Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Mozilla have been doing odd things in recent years, almost like they are transitioning into an authoritarian movement. Want to use unsanctioned extensions? No, go away. Want to use non-secure HTTP? Sure, but we will take away your features. Want to work for them but have unapproved views? Fired. All this is from viewing them as an outsider, so you never know, but something is different.



"Unapproved views"? Would you oppose firing someone for openly expressing white supremacy?


For expressing it while not on the job, no, they should not be fired.


Fair enough, I guess. I don't agree.


Mozilla hasn't fired anyone for their views.

And caring about users' security is to be commended.



The article characterizing his resignation as forced or him being fired does not make it true.


There was a large outcry, then he resigned. His resignation can be directly traced to his views. Whether he was technically fired or "decided" to resign seems largely irrelevant.


Fired for his views, or fired because of the bad press as a result of his views? I think there's enough of a difference to warrant the distinction.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: