On 5/16/13 9:35 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
The listing has been disabled, per the reasoning presented above. Thank you, Harvey. Jorge Villalobos Add-ons Developer Relations Lead _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
