Sure he personally cared about it. You know what a lot of people personally care about? Not stripping rights from a minority.

And you know what else people are allowed to have personal opinions on? Not working for a religious whack job who wants to oppress minorities.

You're being a pure apologist by hand waving his support of oppression as "personal", but not the decision of people to refuse to work for him. You want it both ways, because you support one point and feel there's shouldn't be personal repercussions of people not liking you for you wanting to fuck over some group of people out of religious spite.

No it's not.

It's the same as you distributing it to all the sounding shops and then continuing to do so after you've been told you are spreading false information.

What's truly hilarious is how the freeze peach warriors down mod dissenting options with fake accusations, like accusing anyone they who disagrees with them of trolling. The only thing worse than personal consequences for speaking is sometime with dissenting opinion.

Anyway come at me, I've got karma to burn.

I doubt you'd be as in favor if this if you were on the losing side of it.

People bring all sorts of opinions to the office and have done since forever. You do too. You might think you are good at hiding your opinions I'm sure, but IME most people grossly overestimate how good an actor they are especially over the long term.

I've worked with all sorts over the years.

No they didn't. They refused to work but still wanted to be paid.

So why weren't they fired then? And that doesn't sound like how I remember it being reported at the time.

I don't want any activism in the workplace regardless of who is doing it.

Last I checked, Prop 8 would also have been enforced at work.

I'm not antireligion, but I don't like religion in the workplace, even if it's just passing out pamphlets or seeking donations.

I don't like passing out of pamphlets or soliciting donations for anything at work, religious or not. I don't mind people talking about their religion or lack thereof either provided they don't insist on having conversations with people who don't want them.

I used to have a conservative Texas Catholic and bisexual atheist New Mexican co workers who shared an office. Half the time I went in there they were vociferously arguing politics or religion. The other half they were arguing with equal passion which state had the best chile. Obviously the Texan was wrong. They were fine productivity wise and actually got on pretty well. I never saw or heard wither of them arguing with anyone who wasn't interested, which means basically anyone else.

On the job?

Yep. Don't like it, then fire people, or you know let them quit. Again, people are allowed to quit being employed by you if you try and harm them. And employees on the job are allowed to inform their employer of their intention or desire to leave.

But Mozilla was not Eich's private sand pit either. As CEO he has a duty to the company and having a very large fraction of employees quitting on his watch is a bit of a problem.

I haven't, I'm not American and it's not the same thing unless you're talking about revoking the second amendment for a specific minority because of your religion.

No one was fired over that whole slavery thing? You what? There was a whole civil war about it, or did you miss that somehow?

Anyway I shall bring whatever I choose to the office. Turns out if enough people bring it, then it matters, because a company needs employees. The workers at Mozilla did the upstanding thing, they informed their employer they would quit and gave them the option to choose. I don't really see why you object to that. Oh yeah I do know it's because Eich free speeched on something you agree with and then got massive blowback because people free speeched right back at him.

You can't have freedom of expression without people having the freedom to say you're a dickwad.

Saying freedom is not freedom from consequences is unfalsifiable gibberish that doesn't mean anything.

It means: he's free to be a dick and his employees are free to say they're going to quit. Which is exactly what happened. Don't like it? Maybe you should use your free speech to advocate removing the first amendment.

So, he had to be ousted on the basis of his political speech?

He was not ousted. He fucked up so hard that to stay would be more damaging than to leave. Ad CEO, his duty was to quit. That's entirely on him.

Think about what you would say if a CEO was ousted for taking a stance you agree with.

He wasn't ousted. He made his own position untenable.

You and he both have the right to speak freely in your personal lives regardless of your professional lives.

Indeed and his employees had the right to say "I won't work for that guy".

You can't be fired for your personal political preferences or speech. That's the damn law,

He wasn't fired and California is an at will state. You can be fired for speech.

He didn't wish ill on anyone.

He donated money to strip rights from one group of people. Waffle all you like, his employees felt that was harming them and they are entitled to refuse to associate with him. It is their absolute right to do so.

You dismiss the fact that Obama and Hillary both supported it at that point in time, but I'm mentioning it to show how mainstream the opinion was.

It was once mainstream opinion that black people weren't actually people and so it was OK to keep them as slaves. That did not make that less harmful. Majority opinion that oppression is OK does not make it less oppressive.

Eich never did anything of the sort. He made a small contribution privately, in his own time.

So? He does not magically become another person at work. People are allowed to not work with him. Slavery has been outlawed in case you did not notice.

But that's not American,

I thought free speech was something Americans believed in? You seem awfully against some people saying "I ain't gonna work for that guy". They have an absolute right to say that.

We're all entitled to have our own beliefs, vote how we want, be religious if we want, do and say what we want.

We are. And we are also all entitled to associate with whomsoever we wish. That includes not associating with people who pay money to strip rights from a group of people.

You can't have it both ways where Eich has the right to be an asshole but no one has a right to tell him to go to hell.

When it comes to the workplace, it's time to set your personal views and activities aside

You can't make me or the employees of Mozilla do that. It's your opinion and I have the right to disagree.

When you're at work, it's the company's time, not yours. That's why you're being paid.

I am no slave, all my time is mine. I can choose to spend it how I will. If I wish to give some to you for money, I can. And I can also decide that you are someone I don't wish to work for and refuse both the money and to give you my labour.

And you have to suck it up.

The way you phrase that makes it sound like he hired thugs to go out and kneecap people.

They're called "the police" and if you tried to avail yourself of the rights of marriage persistently enough, it would end in arrest most likely.

He made a small donation to support proposition 8 which opposed same sex marriage.

Yes, indeed, he paid money to try and harm his employees.

At the time, only 52% of CA voters supported it, so by your POV, half of California wanted to "cause harm" to those same people.

Yes 48% of California did indeed want to strip rights, i.e. cause harm, to gay people. Why does this surprise you?

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton also opposed same sex marriage at that time

I can't be arsed to verify if this is true, but... so? Does that somehow justify the stance?

Yet here in the tech world, people just can't accept that opposing views exist

Seems you don't like the view of his employees that they don't want to associate with someone who wishes them harm. Maybe try and be more accepting of others?

when it comes to politics

Yeah politics has real stakes. If you wanna be that weird cowboy hatted buy holding up a sign saying how god dislikes gay people, go nuts. If you try and get the force of law and so the police to back your opinions on how gay people should be stripped of right, then yes people have a right to not like you because of that.

It's also not like he left willingly.

He fucked up so hard he had to leave. If he didn't try and strip rights from his employees then they wouldn't have decided to go.

People in tech need to control their egos and separate people's politics from their technical contributions.

Why? Why should I be forced to work with someone who not just wishes me or my friends ill but acts on that? I only have one life and I'd rather spend it with people who are worth the time.

and they fired him because they didn't like the way he voted

He made his own position untenable by paying money to hurt his own employees and families.
They didn't want to work for him as is their absolute right, because until recently America was a free country. But turns out if as CEO you are about to cause a mass exodus of employees, you've fucked up and he did the only thing left available and quit to limit the damage.

He fucked up. He made his own position untenable. The blame rests entirely on his shoulders.

The sad state of affairs is that arseholes like him want to use the force of law to harm people who are just trying to live their lives quietly, and he's prepared to put money behind that. I can't imagine why a bunch of people recruited to work at a non profit with lofty goals don't love their paycheck so much they're prepared to work for a CEO who not just wishes them harm but is prepared to pay to get it.

It's also a pretty crap (and unstable) company if interns can cry enough to get the CEO out.

It's a pretty crap company if all employees are required to wear a cheese on their head. That has about as much relevance as your statement to Mozilla. We can keep going all day with daft what-ifs if you like.

Back in te real world, it was a lot of the actual full time employees. I'm not really sure why people are shocked, I say shocked and appalled that people working at a nonprofit with a mission to make the world a better place are less focused on their paycheck than employees at the craziest finance companies.

Mozilla however has been a dumpster fire since they ousted Brendan Eich

They didn't oust Brendan Eich. Brendan Eich stepped on his own dick and ousted himself.

Eich paid money to cause harm to some of the employees of Mozilla, and the family and friends of some of the employees of Mozilla. That is his right. Funnily enough a lot of people don't like working for a boss who actively tries to harm them. But it's Eich's right to try and harm people who work for him.

It's also the right of the employees to say "fuck this shit I'm not working for that asshole".

Apparently enough of the employees did that that it would have caused very serious harm to Mozilla if they all left. Eich is the CEO, which means his duty is to the company and you're a pretty crap CEO if you cause all of your best employees to leave.

He free speecified money to hurt people, and those people free speecified a promise to not work for him. The only person at fault here is Eich. It was a problem entirely of his own making.

The problem in that scenario isn't the guard: it's the manager who entered faulty data into the database.

Also the fault of the database maintainer for (a) not verifying the data (b) distributing unverified data and (c) not removing bad data.

Facewatch is just a matching algorithm that lets you search by image rather than by location, time, or other metadata.

It's sold for identifying people you don't want, and they don't bother to verify the data, nor do they respond quickly or barely at all when they have faulty data.

I don't see why you should get a free pass on slander or libel just because you use an algorithm.

That's the same as saying gun manufacturers kill people.

It is if the gun manufacture points a loaded gun at someone, places someone's finger on the trigger and invites them to fire.

Plus with the massive amount of lobbying from firearms manufacturers to "reinterpret" the constitution, yeah they share a fair amount of the blame.

Sure, their system flagged her, but only because incorrect information was fed to the system.

Yes. That's not really an "only". It's the ENTIRE POINT of the article. That there are now automated systems which have no verification of data that accuse people of theft with real consequences.

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

But that is the shop's responsibility, not the facial software maker's.

No. It's shared.

Again, you can not blame the maker of a piece of software when it is not being used properly.

I absolutely can when the software design essentially invites this misuse.

You know slashdot is full of old farts (no offence) when we start discussing our health problems and bowel movements. I am having a very hard job not adding to the conversation.