Edit: I went back and read your previous post where you discussed some boycotting views. I do think it's a worse situation if a company is directly contributing to certain things, or if a CEO/founder is publicly making a big deal out of personal contributions, compared to quieter contributions like this case. But it's also the case that CEOs or owners can use their wealth and income from their position for causes that the users/customers don't necessarily support, and the CEO is generally the face of the company, and so it's reasonable that some users/customers would prefer that they don't play a role in directing money into that organization and then into that leader's stockpile for contributions, or give the image that they support that person.
I should've clarified a few things since i decided to share my opinion on the question i was asking. First, i think i just categorize this a little differently, rather than fundamentally disagree in anyway. We agree that there is an objectionable element here, and we agree that there is considerable difference between this scenario and other scenarios, but more specifically than that, i view this scenario as one where the company/organization as a whole is still overall a positive force, both in the specific regard of equal rights and in general (or at least it seems that way), despite doing a questionable thing that is more than okay to criticize and respond to in different ways from my perspective of course (because i do agree that political action rather than held beliefs warrant backlash, and particularly for example from within the organization like you had mentioned, despite of how limited and personal this political action was - i don't think what he did means nothing, and i do think it should have been considered given the importance of the position of CEO to the company's image). I don't usually feel inclined to boycott positive forces, but i sometimes stop using stuff for silly reasons, or for small inconveniences, so it's not that i think people
shouldn't boycott. They can stop using it for no reason at all, so this is definitely more than enough reason, quite comfortably. It's more like the idea of an 'official' boycott in a sense, rather than just personal decisions to stop using the browser.
Context is partially relevant here. If someone came to me and said "Did you know that Mozilla made Eich CEO? I don't think i'm gonna use their browser anymore.", i'd probably just say "Cool.", and at most point out that the organization states support for equal rights generally just in case that wasn't known. In contrast, if someone came to me and asked me to boycott Mozilla because Eich was made CEO, like with OKCupid, i'd view that as unreasonable, due to lack of proportion in my view. There's a little difference between personally choosing to stop dealing with someone and trying to get others to do so too, the latter naturally requiring in my view more basis for such an action, or more powerful reasons in other words to warrant the garnering of opposition, so to speak. I don't use Mozilla, so i'm answering hypothetically based on the principle.
Basically, i was curious about your thoughts on the particular call for a boycott considering the known stance of the entire organization regarding equal rights, the extent and methods through which Eich opposed equal rights, and whether or not his employment in Mozilla played any considerable role in his expression of his opposition. I read the pop up OkCupid had put up, and i think it explains reasonably their investment in the issue, and i don't think like they did anything necessarily wrong or something. Generally, boycotts are a legitimate and highly effective method of expressing social opinion. In this case, my agreement/understanding of OkCupid's call for a boycott ends at understanding their investment. I wouldn't however do what they did or particularly view it as a proportionate response to this situation.
