Comment by mercer

I think for quite a few people (including myself) it wasn't primarily about 1) his personal views being disagreeable to us, and/or 2) him 'expressing' these views through a donation, but rather 3) him being CEO of Mozilla.

I'm still not certain whether I agree with what happened entirely, but calling it ridiculous is a bit of a stretch.

Being in the position of CEO gives you many powers and perks, and I think it's perfectly acceptable that it also gives you responsibilities that may include 'not being controversial'. I'd say this is especially the case when you're CEO of a a very large, important, and well-known non-profit.

Basically, it's the whole 'with great power comes great responsibility thing'. People in positions of power can be held to standards that don't necessarily apply to everyone else.

I completely understand if people disagree with this position, but it's far from ridiculous.

(and of course I can't speak for those who do feel that aforementioned reason #1 and #2 are enough).