago
        my opinions about morality aside, someone pointed out elsewhere that mozilla specifically has an outsized relationship with the LGBTQ+ community, thus making it practically impossible for him to be an effective leader there he himself actually literally said as much: "Our mission is bigger than any one of us, and under the present circumstances, I cannot be an effective leader. I will be taking time before I decide what to do next." [1] it was reported on beforehand [2], but as far as I'm reading, there wasn't a serious outcry until 2014, six years after the donation, after he was appointed as CEO (and subsequently ousted) as for politicians, I think they're by definition mealy-mouthed, and they often just say what they think people want to hear at any given time [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20200711120251/https://abcnews.go.com/Business/mozilla-ceo-resigns-calif-gay-marriage-ban-campaign/story?id=23181711 https://web.archive.org/web/20200711120251/https://abcnews.g... [2] https://www.thepinknews.com/2012/04/04/javascript-inventor-gave-1000-to-support-californias-gay-marriage-ban/ https://www.thepinknews.com/2012/04/04/javascript-inventor-g...
      - foldr 2y ago
        Obama opposed Proposition 8: https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Obama-opposes-proposed-ban-on-gay-marriage-3278328.php https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Obama-opposes-proposed-b...
    - SuperNinKenDo 2y ago
      Pretty sure that fits with what I said. But whatever.
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  There's an infinite number of arguments on how his publicly expressed (these donations were not anonymous) personal views impact his role as the head of an organization. If for instance valuable members of the org quit on it, recruiting becomes noticeably harder, Mozilla's PR is impacted and investors aren't happy about it, I'd assume that's enough to ask him to step down.
  - raxxorraxor 2y ago
    Is that the case? Same applies to people trying to oust others on such grounds. I would never support an organization with that much lack of a spine and in my quite pragmatic views the requirements here are fairly low due to economic realities. I trust the leadership of Mozilla a fair bit less than previously and I believe it at least now has a toxic work environment I also would probably not like to work for. I still do support Mozilla projects, but I am far more careful of that today.
    - makeitdouble 2y ago
      On Mozilla in particular, I think people joining it and supporting it in general have a fairly stronger opinion on what an organization should have as values than for many other large size companies (let's say Microsoft, Oracle or Accenture for instance). Is a good or a bad thing ? Honestly I don't think Mozilla would have grown as much without all the social clout it has. There's no denying it has a tremendous effect on the pool of candidates, and the users choosing to support the company even as other products can be objectively better. As you say it cuts both ways as they now have a kind of moral handcuffs limiting the views and moral/political positions they can have at the leadership and PR level. I personally see it as net positive, but we can agree to disagree.
      - raxxorraxor 2y ago
        Yes, we would have to disagree. Mozilla previously had a reputation of being open and tolerant, even for people with more conservative viewpoints. While the proclamation for inclusion might be louder today, it is far less believable now. Especially if there are any moral "handcuffs" as you say, because that would be an obvious contradiction to their stated values which I would argue people will notice. The rules of PR demand that you are less free with what you communicate and it also demands you to lie. Many opportunities that Mozilla had were lost without any gain. Hard to believe that Eich discriminated against gay people like you suggested. And I feel that isn't even the issue of those that complained here.
SuperNinKenDo 2y ago
Too little, too late I'd say. This pattern is already thoroughly normalised.
- MOARDONGZPLZ 2y ago
  Seems like he actively fought against equal rights and a level playing field. That position should be morally repugnant in a modern society. I’d say doing nothing (I.e. too little) was actually too much.
  - dartharva 2y ago
    > Seems like
  - SuperNinKenDo 2y ago
    You can say whatever you like. When the mob comes for you, you'll cry foul and appeal to freedom of conscience. Nobody will give a damn because that isn't a value anyone cleaves to any longer. Nobody cares that YOU think YOUR principles are a special case.
    - MOARDONGZPLZ 2y ago
      As far as I am aware, I don’t hold values or principles that are abhorrent to foundational ethical guidelines. If I ever do, I don’t expect any sympathy from others as I reevaluate my views in light of new information and grow as a person. This person specifically fought against equal rights. The way most people look at what he did (and the way certainly anyone but the most virulent bigots in the future will) is the same way we today look at the people who threw rocks at MLK during the civil rights movement.
      - SuperNinKenDo 2y ago
        This is just a long way of stating your confidence that your values will always be in lock-step with whatever the most powerful zetigeist in your society is at any one time. Which is its own problem that you should reflect on. Eich hasn't thrown rocks at anyone and it's disengenuous to frame it otherwise, especually considering you could have made a perfectly good argument without that. Edit: The question isn't whether you think he did something wrong, it's whether you think that people who have contributed massively to causes or organisations should be driven out for reasons that have nothing to do with those causes or organisations.
logicchains 2y ago
It worked out for the best; we probably wouldn't have Brave otherwise.
tibbydudeza 2y ago
The problem was that he was CEO of Mozilla - pretty sure they have had am outsized sample of LGBTQ people in their employ and other tech organizations which they interacted with. How could he lead an organization when his personal biases was made clear by these donations which was to deny them what most people consider to be a basic human right - the right to life and happiness.
- Slava_Propanei 2y ago
  [dead]
michaelmrose 2y ago
Would it be defensible if he hated blacks and Jewish people and fought against legalizing interracial marriage?
- hagbard_c 2y ago
  [flagged]
- Slava_Propanei 2y ago
  [dead]
scandinavian 2y ago
He's also an avid anti-vaxer and covid conspiracist. Does it matter? Not sure. I will personally not touch anything he is helming (brave).
- andxor_ 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - scandinavian 2y ago
    He's not helming javascript in any way or form or even contributing to the standard to my knowledge. > Stop branding not willing to take a drug that did not go through standard vaccine approval process as anti-vaxx. That's not why he's anti-vax, I never said that.
    - becausepc 2y ago
      > He's not helming javascript in any way or form or even contributing to the standard to my knowledge. Brendan may not be helming JavaScript anymore. But he was very active during critical standardization period. For example: 2009: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUtsgUrF-ec https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUtsgUrF-ec 2011: https://brendaneich.com/2011/08/my-txjs-talk-twitter-remix/ https://brendaneich.com/2011/08/my-txjs-talk-twitter-remix/ 2012: https://brendaneich.com/2012/10/harmony-of-dreams-come-true/ https://brendaneich.com/2012/10/harmony-of-dreams-come-true/ Also note that Asm.js (2013 precursor to WebAssembly) was developed during his term at Mozilla.
- BrendanEich 2y ago
  Unlike you and your smears, I make my positions clear and cite my sources for them. If you mean by "anti-vaxer (sic)" my opposition to the Covid shots and mandates, then so be it. Many, including me, who have had older vaccines, especially from before the 1986 US liability shield and subsequent problems, are "anti-vax". Even though we still vaccinate our children. "Covid conspiracist" must mean I cited lab leak possibility and reasons for considering it. Now that federal agencies agree, you should reconsider this lame smear attempt. Your use of (misspelled) "spell words" (Roger Scruton's phrase) to curse me marks you as superstitious and thoughtless. Do better!
weberer 2y ago
Its easy to say that now that the pendulum is swinging back the other way. But where were the voices of reason for the past 10 years when free expression was under attack?
- 0xDEADFED5 2y ago
  Eich is free to express his opinions and free to suffer the consequences. CEO is a very political position and he made a politically bone-headed move. I don't see how it could have ended any differently.
  - weberer 2y ago
    It was obviously a targeted, coordinated attack. People were looking decades back into his donation history to try to find anything that tied him to "the right wing". A thousand dollars a decade before to a anti-gay-marriage proposition in California that most Californians agreed with him on at the time. A few thousand dollars two decades back to Ron Paul. Why do you claim he should "suffer" for that? Should half the country "suffer" as well just for voting Republican? Meanwhile, around the same time, Bill Gates was meeting with Epstein, and that received less than 1/10th of the media coverage. He was sending emails about "staying late into the night" at Epstein's house with a woman and her underaged daughter. But that's ok, because he's on "our side".
    - hilux 2y ago
      I don't think Bill Gates' behavior is okay - and that was true long before the Epstein revelations. Where have anti-homophobes said that "Bill Gates' behavior is okay because he's 'on our side'"? Do you have a single example?
      - weberer 2y ago
        My example was the media coverage of these two events. Look at how the Guardian covers Eich in the article linked in a comment above. Pay attention at how they go out of their way to throw out labels like "right wing". Now try to find a single article from the Guardian that so strongly rebukes Gates. If his behavior is not OK, then why don't they address it?
mrkeen 2y ago
"for taking private civic action based upon his quiet Christian faith" One can only dream of a world in which all civic actions are secular, and religious matters are private and quiet.
- rsynnott 2y ago
  Ah, yes, quietly and faithfully paying for a campaign to keep people like me second-class citizens. Ah, well, that's fine, then, as long as it's nice and polite and Christian. (Back when equal marriage was a live political issue here, I must say I think I _preferred_ the out-and-proud homophobes to the ones who hid behind religious claims. At least they were honest in their hatred.)
  - pixxel 2y ago
    [flagged]
- EA-3167 2y ago
  France is living this dream already and has been for over a century. It takes legal protections for secularism and the enforcement of those laws, it's simple, but it isn't easy.
vcg3rd 2y ago
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2024/04/the-anti-fragile-brendan-eich https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2024/04/the-anti-...

37 points by becausepc 2y ago

ggm 2y ago

Did Eich use his position to advance his advocacy? That's really the only question of merit. If he applied his views to hiring or firing decisions, that's an HR and legal matter all of its own.

SuperNinKenDo 2y ago
The entire thing was simply that he had donated to some Christian organisations, some of which spent some of their time advocating against gay marriage. That was it.
- michaelmrose 2y ago
  [flagged]
- bjord 2y ago
  incorrect—eich donated to the campaign for california proposition 8, which was "a state constitutional amendment intended to ban same-sex marriage", and actually passed at the time, but was later overturned in court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_8
  - weberer 2y ago
    This was also back in 2008 when even Obama was quoted as defining marriage as "the union between a man and a woman" [1]. So that begs the question: Why did Eich get so much more scrutiny than even Obama? Why did the media seemingly coordinate to do hit pieces on him? And why the CEO of an open-source browser with < 5% market share, and not the massive big-tech incumbents? [1] https://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2008/08/obama-says-marriage-is-between-man-and-woman-011026 https://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2008/08/obama-says-...
    - bjord 2y ago
      my opinions about morality aside, someone pointed out elsewhere that mozilla specifically has an outsized relationship with the LGBTQ+ community, thus making it practically impossible for him to be an effective leader there he himself actually literally said as much: "Our mission is bigger than any one of us, and under the present circumstances, I cannot be an effective leader. I will be taking time before I decide what to do next." [1] it was reported on beforehand [2], but as far as I'm reading, there wasn't a serious outcry until 2014, six years after the donation, after he was appointed as CEO (and subsequently ousted) as for politicians, I think they're by definition mealy-mouthed, and they often just say what they think people want to hear at any given time [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20200711120251/https://abcnews.go.com/Business/mozilla-ceo-resigns-calif-gay-marriage-ban-campaign/story?id=23181711 https://web.archive.org/web/20200711120251/https://abcnews.g... [2] https://www.thepinknews.com/2012/04/04/javascript-inventor-gave-1000-to-support-californias-gay-marriage-ban/ https://www.thepinknews.com/2012/04/04/javascript-inventor-g...
    - foldr 2y ago
      Obama opposed Proposition 8: https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Obama-opposes-proposed-ban-on-gay-marriage-3278328.php https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Obama-opposes-proposed-b...
  - SuperNinKenDo 2y ago
    Pretty sure that fits with what I said. But whatever.
makeitdouble 2y ago
There's an infinite number of arguments on how his publicly expressed (these donations were not anonymous) personal views impact his role as the head of an organization. If for instance valuable members of the org quit on it, recruiting becomes noticeably harder, Mozilla's PR is impacted and investors aren't happy about it, I'd assume that's enough to ask him to step down.
- raxxorraxor 2y ago
  Is that the case? Same applies to people trying to oust others on such grounds. I would never support an organization with that much lack of a spine and in my quite pragmatic views the requirements here are fairly low due to economic realities. I trust the leadership of Mozilla a fair bit less than previously and I believe it at least now has a toxic work environment I also would probably not like to work for. I still do support Mozilla projects, but I am far more careful of that today.
  - makeitdouble 2y ago
    On Mozilla in particular, I think people joining it and supporting it in general have a fairly stronger opinion on what an organization should have as values than for many other large size companies (let's say Microsoft, Oracle or Accenture for instance). Is a good or a bad thing ? Honestly I don't think Mozilla would have grown as much without all the social clout it has. There's no denying it has a tremendous effect on the pool of candidates, and the users choosing to support the company even as other products can be objectively better. As you say it cuts both ways as they now have a kind of moral handcuffs limiting the views and moral/political positions they can have at the leadership and PR level. I personally see it as net positive, but we can agree to disagree.
    - raxxorraxor 2y ago
      Yes, we would have to disagree. Mozilla previously had a reputation of being open and tolerant, even for people with more conservative viewpoints. While the proclamation for inclusion might be louder today, it is far less believable now. Especially if there are any moral "handcuffs" as you say, because that would be an obvious contradiction to their stated values which I would argue people will notice. The rules of PR demand that you are less free with what you communicate and it also demands you to lie. Many opportunities that Mozilla had were lost without any gain. Hard to believe that Eich discriminated against gay people like you suggested. And I feel that isn't even the issue of those that complained here.

SuperNinKenDo 2y ago

Too little, too late I'd say. This pattern is already thoroughly normalised.

MOARDONGZPLZ 2y ago
Seems like he actively fought against equal rights and a level playing field. That position should be morally repugnant in a modern society. I’d say doing nothing (I.e. too little) was actually too much.
- dartharva 2y ago
  > Seems like
- SuperNinKenDo 2y ago
  You can say whatever you like. When the mob comes for you, you'll cry foul and appeal to freedom of conscience. Nobody will give a damn because that isn't a value anyone cleaves to any longer. Nobody cares that YOU think YOUR principles are a special case.
  - MOARDONGZPLZ 2y ago
    As far as I am aware, I don’t hold values or principles that are abhorrent to foundational ethical guidelines. If I ever do, I don’t expect any sympathy from others as I reevaluate my views in light of new information and grow as a person. This person specifically fought against equal rights. The way most people look at what he did (and the way certainly anyone but the most virulent bigots in the future will) is the same way we today look at the people who threw rocks at MLK during the civil rights movement.
    - SuperNinKenDo 2y ago
      This is just a long way of stating your confidence that your values will always be in lock-step with whatever the most powerful zetigeist in your society is at any one time. Which is its own problem that you should reflect on. Eich hasn't thrown rocks at anyone and it's disengenuous to frame it otherwise, especually considering you could have made a perfectly good argument without that. Edit: The question isn't whether you think he did something wrong, it's whether you think that people who have contributed massively to causes or organisations should be driven out for reasons that have nothing to do with those causes or organisations.

logicchains 2y ago

It worked out for the best; we probably wouldn't have Brave otherwise.

tibbydudeza 2y ago

The problem was that he was CEO of Mozilla - pretty sure they have had am outsized sample of LGBTQ people in their employ and other tech organizations which they interacted with. How could he lead an organization when his personal biases was made clear by these donations which was to deny them what most people consider to be a basic human right - the right to life and happiness.

Slava_Propanei 2y ago
[dead]

michaelmrose 2y ago

Would it be defensible if he hated blacks and Jewish people and fought against legalizing interracial marriage?

hagbard_c 2y ago
[flagged]
Slava_Propanei 2y ago
[dead]

scandinavian 2y ago

He's also an avid anti-vaxer and covid conspiracist. Does it matter? Not sure. I will personally not touch anything he is helming (brave).

andxor_ 2y ago
[flagged]
- scandinavian 2y ago
  He's not helming javascript in any way or form or even contributing to the standard to my knowledge. > Stop branding not willing to take a drug that did not go through standard vaccine approval process as anti-vaxx. That's not why he's anti-vax, I never said that.
  - becausepc 2y ago
    > He's not helming javascript in any way or form or even contributing to the standard to my knowledge. Brendan may not be helming JavaScript anymore. But he was very active during critical standardization period. For example: 2009: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUtsgUrF-ec https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUtsgUrF-ec 2011: https://brendaneich.com/2011/08/my-txjs-talk-twitter-remix/ https://brendaneich.com/2011/08/my-txjs-talk-twitter-remix/ 2012: https://brendaneich.com/2012/10/harmony-of-dreams-come-true/ https://brendaneich.com/2012/10/harmony-of-dreams-come-true/ Also note that Asm.js (2013 precursor to WebAssembly) was developed during his term at Mozilla.
BrendanEich 2y ago
Unlike you and your smears, I make my positions clear and cite my sources for them. If you mean by "anti-vaxer (sic)" my opposition to the Covid shots and mandates, then so be it. Many, including me, who have had older vaccines, especially from before the 1986 US liability shield and subsequent problems, are "anti-vax". Even though we still vaccinate our children. "Covid conspiracist" must mean I cited lab leak possibility and reasons for considering it. Now that federal agencies agree, you should reconsider this lame smear attempt. Your use of (misspelled) "spell words" (Roger Scruton's phrase) to curse me marks you as superstitious and thoughtless. Do better!

weberer 2y ago

Its easy to say that now that the pendulum is swinging back the other way. But where were the voices of reason for the past 10 years when free expression was under attack?

0xDEADFED5 2y ago
Eich is free to express his opinions and free to suffer the consequences. CEO is a very political position and he made a politically bone-headed move. I don't see how it could have ended any differently.
- weberer 2y ago
  It was obviously a targeted, coordinated attack. People were looking decades back into his donation history to try to find anything that tied him to "the right wing". A thousand dollars a decade before to a anti-gay-marriage proposition in California that most Californians agreed with him on at the time. A few thousand dollars two decades back to Ron Paul. Why do you claim he should "suffer" for that? Should half the country "suffer" as well just for voting Republican? Meanwhile, around the same time, Bill Gates was meeting with Epstein, and that received less than 1/10th of the media coverage. He was sending emails about "staying late into the night" at Epstein's house with a woman and her underaged daughter. But that's ok, because he's on "our side".
  - hilux 2y ago
    I don't think Bill Gates' behavior is okay - and that was true long before the Epstein revelations. Where have anti-homophobes said that "Bill Gates' behavior is okay because he's 'on our side'"? Do you have a single example?
    - weberer 2y ago
      My example was the media coverage of these two events. Look at how the Guardian covers Eich in the article linked in a comment above. Pay attention at how they go out of their way to throw out labels like "right wing". Now try to find a single article from the Guardian that so strongly rebukes Gates. If his behavior is not OK, then why don't they address it?

mrkeen 2y ago

"for taking private civic action based upon his quiet Christian faith" One can only dream of a world in which all civic actions are secular, and religious matters are private and quiet.

rsynnott 2y ago
Ah, yes, quietly and faithfully paying for a campaign to keep people like me second-class citizens. Ah, well, that's fine, then, as long as it's nice and polite and Christian. (Back when equal marriage was a live political issue here, I must say I think I _preferred_ the out-and-proud homophobes to the ones who hid behind religious claims. At least they were honest in their hatred.)
- pixxel 2y ago
  [flagged]
EA-3167 2y ago
France is living this dream already and has been for over a century. It takes legal protections for secularism and the enforcement of those laws, it's simple, but it isn't easy.

vcg3rd 2y ago

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2024/04/the-anti-fragile-brendan-eich https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2024/04/the-anti-...