The point I’m making, which you don’t have to validate, is that boycotting a free product because the CEO is some kind of shithead is pointless. The new CEO of Mozilla is most likely a different kind of shithead, but one who was better at covering their tracks. A bunch of the developers are probably shitheads, because there’s a proportion of shitheads everything.
Boycotting those products which were made by shitheads is impossible unless you boycott everything, besides being pointless. Boycotting only those products which were made by confirmed, publicised shitheads is arbitrary and so even more pointless.
Like I guess I’ll just throw my computer in the lake since no matter what I do, a shithead probably had a part in it at sometime or an other. But since that’s dumb, I guess I can at least refuse to use things that are done by known shit heads, especially when the company doesn’t seem to care that they are.
Not sure what you are trying to get at here. Are you okay with a politician being an out in the open Nazi just because some politicians are probably nazis but hiding it.
Making yourself a slave to the caprices of news and publicity just doesn’t seem a sensible way of living your life.
Not sure what you are trying to get at here. Are you okay with a politician being an out in the open Nazi just because some politicians are probably nazis but hiding it.
I figure the politicians who are Nazis but hiding it are gonna be making statements that would disqualify them in my choice of candidate anyway.
It’s a good comparison though because I’d certainly care more about the beliefs of a political candidate whose beliefs are going to affect their decisions which are going to affect me and mine if they get into power, versus someone who contributes in some way to a piece of free software (such as by being its CEO), whose beliefs might, at worst, make that piece of software worse in which case… I’ll not use it, I guess?
Using a product gives its creator legitimacy.
If that creator is a shithead, you’ve (in part) chosen to give that shithead a pedestal to speak from and have their words heard.
Mozilla get to speak with authority partially because they’ve been in the browser game since nearly its inception and partially because they’ve have a user base. If either of these things were not so, who would care?
If you don’t like what any of the major players are doing, you can grab an open source alternative, switch to a different browser engine and upset the metrics.
You decry people being arbitrary for drawing a line, but yourself are doing so from the other direction. Your refusal to take a position leaves you in an arbitrary place.
Life is too complex and nuanced to search for a hard line in everything. And things are always shifting.
You can have morals the compel you, and so long as you make a good-faith effort and are willing to listen when people you disagree with also make good-faith arguments, then you’re doing alright.
I reject that completely, at least as far as their views on unrelated things might be concerned.
It’s like saying you should stop using Linux because doing so lends legitimacy to Linus’ abusive behaviour (or that it did so, I believe he’s more chill these days).
So they fired one anti-LGBT person when he became high-profile (CEO). What about everyone else?
What is it you’re looking for us to validate?
The point I’m making, which you don’t have to validate, is that boycotting a free product because the CEO is some kind of shithead is pointless. The new CEO of Mozilla is most likely a different kind of shithead, but one who was better at covering their tracks. A bunch of the developers are probably shitheads, because there’s a proportion of shitheads everything.
Boycotting those products which were made by shitheads is impossible unless you boycott everything, besides being pointless. Boycotting only those products which were made by confirmed, publicised shitheads is arbitrary and so even more pointless.
Like I guess I’ll just throw my computer in the lake since no matter what I do, a shithead probably had a part in it at sometime or an other. But since that’s dumb, I guess I can at least refuse to use things that are done by known shit heads, especially when the company doesn’t seem to care that they are.
Not sure what you are trying to get at here. Are you okay with a politician being an out in the open Nazi just because some politicians are probably nazis but hiding it.
Making yourself a slave to the caprices of news and publicity just doesn’t seem a sensible way of living your life.
I figure the politicians who are Nazis but hiding it are gonna be making statements that would disqualify them in my choice of candidate anyway.
It’s a good comparison though because I’d certainly care more about the beliefs of a political candidate whose beliefs are going to affect their decisions which are going to affect me and mine if they get into power, versus someone who contributes in some way to a piece of free software (such as by being its CEO), whose beliefs might, at worst, make that piece of software worse in which case… I’ll not use it, I guess?
It is not pointless.
Using a product gives its creator legitimacy. If that creator is a shithead, you’ve (in part) chosen to give that shithead a pedestal to speak from and have their words heard.
Mozilla get to speak with authority partially because they’ve been in the browser game since nearly its inception and partially because they’ve have a user base. If either of these things were not so, who would care?
If you don’t like what any of the major players are doing, you can grab an open source alternative, switch to a different browser engine and upset the metrics.
You decry people being arbitrary for drawing a line, but yourself are doing so from the other direction. Your refusal to take a position leaves you in an arbitrary place.
Life is too complex and nuanced to search for a hard line in everything. And things are always shifting. You can have morals the compel you, and so long as you make a good-faith effort and are willing to listen when people you disagree with also make good-faith arguments, then you’re doing alright.
I reject that completely, at least as far as their views on unrelated things might be concerned.
It’s like saying you should stop using Linux because doing so lends legitimacy to Linus’ abusive behaviour (or that it did so, I believe he’s more chill these days).
Sure, fine. We can go with that, if you like.
Then my core point still stands; using a service gives the creator/owner of that service a platform to speak from.
Do note that the line between related and unrelated can be quite faint and blurry. How do you decide where it is?
I guess I’ll use the browser where I’m not certain anyone at the top is a creep vs the one where I am certain. Not sure what your point it even.
Well I hung out with Mitchell Baker and she seemed pretty chill.
I suspect if you hung out with Eich he’d “seem pretty chill”. Loads of awful people seem chill until the moment you find out what’s awful about them.