"politics" is one way to describe him donating a large sum of money to a bigoted anti-gay cause and losing the trust of his employees.

Yeah, but ... It was a political effort.

It was a movement that used the existing mechanism to promote a law they wanted, not a mob trying to get their way by shouting down others.

You may not like how the process works, but it works the same for everyone. Trying to smear the ones you don't agree with as not legitimate doesn't work, because it's the process that you're smearing.

I don't think this comment is internally consistent. I don't see any difference between "using the existing mechanism to promote a law" and "shouting down others to promote a law."

It sounds like your biggest priority in determining ethicality is legality: did anything illegal happen in the "cancellation" of the Brave founder? (I know nothing about this event, I'm just commenting within the context of this short conversation).

If not, how then are you determining one method being better than another?

> I don't think this comment is internally consistent. I don't see any difference between "using the existing mechanism to promote a law" and "shouting down others to promote a law."

If there is a legal and approved method for getting a law, why is forming a mob the same as using the official method?

Forming a mob is also called protesting, and many of the laws that define our society were written after popular protests.

I'm actually not even sure anymore what you mean by "legal and approved method for getting a law." Maybe you're talking about how some places like California have a process for petition > law proposition > law being put directly on the ballot? Not all states have that and as far as I know the usa congress has nothing like that. In fact when it comes to federal law the only way I'm aware of for citizens to get a law they want in the end always comes down to some kind of mob formation.

Anyway the meaning of the word "official" matters as well. The USA's founding documents state an intent that the authority of the government derives from the people. There's thus no difference between a government's rubber stamped "official process," and a crowd of people in city hall shouting.

Bigotry is not a legitimate political position, no.

In a democracy, that question is literally up for debate.

If you can vote on it, itsta legitimate political position

A cause on which the majority of Californian voters agreed with him at the time.

Yes. Politics. Stuff that's irrelevant to the development of Firefox. Which is the only thing Mozilla should be focusing on given how far behind they are.

Perhaps people don’t like to support people actively working against their rights.

By using Firefox you support Mozilla, so you support the CEO financing political campaigns you don’t agree with. The CEO is a special role that represents Mozilla.

It’s simple, the guy had to go.

Do I have to keep tabs on the CEO of every company I interact with? Come on, that’s ridiculous.

The company you work for perhaps. If you work for a company. Then it’s up to you. Most people don’t care but some do. You aren’t requested to check every CEO, no one said that.

You don't have to do anything lol. If you claimed to be progressive you might be called out for being hypocritical, but it's up to you whether that matters.

I do think choosing to live in a society does come with SOME social responsibilities though, don't you? Most we probably don't think about all that much, like not farting in public or whatever. Not scratching our crotches in public. Not cutting in lines. Stuff with no legal boundaries but are just general social responsibilities.

> By using Firefox you support Mozilla, so you support the CEO financing political campaigns you don’t agree with.

I use Firefox because it's a functional browser with the best uBlock Origin support. Whatever political campaigns the guy in charge contributes to is not a factor, it's not even something I think about at all. I shouldn't even have to know who's in charge, if that information ever comes up it's probably a sign something's wrong.

> It’s simple, the guy had to go.

Mozilla is clearly worse off for it. Looks like the guy went and made another browser and now it's eating at Firefox's market share. Kind of ironic.

I understand that you don't care and it's fine. Some people do care.

I do care -- about the impact this guy leaving had on Firefox. Given the state of Brave today, one's gotta wonder what Firefox would've been like today had he not left.

He was attacked for donating $1000 to a majority supported proposition 6 years before he became CEO. Not only that but he had made ensuring that his actions as CEO would be fair and inclusive a major cornerstone of everything he had planned [1]. That is a post made almost immediately after his appointment after CEO. Nonetheless he was forced out after less than 2 weeks.

[1] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200708202554/https://brendanei...

Sounds like a blog post wasn't enough.

But was he doing a great job on Firefox before being fired?