Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

OKCupid Warns Off Mozilla Firefox Users Over Gay Rights

Soulskill posted about 5 months ago | from the unwelcoming-is-unwelcome dept.

Firefox 1482

PortWineBoy writes: "The Beeb is reporting that OkCupid is prompting Mozilla Firefox users to switch browsers over Brendan Eich's support of Prop 8 in California in 2008. Users are met with a message stating that OKCupid would prefer no one access their site with Mozilla software. Eich is the new CEO of Mozilla."

cancel ×

1482 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wait... wha? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632223)

It's not like he's the one who made the software.

Re:Wait... wha? (5, Insightful)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 5 months ago | (#46632293)

And Facebook didn't make the Oculus Rift, Apple didn't create AAC, etc.

Haters gotta hate.

That's it (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632475)

From now on, I shall only surf OkCupid using LOIC.

Re:Wait... wha? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632479)

And Facebook didn't make the Oculus Rift, Apple didn't create AAC, etc.

Haters gotta hate.

I saw this news a couple days ago and I was wondering why I felt different about this over the Chick-fil-a event. What it came down to, was that the money donated was the CEO's personal finances and not the company, and more importantly, the company has not tried to get business using this political stance. If Chick-fil-a had done something to distance itself from the CEO's political stance, I would likely still consider them an option for fast food. Instead they seemed to have reveled in the additional business, so they lost mine and likely many others.

Re:Wait... wha? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632547)

Wait, what's wrong with AAC?

I assume Opera is the prefered browser of choice? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632227)

Yes. I went there.

Re:I assume Opera is the prefered browser of choic (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632277)

you mean a rebranded chromium cuz they couldnt hack it on their own?

Re:I assume Opera is the prefered browser of choic (1)

cyberzephyr (705742) | about 5 months ago | (#46632409)

LOL ROFL!

Stop using JavaScript! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632229)

... because of Brendan Eich

Re:Stop using JavaScript! (2)

jc42 (318812) | about 5 months ago | (#46632321)

Stop using JavaScript

That's a good idea in general, considering its history of problems.

Maybe what we need is a push to persuade browser makers to link to perl and python implementations. Those are both much better languages for the purposes that JS was invented, and they're both completely open-source.

Actually, the right way to do it would be to replace all the embedded browsers' languages with tools for communicating efficiently with an arbitrary language plugin. Then we could use any programming language we like, including languages that haven't been developed yet. But what are the chances that we could persuade all the major browser makers to implement something as (conceptually ;-) simple as that?

April Fools stories are gay (3, Funny)

rossdee (243626) | about 5 months ago | (#46632231)

I look forward to the 2nd or April

Re:April Fools stories are gay (2, Insightful)

Altus (1034) | about 5 months ago | (#46632269)

Not an april fools story, this one is real.

Re:April Fools stories are gay (2)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | about 5 months ago | (#46632415)

That's Slashdot's angle this year. Post studies that seem too stupid to be true but actually are. What better way to fool everyone? :-D

Re:April Fools stories are gay (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 5 months ago | (#46632429)

Hehe, 3 or 4 fish hooked! Reel 'em in, rossdee!

Re:April Fools stories are gay (3, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 5 months ago | (#46632473)

Seems to me, OKCupid trying to boycott a perfectly good company and product over a single person's political views, is grounds for boycotting OKCupid.

Stupidity abounds. This is a grand example of the INtolerance of opposing views we have been seeing since Obama took office. (I'm not blaming him, just pointing out the approximate timing.)

Re:April Fools stories are gay (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632287)

This isn't April Fools. This story is true. Go check out OKCupid.

Re:April Fools stories are gay (2)

kimvette (919543) | about 5 months ago | (#46632407)

But the page changed on April 1, right?

Re:April Fools stories are gay (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632525)

This isn't April Fools. This story is true. Go check out OKCupid.

So, you want people to dip into the vast well of knowledge that is the internet to find the truth?

On April 1st of all days?

Uhhh, yeah. Good luck with that shit, as if the other 364 days out of the year are any more trustworthy.

Re:April Fools stories are gay (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632315)

"I had fun once and it was awful." - rossdee

Re:April Fools stories are gay (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632327)

the irony is palpable

No OkQupid is braindead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632347)

I suspect this is not a April Fools story. I think OKQupid and maybe IAC , their parrent company, is brain-dead and thinks that telling people to stop using Mozilla products is a good idea. Its about as bigoted the CEO of Mozilla saying he hates gays.

first post ? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632241)

anonymously, clearly

Im all for human rights... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632247)

But making a stand against someone because of their religious beliefs seems petty... and I'm an Athiest...
what happened to live and let live?

Re:Im all for human rights... (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 5 months ago | (#46632301)

Gay rights? Religious beliefs? What?

P.S.: this is Slashdot, I didn't RTFA.

Re:Im all for human rights... (5, Insightful)

jythie (914043) | about 5 months ago | (#46632303)

In this case at least, it is due to the new CEO not adhering to 'live and let live'. Gay rights activists rarely care about people's personal religious beliefs, it is when they put resources into having those beliefs enshrined in law and thus using state power to force their religion on others that people get annoyed.

Re:Im all for human rights... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632431)

So you can believe anything you want; but you cannot act on it? That's downright religious of you... Imagine if someone said, "Hey, its cool if you're gay and all, just don't act on it".

Re:Im all for human rights... (1)

tompaulco (629533) | about 5 months ago | (#46632485)

Gay rights activists rarely care about people's personal religious beliefs, it is when they put resources into having those beliefs enshrined in law and thus using state power to force their religion on others that people get annoyed.

I had to reread that due to the pronoun. I thought you meant the GRAs were having their beliefs enshrined in law and thus using state power to force their religion on others. I mean, the shoe seems to fit on both feet.

Re:Im all for human rights... (5, Insightful)

x0ra (1249540) | about 5 months ago | (#46632333)

Religious belief is one thing, forcing that belief upon other by supporting (or not) a policy change that would ostracize a non trivial part of the population is another.

Re:Im all for human rights... (1, Insightful)

Etcetera (14711) | about 5 months ago | (#46632567)

Religious belief is one thing, forcing that belief upon other by supporting (or not) a policy change that would ostracize a non trivial part of the population is another.

... You mean that self-evidently hellacious period known as 2007? (a/k/a the "status quo" at the time the proposition was written and submitted)

Re:Im all for human rights... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632343)

Who cares what their beliefs are. The line is exactly where someone using money and political influence in an attempt to take rights away from others.

Sorry.. the B.S. "religious freedom" argument doesn't fit into that, either.

Re:Im all for human rights... (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 5 months ago | (#46632565)

I call BS on this. My religious says that unbelievers should be stoned to death. Any laws which punish me for murdering people because I disagree with their religion are denying my religious freedom! (/s)

I'm all for religious freedom... (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 5 months ago | (#46632345)

But making a stand against someone because they're gay seems petty...and I'm straight.
What happened to live and let live?

Re:I'm all for religious freedom... (2)

minstrelmike (1602771) | about 5 months ago | (#46632383)

What happened to live and let live?

It died. Moral Libertarianism isn't profitable enough to the folks who fund political campaigns.

Re:I'm all for religious freedom... (4, Interesting)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 5 months ago | (#46632521)

But making a stand against someone because they're gay seems petty...and I'm straight.
What happened to live and let live?

Two separate issues, I think.

From an orthodox Christian perspective, making a stand against homosexual conduct is making a stand for homosexual persons. To orthodox Christians, practicing homosexuality is sin, and unrepentant sin is a path towards eternal destruction. To be "pro homosexuality" would, for such Christians, be like being "pro all-you-can-eat buffet" for morbidly obese people. It's what they want, but (on the Christian view), it's directly contrary to their long-term well-being.

The "live-and-let-live" issue is quite separate. I don't think there's anything in classical Christian theology that requires Christians to pursue the legislation of Christian behavior.

Re:Im all for human rights... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632359)

I was in the same boat as you about this. Until, I thought about it in this manner:

If your religious beliefs include the destruction of equal rights for others, then yes, to hell with you. All humans may be created equal, but not all beliefs are; especially the ones that restrict the freedom of others.

Maybe the extremist Islamic belief that all infidels need to be killed is also A-OK with you? If people justified slavery and a lack of women's suffrage under their religious beliefs is that also a full go ahead for you?

Re:Im all for human rights... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632371)

Exactly: live and let live. Not: "Campaign for legislation which prevents people from living and letting live."

But the best message okcupid could give is a message telling everyone unconditionally to not use their service.

However, Google's (Chrome) behaviour in society is way worse than Eich's has ever been. And Microsoft (IE) has done quite a lot of harm too. Apple's (Safari) not been great, either. I'm not sure we should single out homophobia over all the other sins of the corporations. Or maybe we should just all use lynx.

And, before anyone pipes up that an individual belief is not the same as a corporate belief, a corporation is made up of humans.

Re: Im all for human rights... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632397)

You're talking about tolerating hate and discrimination. This is not a simple case of live and let live. Would you support a company who considers you or your close friends to be sub-human (which is what every single gay-marriage opponent believes, even if they don't outright say it)? I sure as hell wouldn't.

Re: Im all for human rights... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632563)

I'm pretty sure the company (Mozilla) doesn't feel this way, at best only its CEO.

Re:Im all for human rights... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632435)

You're an atheist but you can't spell it?

More reason to keep using Firefox! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632257)

Longtime Firefox user here and traditional family values supporter. I don't even know what OKCupid is, have no plans to visit that site, will definitely keep using Firefox!

Re:More reason to keep using Firefox! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632281)

What are you doing on Slashdot, then? It was created by Rob Malda, one of the most obvious flamers in Internet history.

Re:More reason to keep using Firefox! (1, Informative)

ackthpt (218170) | about 5 months ago | (#46632283)

Longtime Firefox user here and traditional family values supporter. I don't even know what OKCupid is, have no plans to visit that site, will definitely keep using Firefox!

It's probably a dating site -- no interest in validating their behaviour by visiting the site and potentially generating ad revenue for them. It's just the latest Chik-Fil-A.

Re:More reason to keep using Firefox! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632317)

i wish we could send all religious to the moon. put your nose back in your bible, baaaaa.

Re:More reason to keep using Firefox! (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 5 months ago | (#46632417)

It's just the latest Chik-Fil-A.

Well then, it looks like a rosy future for Mozilla.

Chick-Fil-A Sales Soar In 2012 Despite Bad PR [huffingtonpost.com]

Re:More reason to keep using Firefox! (0)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 5 months ago | (#46632319)

You know what else are traditional family values? Beating your wife. Letting priests rape orphans. Supporting dictators. Listening to jazz music. Drinking Diet Coke. Milk, eggs, coffee.

Re:More reason to keep using Firefox! (1)

Vlad_the_Inhaler (32958) | about 5 months ago | (#46632355)

Firefox users! Boycott OKCupid!
So this guy was against Prop 8 six years ago. Big deal. I wonder what Steve Balmer's position (ouch!) was on Prop 8 back then, are visitors allowed to use Internet Planet Exploder? The guy in charge of Apple now? Is Safari access welcome?

This has to be an April 1 thing, right?

Re:More reason to keep using Firefox! (1)

minstrelmike (1602771) | about 5 months ago | (#46632405)

Boycott OKCupid!

Since most users have no idea what browser they are using, or that they are even using a browser, then just boycotting OKCupid period is the safest thang.
That's how stuff can backfire easily.

Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632273)

Seriously, who does? Especially here on /. ?

Re:Who cares? (1)

OhSoLaMeow (2536022) | about 5 months ago | (#46632335)

Why is it that people who preach tolerance are themselves so intolerant?

Re:Who cares? (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 5 months ago | (#46632381)

Because tolerance it's just tolerating any "thing." It's being against discrimination based on traits a person has no control over.

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632451)

Because tolerance of intolerance is intolerance. I don't understand why you Republicans can't comprehend that. In other to be tolerant, you must be extremely intolerant of things that aren't tolerant.

Re:Who cares? (1)

minstrelmike (1602771) | about 5 months ago | (#46632425)

Seriously, who does? Especially here on /. ?

Because without OKCupid, most of the readers here are probably down to a one-handed sex life.

Me (1)

Fwipp (1473271) | about 5 months ago | (#46632459)

I care.

Re:Me (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 5 months ago | (#46632495)

as do I.

In the same news: OKCupid ceases to use javascript (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632291)

of course

Next step: Javascript (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632295)

OK Cupid is in the process of getting rid of all Javascript on the site, since Brendan Eich was the creator of that too. All interactive content will be replaced with the more LGBT-friendly Adobe Flash.

Re:Next step: Javascript (5, Funny)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 5 months ago | (#46632523)

This is the guy that invented Flash: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J... [wikipedia.org]
Coincidence?

I have a better next step. (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | about 5 months ago | (#46632539)

OKCupid's next step should be a button all users see on login: "Do you support the marriage-equality movement?" [yes/no]. If you click No it deletes your account.

In for a penny, in for a pound, right?

Are people not allowed to have opinions? (5, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 5 months ago | (#46632311)

I'm fully in support of gay marriage, and have been to a few same-sex ceremonies for friends.

But in no way do I support the demonization or boycott of people just because they have a different opinion of something than I do. To me that's a for of bigotry itself, and why would I want to be bigoted?

I'm pretty sure that there are almost no two people on earth who have the same opinion on every single subject. If we go down this road of shunning those who think differently, we all wind up as islands - and not the fun kind with umbrellas in in drinks, for we will have shunned all of the umbrella makers...

Re:Are people not allowed to have opinions? (1, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 5 months ago | (#46632433)

It's not just about his opinion. It's about his political donations (to California's Prop 8 specifically). Making him CEO will give him the wealth of hundreds of ordinary people which he could donate to further anti-gay-rights causes.

Opinions are worth boycotting too though. Throughout history, a few people have done horrible things wielding nothing but opinions and words. What if their opinions had been boycotted early on?

Re:Are people not allowed to have opinions? (2)

sithkhan (536425) | about 5 months ago | (#46632477)

Homework assignment: compare Eich's opinion of 5 years ago, when he made donation to President Obama's from 5 years ago.

Re:Are people not allowed to have opinions? (1, Insightful)

kamapuaa (555446) | about 5 months ago | (#46632455)

Saying it's "a different opinion" is under-playing it. "Cheese is delicious" is an opinion. "I will donate money to deny a class of people basic human rights" is something more, something that speaks ill about you personally. I have no plans to stop using Firefox, but you'd have to be a dick to do that.

By your logic Fred Phelps just had a different take on the world, and can't we all just get along?

Re:Are people not allowed to have opinions? (2)

CryptDemon (1772622) | about 5 months ago | (#46632533)

Replaces homosexuality with race, and I doubt you'd see many people jumping up to defend this "different opinions" bullshit.

Re:Are people not allowed to have opinions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632467)

Except this has nothing to do with a person's opinion. This is not supporting someone who has donated money towards a political agenda that attempts to discriminate against a specific group of people.

I don't care if someone is racist, bigoted, or dislikes my jazz music (their opinion). However, as soon as they attempt to make a law preventing me from listening to jazz, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop them or at least hinder their progress.

Re: Are people not allowed to have opinions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632489)

Yes, people are allowed to have opinions, but it does not follow that they shouldn't be judged for their opinions. In cases like this, his "opinion" is one of hate and marginalization. Why should people just accept that? It's offensive to the whole of humanity.

Re:Are people not allowed to have opinions? (2)

devent (1627873) | about 5 months ago | (#46632545)

It was not just his opinion. Eich donated good money for a law that would discriminate a minority. Even if Eich did not donated, but just wrote in some private blog "gay people should be discriminated by the state of California", that makes him a bigot and a not acceptable behaviour in a civilized democratic country. To call out on him is the minimum what people should do.

Sure, he have his right to voice his opinion. But people have also their right to call out on him for his bigotry. Sounds like you just like that Eich can voice his bigotry, but if people voice their disapproval of him, you write that it is intolerant.

Re:Are people not allowed to have opinions? (1)

Logic Bomb (122875) | about 5 months ago | (#46632561)

But in no way do I support the demonization or boycott of people just because they have a different opinion of something than I do.

This isn't about someone's opinion of wheat bread. This is about oppression based on a common genetic characteristic, and one that isn't anyone else's problem (as opposed to something like psychopathy). The struggle for gay rights absolutely, unquestionably, is analogous to the struggle for civil rights for african americans. You would have been against the Montgomery bus boycott?

Desperate for advertisment (3, Insightful)

abies (607076) | about 5 months ago | (#46632313)

Want to get unpaid product placement on BBC? Boycott Mozilla! I suppose that not watching Ender's Game is already not enough.
News for tomorrow: Kazakhstan Airlines cancel flights to Vatican quoting lack of official support for gay priests from the Pope.

Terrible precedent (5, Insightful)

JDG1980 (2438906) | about 5 months ago | (#46632325)

So we're politicizing browser selection now? This amounts to dragging end users into a political dispute that they have nothing to do with. Is this really a road we want to go down? How long before people start blocking IE because they don't like Microsoft's business tactics, or before Apple starts blocking Google Chrome users with a message complaining about alleged patent infringement?

Once this Pandora's box is open, it will be impossible to close. This time it may be aimed at Brendan Eich for the heinous crime of holding onto outdated views of gay marriage a whole two years longer than President Obama, but next time it could be anyone.

Re:Terrible precedent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632499)

OKCupid is not blocking anyone. They have a interstitial page telling Firefox users to reconsider their browser choice. They can still hit a button at the bottom to proceed. It's the same as if Microsoft put out interstitial pages that said, "works best with IE!" Or like if Java updates came with a "install Ask.com software now and forever?" screens. It's not like Apple, or MS, or Google actually blacklisting sites and prohibiting users from getting there.

Re:Terrible precedent (4, Informative)

geekoid (135745) | about 5 months ago | (#46632549)

There isn't anything wrong with the list of reason you give for boycotting.

You have posted the lamest slippery slope fallacy I have seen in a while.

And then for no damn reason at all, you bring Obama into it.
Geekoid's law:
Everyone without logic will eventually bring Obama up.

Re:Terrible precedent (4, Insightful)

bberens (965711) | about 5 months ago | (#46632569)

I support open source for purely political reasons. I stopped using IE for mostly political reasons. I don't use FF anyways but I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that people might not use FF for political reasons.

Not necessarily hate (5, Insightful)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 5 months ago | (#46632331)

There's an important point that I think is often lost in these discussions. Orthodox Christian theology maintains several points: (1) Homosexuality is a sin, (2) unrepentant sin goes hand-in-hand with alienation from God, and (3) alienation from God leads to both unhappiness in this present life and a missed opportunity for happiness after death.

Based on that set of axioms, it can be completely loving to encourage someone to repent of his sins and choose to follow Jesus. Practicing homosexuality is a sign that someone isn't doing that. It would therefore be unloving or even hateful to affirm homosexual relations.

Now I'm sure 90% of the Slashdot crowd disagrees with those axioms. And it's certainly the case that a person can proclaim to be Christian but actually hate gay people. But there are some Christians for whom that's not the case, and I don't think any of us knows Mozilla's CEO well enough to guess in which group he sits.

Re:Not necessarily hate (1)

kamapuaa (555446) | about 5 months ago | (#46632487)

A lot of people don't think "it's in some religion so he gets out of jail for free" is valid logic. Being a dick is being a dick, no matter what the Greek Orthodox church may say.

Re:Not necessarily hate (3, Informative)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 5 months ago | (#46632543)

I was presenting a model in which that guy might have had the best of intentions, while still engaging in politics that some disagree with. In doing so, I was trying to argue that we shouldn't impugn his motives without more information.

Also, I was using the word "orthodox" in the lower-case. I didn't specifically mean the Russian / Eastern / Greek / etc. Orthodox denominations.

Re:Not necessarily hate (1)

Andtalath (1074376) | about 5 months ago | (#46632497)

Sick axioms don't excuse that much.

It explains why Hitler didn't consider himself evil, but it doesn't mean that his actions where decent.

Re:Not necessarily hate (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632555)

He donated to Prop 8, I think we can deduce which group he sits in.

Oh, ok... (3, Interesting)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 5 months ago | (#46632339)

So it'd be alright if Firefox plastered over every page of sites that didn't support prop8 that they were supporting immoral and disgusting behavior? We have the right to free thought and expression in this country, even if you don't like it.

Re: Oh, ok (2)

Fwipp (1473271) | about 5 months ago | (#46632509)

They'd be perfectly within their rights, just as OKCupid is. Or would you rather OKCupid refrain from expressing themselves on their own website, just because you don't like it? :)

Boycott California (5, Insightful)

SpaceManFlip (2720507) | about 5 months ago | (#46632361)

If the torch & pitchfork crowds are going after this dude now because he supported CA Prop 8, shouldn't they also call for a boycott of the state of California? You know, since a majority of their voters voted for the infamous Proposition 8 and passed it. I would say that voting for it counts as supporting it, right?

Re:Boycott California (-1, Troll)

geek (5680) | about 5 months ago | (#46632441)

If the torch & pitchfork crowds are going after this dude now because he supported CA Prop 8, shouldn't they also call for a boycott of the state of California? You know, since a majority of their voters voted for the infamous Proposition 8 and passed it. I would say that voting for it counts as supporting it, right?

Logic means nothing to these people. They'll call you a horrible person for not washing your hands after going to the bathroom but throw you a fucking parade and cheer you for hours because you stick your dick in someones ass.

We aren't dealing with rational human beings. They are perverted, mentally ill people. Unless you join in their illness you are to be mocked, called a bigot and run out of town. There is no room for dissent.

They should use Firefox while *mocking* Eich (1, Insightful)

acroyear (5882) | about 5 months ago | (#46632367)

It's all good and well that he spent $1,000 of his own money on legalizing bigotry.

Look at it from the other side of history: he *wasted* $1,000 for pretty much no reason at all, now that the courts have asserted that the ban was unconstitutional.

Re:They should use Firefox while *mocking* Eich (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632469)

Or, if you want to actually practice what you preach, you can let him keep his job, but use it as a means to demand better behavior of him. That is, you now have a chance to scrutinize him more closely, and be somewhat justified in doing so. But that option isn't as popular because it's about offering tolerance and forgiveness, while it's much easier and cathartic to just penalize Eich, brand him a bigot, and try to shuffle him off into a corner and ignore him.

Dear Slacktivists (4, Insightful)

hsmith (818216) | about 5 months ago | (#46632369)

Fuck off and die.

This whole internet activism bullshit has gotten out of hand. Hey, stop using JavaScript if you want to put your money where your mouth is.

Not using Firefox will change nothing.

KONY2014

slashdot DOS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632373)

What a stupid way to push the gay agenda. The only stupid response I can think of is to load up Firefox just to visit the site then close it. And for no other reason than to celebrate stupidity.

Not a joke (5, Interesting)

devent (1627873) | about 5 months ago | (#46632379)

Not April's day joke. But a little bit misrepresentation. Prop 8. was about recognition of marriage by the state of California, it was not about whether or not same-sex marriage is legal or illegal. I wouldn't go so far as to say that Eich wants gay-couples to be outlawed.

From https://www.okcupid.com/ [okcupid.com]

Hello there, Mozilla Firefox user. Pardon this interruption of your OkCupid experience.

Mozilla’s new CEO, Brendan Eich, is an opponent of equal rights for gay couples. We would therefore prefer that our users not use Mozilla software to access OkCupid.

Politics is normally not the business of a website, and we all know there’s a lot more wrong with the world than misguided CEOs. So you might wonder why we’re asserting ourselves today. This is why: we’ve devoted the last ten years to bringing people—all people—together. If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly 8% of the relationships we’ve worked so hard to bring about would be illegal. Equality for gay relationships is personally important to many of us here at OkCupid. But it’s professionally important to the entire company. OkCupid is for creating love. Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure.

If you want to keep using Firefox, the link at the bottom will take you through to the site.

However, we urge you to consider different software for accessing OkCupid:

Google Chrome Internet Exploder Opera

so long javascript (2)

steak (145650) | about 5 months ago | (#46632389)

It's funny how they are principled enough to boycott the company he is steering, but not principled enough to stop using the thing that he is credited with inventing.

OKCupid is owned by Match.com... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632393)

OKCupid is owned by a company that been repeatedly accused of sleazy behavior [wikipedia.org] , but now they are expressing their moral indignation over Mozilla? Smells like a marketing stunt to me.

Oops (1)

Fwipp (1473271) | about 5 months ago | (#46632531)

Shockingly, parent companies don't always dictate everything their sub companies do.

Summary correction needed (3, Informative)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | about 5 months ago | (#46632399)

If he opposed Prop 8 he would have been in support of gay marriage, not opposed to it. Prop 8 was a California constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman. I assume he was in support of Prop 8 and not opposed to it as indicated in the summary.

They should really boycott Google (5, Funny)

RevWaldo (1186281) | about 5 months ago | (#46632403)

Google at last count provides 90% of Mozilla's revenue - http://thenextweb.com/insider/... [thenextweb.com]

Boycott Firefox AND Chrome! Long live Lynx!

.

Irony (5, Insightful)

Dega704 (1454673) | about 5 months ago | (#46632443)

People's attitudes on this are extremely hypocritical. We rail against hatred and discrimination, and yet here we are with a "BURN THE HEATHENS!" mob mentality the second we find out about someone donating a relatively measly $1000 to Prop8. With the way some people are acting, you would think we just discovered that the guy was a raging pedophile. Did he really give out anywhere near the amount of damage that he and Mozilla are now receiving? Is this how we win the battle against discrimination? By replacing one form of irrational hatred and bias with another? We may view it as poetic justice, but it's hypocrisy; plain and simple. People love to hate. The only thing that ever changes is who the current easy target is. Plenty of CEOs are vile, unscrupulous pigs who cheat on their wives and sexually harass female employees, but you won't see this sort of backlash against them because it isn't the current political hot topic.

Re:Irony (-1, Troll)

geek (5680) | about 5 months ago | (#46632511)

People's attitudes on this are extremely hypocritical. We rail against hatred and discrimination, and yet here we are with a "BURN THE HEATHENS!" mob mentality the second we find out about someone donating a relatively measly $1000 to Prop8. With the way some people are acting, you would think we just discovered that the guy was a raging pedophile. Did he really give out anywhere near the amount of damage that he and Mozilla are now receiving? Is this how we win the battle against discrimination? By replacing one form of irrational hatred and bias with another?

We may view it as poetic justice, but it's hypocrisy; plain and simple. People love to hate. The only thing that ever changes is who the current easy target is. Plenty of CEOs are vile, unscrupulous pigs who cheat on their wives and sexually harass female employees, but you won't see this sort of backlash against them because it isn't the current political hot topic.

Well, when your side of the argument is a crowd of self loathing homosexuals with absolutely no moral compass and a penchant for flying off the handle coupled with a need for societal acceptance of perverted behavior you can't expect anything less than torches and pitch forks.

Do strate men have to figth for homos privelages? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632445)

I'm to sure if it's good or legal to be strait now. Also interesting how much term "family" has been stretched this days. It now includes two men, but excludes man and two women in it's american version.

Can't Beat NoScript (1)

ewhac (5844) | about 5 months ago | (#46632447)

I sympathize with the sentiment, but I have yet to find a workable equivalent for Firefox + NoScript. (Sounds like a motivation for socially conscious techs to finally get Chrome up to the required standards for secure browsing.)

OKCupid needs to block Firefox and get rid of JS (2)

duncan (16437) | about 5 months ago | (#46632481)

If OKCupid is really that against FF as a browser, block the useragent string. Then I'll believe they really want to take a stand.

Also, as the FF CEO also created Javascript, get rid of that on the site.

this is totally wrong!!! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632507)

For once /. got it right.. (hand-shake)
I think and feel using tech to promote your views on life and werld around us in a negative manner is BS!!
or example, when clicking on the link, a sound byte came up, unsolicited.. Promoting someone'[s views.
While I agree that gay rights are IMPORTANT, I feel those whom feel strongly about this should be the ones to act. like the LGBT or something of that nature..
Not the owners of websites, whom may cater to this, but not have an opinion either way, and are looking for a business tactic.. I feel it de-value's the true intent and really helps us to understand how stupid, bitchy, and cowardly these business individuals are..

Moving past that, I truly think and feel OK cupid is wrong for forcing their agenda those whom do not necessarily agree..
If there was an option to allow display, etc then it would not be so bad.
But the forceful aspect is BS.
wouldn't it be funny if bevcause of this ignorace, stupidity, etc there was a major outbreak from a security perspective, credid card numbers, personal info leaked, etc all because some one hast to make the community use a less secure method of accessing their site because of their social beleifs.

This is just stupid, all together..

thanks for your time (stepping off soap box)

What do I do? (5, Funny)

Carnivore24 (467239) | about 5 months ago | (#46632515)

I'm confused. Should I keep watching Duck Dynasty and Honey Boo Boo? Where should I eat? Is it ok to eat at Taco Bell and Subway still?

typo in summary NOT opposition (1)

orgelspieler (865795) | about 5 months ago | (#46632519)

He donated in support of prop 8 (banning gay marriage), not in opposition of it. Seriously, what's the point of having editors if they're not going to, you know, EDIT!?

Says... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46632527)

the site that still doesn't have seperate categories for transgendered people looking for men/women/other transgenders.

Seriously though if you haven't also been skimming craigslist personals you might wind up with an unexpected surprise among people on OKC.

Although frankly anybody on both OKC and Craigslist should probably raise flags for you :)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>