undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmpyne12y ago0 comments

> Mozilla (and Eich) decided that this expression from the community was sufficient for Eich to step down as CEO. No one forced them to do it, much like no one forced them to make Eich CEO in the first place.

You should research the labor concept of "constructive dismissal".

As it stands it wasn't just an outcry. You had companies like OKCupid hounding Firefox users who had nothing to do with Eich's donation. It was a pitchfork-and-torch expedition through and through, despite the fact that it all falls under the letter of the law regarding freedom of speech.

But as I tried to point out when this was all going on, freedom to speak does not imply that all speech is necessarily right.

What I don't understand is how the same people who will talk about "chilling effects" from government surveillance fail to understand the same exact principle applied elsewhere.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

zorpner12y ago· 2 in thread

Since you talked around my question by falsely equating governmental and private action, let's revisit -- which of:

People deciding what products they want to use and talking about it. Companies deciding what to do based on what's good for them and their objectives.

Do you object to? (OKCupid's actions, of course, fall under both categories.) The consequences of any action you could take to prevent this type of behavior would be much more dire, chilling-effect-wise, than the occasional troubling instance such as this one.

mpyneOP12y ago

> Companies deciding what to do based on what's good for them and their objectives.

As a long-time user of alternative browsers (e.g. Konqueror) I certainly object to companies deciding to take specific actions on their web sites for web browsers for reasons that are not clearly technical. If for no other reason than as a net neutrality issue.

Again, just because people and companies technically have the legal right to do something doesn't make it a good idea.

coldtea12y ago

Companies can be as powerful as states. Heck, some companies have budgets larger that many states. And historically they have been involved from getting laws passed to their favor, to actually putting their own people in power. Search "banana republic" in wikipedia for some of the most known examples of that.

So I don't see anything better from the state bullying people to a private company doing the same. If anything it's worse, since the state has some democratic controls in place (at least in theory) and the majority elects their policies and representatives. A private company can be the rule and whimses of just one jerk.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse