I have to say, I am in love with how you laid out your response. It would be really great to teach leaders (eg module owners) how to use a template like this effectively (Questions, Assumptions, Analysis) and use it when making decisions, especially after there's been debate. It really helps show your thinking, and that you considered the questions and points made by both sides, then wraps up with answering the questions individually, not just passing the judgement. I guess this is probably a common way things are presented in the legal world?
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 11:35 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for all of the comments and opinions expressed in this thread. It’s > an important and complex issue. We’re lucky to have so many people that > care about this and the principles at stake. Below is my analysis and > recommendation which I've asked the AMO team to implement. > > Questions: > > Should we remove the “Anti Spam - internet.ir” add-on? If so, what’s the > basis for the removal? > > Is this consistent with how we treat other content? > > > Assumptions: (consider these assertions which I believe are true): > > -The add-on itself does not censor content. > > -The add-on facilitates censorship of websites by the Iranian government. > > -Mozilla doesn’t support government censorship of the Internet - in any > cultural context. > > -We also recognize that certain human rights exist and that they may not > be acknowledged by every jurisdiction. > > -We don't have to necessarily agree with such jurisdictions nor do we have > to facilitate the suppression of those rights we believe are essential. > > -We work under content guidelines for our web properties that must adhere > to both legal requirements and our own social and moral sensibilities. > > -We want developers/authors to have the maximum amount of freedom in the > way they express themselves through software and content. > > -We do not have to agree with the purpose of an add-on or content to keep > it on our site or in the AMO marketplace. > > -We have terms of service and developer terms that establish our > conditions for hosting third party content. > > > Analysis: > > Should we remove the add-on? and if so what’s the basis? > > We’ve received numerous requests from local community members to remove > this add-on. This is important on its own but not dispositive. The add-on, > when used for its intended purpose, encourages government censorship of the > Internet. This is objectionable in our view because it materially and > directly works against the goals articulated in the Mozilla manifesto to > promote an open, innovative web. This is supported by the request from > local community members. Our website terms of use state in relevant part > that “Mozilla has the right (though not the obligation) to, in Mozilla’s > sole discretion: (a) remove any content that, in Mozilla’s reasonable > opinion, violates any Mozilla policy or is in any way harmful or > objectionable;” Accordingly, because it is our opinion that the content is > “objectionable” the add-on should be removed. > > This doesn’t mean every add-on that doesn’t support the Manifesto is > objectionable, but in this case, the impact is so direct and materially in > contradiction with our values we don’t want to host it. There are also many > other avenues for the content to be distributed outside our marketplace. > > Is this consistent with how we treat other content? > > We neither host content based solely on whether or not we like it, nor do > we generally judge the intent of a piece of content. We have to be careful > here, because we don’t want to be the arbiter of content. In fact, to the > contrary, we generally want to encourage expression. Thus, we have to > exercise our discretion lightly and carefully. At the same time however, > specific situations may call for greater discernment. Here, complete and > blind neutrality ignores the actual harm and the intent which undermines > our own stated values. Consequently, we don’t view this as being > inconsistent with actions in the past. > > We may find that this starts a chain of similar requests, sets a precedent > we're not sure of, or leads to other possible issues. If so, we'll deal > with those issues as they arise. > > /hja > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
