The hypocrisy of okcupid was evident even before this little bit of info (Yagan's past political contribution) was shared. As I and others pointed out, okcupid went on using javascript!
As for okcupid occupying the moral high ground, I still remember when, right after their purchase by match.com, they removed one of the most interesting posts on their blog. It was about why you should never pay for dating web sites and why paid dating website were not worth it. As with all of their blog posts it was backed up with data and evidence.
After the purchase and change of monetization model, poof! it was gone. Why? because it was rightly critical of match.com !!
You seem to have a contradiction within your three sentences.
Eich was CEO of a company called the Mozilla Corporation. Mozilla Corporation employs people to work on free projects. one of these projects, Firefox, is governed by The Mozilla Foundation, a completely different entity that Brendan Eich is not a member of. Javascript is handled by ECMA, which is a completely different entity that Brendan Eich is not a member of. Brendan Eich was instrumental in the creation of both, but he has no brand or direct authority over either Firefox or Javascript.
So while your first two sentences were technically correct, the further understanding makes the third sentence a contradiction. Why is it perfectly fine to boycott a brand Eich has no authority over, but not ban another one for exactly the same reasons?
You have the mozilla governance structure a little wrong. Mozilla owns the Firefox brand and license it to the Mozilla Corporation which in turn are responsible for development and deployment of Firefox.
So while the corporation do have to answer to the foundation, they are not just a bunch of developers hired to "work on Firefox", they are very much responsible for everything Firefox, both day to day development and marketing, but also most long term stuff you can think of is the responsibility of the corporation.
Thank you, this was fairly enlightening. So the Mozilla Foundation keeps all liability at arms-length, and could revoke the corporation's formal license to work on the product, should they prove to mismanage it.
Why don't more open-source projects copy this business model?
To be fair, he could simply decide to step down voluntarily.
I doubt he will and I don't like searching people's donations like this, but he could do that to preserve his personal integrity to some degree.
EDIT: Curious about the reason for downvoting? I do say that I oppose this sort of thing, but that's no matter who is on the other end of it. If he believes that anyone who made donations like that should step down from a C-level position regardless of whom, he has here an opportunity to prove that here.
Yeah, the "boycott" always struck me as misguided. Being annoyed at one particular person in a company doesn't preclude you using their stuff, moreso if that use doesn't imply any kind of support.
Lars Ulrich might be the biggest asshole in music, but that doesn't mean he doesn't make great music.
Forgive the nitpick, but I'm not sure Lars makes great Music. Cliff wrote all the early material. All the stuff now is written by Kirk/James, and then the producer has the final say. I'm not sure I can think of a song he's written that I enjoy. Can you?
However, you may be right that Lars is the biggest asshole in music. how many people (other than Prince) sue their fans? how many people flaunt their massive art collections while suing their fans?
Lars may be an asshole, but it is unfair to say that he made less of a contribution to the writing that Cliff did. Lars has writing credits on 8 tracks of Kill'Em All [0], 8 tracks of Ride the Lightning [1], 8 tracks of Master of Puppets [2], and 9 tracks of ...And Justice for All [3], whereas Cliff only has 1, 6, 3, and 1 tracks on said albums respectively. Furthermore, James wrote nearly all of the lyrics himself, so I really don't see how Cliff can be considered the driving force behind the writing of Metallica's early music.
On the other hand, wasn't Lars the driving force between the terrible mastering of their more recent albums? I remember reading something where he said basically that because he didn't personally hear any clipping and it sounded good in his car that it was good.
From what I understand, Rick Rubin wanted it mastered that way so it sounded "louder" (yet another casualty of the loudness wars) and the band just went with it. Unfortunately, the average consumer (or band member apparently) couldn't care less about audio quality, so it is no surprise that Lars has no qualms about it.
Heh, fair enough, that was just immediately the first thing I could think of about a horrid person that does something I like. I happen to be a fan of some of their tunes.
While it would be foolish to categorize companies as adhering to a messianic mission or being pragmatic and responsible to shareholders, since no company is entirely one or the other, it does affect the credibility as to how ideological such a stand actually was, or whether it was a strategic decision with projected benefits.
There are many types of relationship sites. There are those that focus on marriage or on casual sex, and ones that take your religious background into strong consideration. And, that's even before you get into the ones that focus on specific religions, ethnicities, or other demographics.
It's not immoral to have a business strategy, and an ideological stance doesn't have to hurt to meaningful, but given what it sounds like from the reporting, it's doubtful whether they have the moral authority to insist on the CEO of another company being fired for having been on the wrong side of an issue that has already lost. I seems like it was a business strategy that has no effect on the issue of gay marriage, and a decision that was made without concern about Mozilla or the guy who was fired because it isn't relevant to their business.
As for okcupid occupying the moral high ground, I still remember when, right after their purchase by match.com, they removed one of the most interesting posts on their blog. It was about why you should never pay for dating web sites and why paid dating website were not worth it. As with all of their blog posts it was backed up with data and evidence.
After the purchase and change of monetization model, poof! it was gone. Why? because it was rightly critical of match.com !!
Here it is: http://www.columbia.edu/~jhb2147/why-you-should-never-pay-fo...