I agree that people have the right to push for companies to select officers that meet their criteria. But things like the OkCupid stunt are less respectable IMHO.
Is that really the way we want to see the Internet going? Visit a website where the web client is technically perfectly capable of displaying the page, but was associated with someone of the wrong political ideology, and so they get a nag page instead?
There is no clean exit to that logic; shouldn't OkCupid have banned JavaScript at the same time then? Shouldn't they put up nag messages to people visiting from IPs that resolve to a Republican National Committee host?
And if you do the things above, when does it become a net neutrality issue?
Whether or not OKCupid did the right thing here (they certainly got some press out of it), it certainly wasn't bad for the internet as a whole.
The scary thing about HN is that you might actually be serious that people should "simply write a web browser" to enforce correct political ideology...
Throughout history, groups have always sought to stifle alternative thought. The moral difference is in the tactics they use, which have ranged from censorship to violence and bribery to peaceful protest and civil disobedience. I, for one, prefer and even encourage peaceful public outcry of this sort. Say what you want, but if your customers (users, friends, coworkers) don't like it they don't have to buy from you. In fact, they probably feel a moral obligation not to. This doesn't only happen on the left - remember the Million Moms (or whoever) boycotting JC Penny for using Ellen as a spokeswoman?
I think Eich was chosen for his technical contributions (e.g. the creation of Javascript), not because he donated $1000 to a political campaign a few years back. There was no indication whatsoever that he was about to use his his new influence or Mozilla's money to advance political causes. In Chick-Fil-A's case it was at least possible to imagine that eating there would increase the owner's wealth, which would then go towards politics. But any fears about Mozilla promoting an anti-gay agenda under Eich seem unfounded at best.
But as CEO you are a representative of much more than your technical contributions. You are the face of the company.
Which companies have they boycotted? The recent organized calls for boycotts include Chick-Fil-A, Mozilla, Walmart, McDonald's, etc. I haven't seen the right calling for a boycott of companies that supported gay marriage initiatives. Seems like the left is more into boycotts than the right.
I was asked for some examples of right wing boycotts and I came up with just one organization that has organized a bunch of them. I did not have to dig deep to find it and I dug no further than that at this very moment, but they are not rare or hard to find.
Boycotting Monsanto because of pesticide injuries, gmo, funding opposition to gmo labeling, franken crops, etc. isn't even a matter of opinion.
This is like boycotting Ellen DeGeneres' show because she's gay, vs boycotting Chris Brown albums because he beat Rhianna.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/02/prop-8-donors-find-...
Let me introduce you to my neighbor down the street, the Rev. Jesse Jackson. His entire power structure is based upon leveraging boycotts as a means to an end. Each side is more than willing to play the victim game.
You do realize this kind of thing actually happens, right? The right wing of american politics is an avid user of and believer in boycotts.
Personally, I have no issue with this. No company is entitled to a person's money, and if they make their public face about politics they accept the consequences, both good and bad, of doing that. And it really is worth noting that there are often positive consequences of doing it as well. Even for causes I disagree with. Chick-Fil-A probably came out a bit ahead, if anything, since their presence was stronger in markets that supported them.
Likewise, Disney openly supporting gay rights through Gay Days at Disneyland and making sure their insurance supports gay employees' families have had both positive and negative impacts.
This faux-freedom argument, where people aren't entitled to decide how their own money is spent but the richest and most powerful are entitled to do whatever they want with theirs without any fear of consequence is just a ridiculous double standard.