Request: Change mozilla policy about addons which are against web openness and users rights

[Sameer Rahmani]

Hi,

Please take a look at:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/filter/

The above addon helps our government to censor web and internet which is against the openness of web and also users rights. In Iran government filtered people access to many, many websites, web content and internet access. It's clearly against the mission of mozilla and even human rights.

I was talking about this case with channel operators #amo-editors on irc.mozilla.org . They told me that it's not against mozilla policy, so i want to make a request to change that policy to rejects such addons or application form mozilla.org and its related websites.


See Also:
http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mission

Best Regards
Lxsameer

[ever...@gmail.com]

I had same conversation @ that very channel and I got same response which was weird to me.

btw, I'm happy that you brought it up.

For goodness' sake don't make Mozilla home of censorship.

[Justin Lebar]

Google Translate isn't helping me much with the text on this page.

If you are able, would you mind translating it for us?

> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> gover...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance

[thewho]

Agree too.

[Jorge Villalobos]

Hello,

Just to expand a little bit on this, the add-on is just a reporting tool
that people can use to submit inappropriate sites to (what looks like)
the Iranian authorities. The add-on itself doesn't do any censorship itself.

We host add-ons with similar features (reporting or filtering bad sites,
for some definition of "bad"), but this is the first one that is
associated to a government institution.

So, technically, nothing that this add-on does is against our policies.
While we're obviously not happy with what the add-on does, we try as
much as possible to separate ourselves from the add-on content as much
as possible (we only have some restrictions on adult content, gambling,
and warez).

Thoughts?

Jorge

[Rubén Martín]

El 13/05/13 22:39, Jorge Villalobos escribió:

> So, technically, nothing that this add-on does is against our policies.
> While we're obviously not happy with what the add-on does, we try as
> much as possible to separate ourselves from the add-on content as much
> as possible (we only have some restrictions on adult content, gambling,
> and warez).

Tricky tricky.

Probably we should have also a policy against violations to human rights.

What would we do with an add-on which purpose (for example) is to
discriminate a specific group (sex or race)?

Regards.

--
Rubén Martín [Nukeador]
Mozilla Reps Mentor
http://www.mozilla-hispano.org
http://twitter.com/mozilla_hispano
http://facebook.com/mozillahispano

[Jorge Villalobos]

On 5/13/13 3:24 PM, Rub�n Mart�n wrote:
> El 13/05/13 22:39, Jorge Villalobos escribi�:

>> So, technically, nothing that this add-on does is against our policies.
>> While we're obviously not happy with what the add-on does, we try as
>> much as possible to separate ourselves from the add-on content as much
>> as possible (we only have some restrictions on adult content, gambling,
>> and warez).
> Tricky tricky.
>
> Probably we should have also a policy against violations to human rights.
>
> What would we do with an add-on which purpose (for example) is to
> discriminate a specific group (sex or race)?
>
> Regards.
>

I don't think we've ever had to deal with this. We do have detailed
content policies for apps and background themes, since they are more
variable in their content than add-ons. Add-ons are generally less
topical and less controversial in this way.

We do host a few add-ons that are religious in nature and therefore
generate some anger from certain users. However, we've never had to take
one down.

Jorge

[Jorge Villalobos]

On 5/13/13 3:24 PM, Rub�n Mart�n wrote:

> El 13/05/13 22:39, Jorge Villalobos escribi�:

>> So, technically, nothing that this add-on does is against our policies.
>> While we're obviously not happy with what the add-on does, we try as
>> much as possible to separate ourselves from the add-on content as much
>> as possible (we only have some restrictions on adult content, gambling,
>> and warez).
> Tricky tricky.
>
> Probably we should have also a policy against violations to human rights.
>
> What would we do with an add-on which purpose (for example) is to
> discriminate a specific group (sex or race)?
>
> Regards.
>

[Jorge Villalobos]

On 5/13/13 3:24 PM, Rub�n Mart�n wrote:

> El 13/05/13 22:39, Jorge Villalobos escribi�:

>> So, technically, nothing that this add-on does is against our policies.
>> While we're obviously not happy with what the add-on does, we try as
>> much as possible to separate ourselves from the add-on content as much
>> as possible (we only have some restrictions on adult content, gambling,
>> and warez).
> Tricky tricky.
>
> Probably we should have also a policy against violations to human rights.
>
> What would we do with an add-on which purpose (for example) is to
> discriminate a specific group (sex or race)?
>
> Regards.
>

[sha...@gmx.net]

Hi,

It is unfortunate Mozilla does not have policies regarding this issues. Maybe you want to take a look at such pages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sattar_Beheshti (Actually this page is not accessible from Iran). I believe such addons could lead to faster detection and censorship of websites. Also could lead to more arrests and in some cases could lead to death penalty which is not rare.


Best Regards,
Shahin

[sha...@gmx.net]

Hi,

Translation:

We invite all Internet users to report illegal content through this addon to "secretariat of criminal content determination workgroup". After investigation we could decide to filter and block the website.

[Sameer Rahmani]

On 05/14/2013 01:09 AM, Jorge Villalobos wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Just to expand a little bit on this, the add-on is just a reporting tool
> that people can use to submit inappropriate sites to (what looks like)
> the Iranian authorities. The add-on itself doesn't do any censorship itself.

Yeah it does not. But remember that allowing such addons to be published
on official site of firefox show the world that Firefox and Mozilla
supports such activity, and also its against web openness.

>
> We host add-ons with similar features (reporting or filtering bad sites,
> for some definition of "bad"), but this is the first one that is
> associated to a government institution.

I'm totally agreed with reporting bad content like (spywares, attacked
sites and so on) but limiting people access to web, censoring and
filtering internet content offending user knowledge, sense and reason.
Filtering means users are stupid and can not decide for themselves that
which content is good and which one is not.

> So, technically, nothing that this add-on does is against our policies.
> While we're obviously not happy with what the add-on does, we try as
> much as possible to separate ourselves from the add-on content as much
> as possible (we only have some restrictions on adult content, gambling,
> and warez).

I'm completely aware of this matter that the mentioned addon is not
against Mozilla policy. But we request to change the policy and reject
such addon.

At last I deeply want you guys to reconsider Mozilla policy about such
addons.

[Gervase Markham]

On 14/05/13 08:03, Sameer Rahmani wrote:
> Yeah it does not. But remember that allowing such addons to be published
> on official site of firefox show the world that Firefox and Mozilla
> supports such activity

That's not so. The fact that the addons site contains a Bible Verse
Toolbar doesn't mean that Mozilla actively supports people reading the
Bible. The fact that it contains an Ad Block addon doesn't mean that
Mozilla is taking a position on the goodness or otherwise of blocking ads.

It is not right to reason from "Mozilla hosts software which can be used
to do X" to "Mozilla supports X".

What we are asking here is different - is it right to reason from
"Mozilla does not support X" to "Mozilla should refuse to host software
which does X"?

A case for Mozilla has a whole not supporting any government censorship
of the Internet could be made from Manifesto principles 2 and 5.
However, I would want the Mozilla leadership to confirm that this is our
position before we took action based on it.

Gerv

[dig...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 2:07:26 PM UTC+4:30, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 14/05/13 08:03, Sameer Rahmani wrote:
>
> > Yeah it does not. But remember that allowing such addons to be published
>
> > on official site of firefox show the world that Firefox and Mozilla
>
> > supports such activity
>
>
>
> That's not so. The fact that the addons site contains a Bible Verse
>
> Toolbar doesn't mean that Mozilla actively supports people reading the
>
> Bible. The fact that it contains an Ad Block addon doesn't mean that
>
> Mozilla is taking a position on the goodness or otherwise of blocking ads.
>

Mozilla hosted other filtering addons like Ad-Block before. But this addon differs in the final option of using the result of that addon or not. You are FREE to use Ad-Block addon and its database. But this addon HELPs making a filtering database, which filters internet of 75'000'000 people later BY FORCE.
Using every addon is optional, but using the result of that addon should also be optional, but using a restricted internet which is result of this addon is MANDATORY and also in contrast with human rights.

>
>
> It is not right to reason from "Mozilla hosts software which can be used
>
> to do X" to "Mozilla supports X".

We can reason from "Mozilla hosts software which can ONLY be used to help filter the internet" to "Mozilla supports filtering internet" which is also in contrast with Mozilla Manifesto principles 2 and 5.
This addon is not like a knife which can be used for good and bad purposes. This addon is like nuke and its only goal is to restrict the right of people to access free internet and can not be used for good purposes.

>
>
>
> What we are asking here is different - is it right to reason from
>
> "Mozilla does not support X" to "Mozilla should refuse to host software
>
> which does X"?

Yes. Otherwise you should also allow adult, gambling and warez addons to be hosted by Mozilla. You don't support them, so you refuse to host those addons. This is the same and even worse, because also adult and gambling software can have negative effects on individuals, and warez software can result loss for some companies, but this addon results in direct restriction of over 70'000'000 people and is far more dangerous.

>
>
>
> A case for Mozilla has a whole not supporting any government censorship
>
> of the Internet could be made from Manifesto principles 2 and 5.
>
> However, I would want the Mozilla leadership to confirm that this is our
>
> position before we took action based on it.

I hope Mozilla leadership accept that this addon violates Mozilla manifesto principles 5 and especially 2.
>
>
>
> Gerv

[Jorge Villalobos]

On 5/14/13 6:29 AM, dig...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 2:07:26 PM UTC+4:30, Gervase Markham wrote:
>> On 14/05/13 08:03, Sameer Rahmani wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah it does not. But remember that allowing such addons to be published
>>
>>> on official site of firefox show the world that Firefox and Mozilla
>>
>>> supports such activity
>>
>>
>>
>> That's not so. The fact that the addons site contains a Bible Verse
>>
>> Toolbar doesn't mean that Mozilla actively supports people reading the
>>
>> Bible. The fact that it contains an Ad Block addon doesn't mean that
>>
>> Mozilla is taking a position on the goodness or otherwise of blocking ads.
>>
> Mozilla hosted other filtering addons like Ad-Block before. But this addon differs in the final option of using the result of that addon or not. You are FREE to use Ad-Block addon and its database. But this addon HELPs making a filtering database, which filters internet of 75'000'000 people later BY FORCE.
> Using every addon is optional, but using the result of that addon should also be optional, but using a restricted internet which is result of this addon is MANDATORY and also in contrast with human rights.
>>
>>
>> It is not right to reason from "Mozilla hosts software which can be used
>>
>> to do X" to "Mozilla supports X".
> We can reason from "Mozilla hosts software which can ONLY be used to help filter the internet" to "Mozilla supports filtering internet" which is also in contrast with Mozilla Manifesto principles 2 and 5.
> This addon is not like a knife which can be used for good and bad purposes. This addon is like nuke and its only goal is to restrict the right of people to access free internet and can not be used for good purposes.

Not really, and it's the same argument Gerv made. Distributing an add-on
on our site doesn't constitute our approval of said add-on. Our review
guide is explicitly designed to evaluate add-ons on technical grounds
rather than other subjective criteria, because we don't want to put
ourselves in a position to tell people what they want or don't want.

The add-on doesn't report "bad" sites by itself. It needs people willing
to install it an use it. And these people will install the add-on either
from AMO or from other sites. Removing it from AMO will diminish its
visibility, but not by a lot, given that the same people could install
the add-on from a government site.

>> What we are asking here is different - is it right to reason from
>>
>> "Mozilla does not support X" to "Mozilla should refuse to host software
>>
>> which does X"?
> Yes. Otherwise you should also allow adult, gambling and warez addons to be hosted by Mozilla. You don't support them, so you refuse to host those addons. This is the same and even worse, because also adult and gambling software can have negative effects on individuals, and warez software can result loss for some companies, but this addon results in direct restriction of over 70'000'000 people and is far more dangerous.

The reason we don't allow adult material is because we want a "family
friendly" site. We have discussed including this sort of material behind
a flag, so that you have to opt-in to see it. I personally would prefer
this to be the case, so that there are less reasons to reject add-ons
based on their content.

Online gambling isn't allowed because of US law (as I understand it),
and it's unfortunate that we have to block one category of content based
on what one country requires. This is one of the reasons we have to be
careful when introducing exceptions like the one you're demanding. If we
decide to take down this add-on, we need to know where we are drawing
the line, since it will have a potential effect on all add-ons that are
submitted in the future.

>> A case for Mozilla has a whole not supporting any government censorship
>>
>> of the Internet could be made from Manifesto principles 2 and 5.
>>
>> However, I would want the Mozilla leadership to confirm that this is our
>>
>> position before we took action based on it.
>
> I hope Mozilla leadership accept that this addon violates Mozilla manifesto principles 5 and especially 2.

Let's wait and see what the Mozilla leadership has to say about this
case. I think it's important that we make this decision the right way.

Jorge

[Sameer Rahmani]

There is a huge difference between gambling or adult addons and this one. Gambling or adult content is not against web OPENNESS, but this addon is really a big violence of OPENNESS.

I know that users may install this from another location, and i don't care. but i do not expect Mozilla to host such addon which question the web OPENNESS. I really want Mozilla to reconsider its policy about such addons which are AGAINST the WEB OPENNESS and encourage censorship and filtering

[Sheeri Cabral]

Nothing is stopping concerned citizens from downloading the addon and reporting government sites and sites that censor as inappropriate.

If there was an addon to report hate crimes, it would be part of the mission, and we would embrace it.

We cannot know what everyone is doing with the data they gather in addons. Amazon.com and Facebook addons are used to gather information and used to spam people with ads and e-mails. Should we disallow those too?

Where do we draw the line? What happens when someone puts out a vague addon, or something insidious (for example, an addon used to "report pro-LGBT organizations to help make a list of allies" but then that really feeds into a list of people to prosecute in countries that prosecute those kinds of organizations)?

To be clear, I believe we don't allow gambling or adult addons not because Mozilla is against these things, but because they fall into a very tricky spot legally - Mozilla's mission for an "open web" doesn't say "an open web except for adult content and gambling". But adult content and gambling over the internet are tricky to manage from a legal perspective (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_gambling), and warez are harmful, so my *GUESS* is that this is why we don't allow those addons.

(that's a 100% guess, I'm not a lawyer, nor a member of the legal team, but I have worked for websites with adult content before)

Obviously we care about human rights issues, but there's only so much we can police, and it would be awful if we made a mistake and rejected an addon that we *thought* was "bad" but is really "good", and accepted an addon that *looked* "good" but in reality was "bad".

-Sheeri Cabral
Manager, Systems DB Team
Senior DB Admin/Architect
Mozilla

[dig...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 6:50:42 PM UTC+4:30, Jorge Villalobos wrote:
> On 5/14/13 6:29 AM, dig...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 2:07:26 PM UTC+4:30, Gervase Markham wrote:
>
> >> On 14/05/13 08:03, Sameer Rahmani wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> Yeah it does not. But remember that allowing such addons to be published
>
> >>
>
> >>> on official site of firefox show the world that Firefox and Mozilla
>
> >>
>
> >>> supports such activity
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> That's not so. The fact that the addons site contains a Bible Verse
>
> >>
>
> >> Toolbar doesn't mean that Mozilla actively supports people reading the
>
> >>
>
> >> Bible. The fact that it contains an Ad Block addon doesn't mean that
>
> >>
>
> >> Mozilla is taking a position on the goodness or otherwise of blocking ads.
>
> >>
>
> > Mozilla hosted other filtering addons like Ad-Block before. But this addon differs in the final option of using the result of that addon or not. You are FREE to use Ad-Block addon and its database. But this addon HELPs making a filtering database, which filters internet of 75'000'000 people later BY FORCE.
>
> > Using every addon is optional, but using the result of that addon should also be optional, but using a restricted internet which is result of this addon is MANDATORY and also in contrast with human rights.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> It is not right to reason from "Mozilla hosts software which can be used
>
> >>
>
> >> to do X" to "Mozilla supports X".
>
> > We can reason from "Mozilla hosts software which can ONLY be used to help filter the internet" to "Mozilla supports filtering internet" which is also in contrast with Mozilla Manifesto principles 2 and 5.
>
> > This addon is not like a knife which can be used for good and bad purposes. This addon is like nuke and its only goal is to restrict the right of people to access free internet and can not be used for good purposes.
>
>
>
> Not really, and it's the same argument Gerv made. Distributing an add-on
>
> on our site doesn't constitute our approval of said add-on. Our review
>
> guide is explicitly designed to evaluate add-ons on technical grounds
>
> rather than other subjective criteria, because we don't want to put
>
> ourselves in a position to tell people what they want or don't want.

Due to your words and opinion of Sheeri Cabral, I can conclude that in all cases of Adult, Gambling and Warez addons, mozilla don't support nor reject those categories and Mozilla is forced to reject that addons due to legal issues.
I can deduce that Mozilla wants to take a complete neutral position on addon subjects and make people Free to choose what is right and what's wrong.
But this addon helps a government to remove the FREEDOM to choose what's right and what's wrong. How can we ignore addon subjects to promote FREEDOM and OPENNESS of internet while we don't protect ourselves from others who want to REMOVE FREEDOM and OPENNESS of internet?

>
>
>
> The add-on doesn't report "bad" sites by itself. It needs people willing
>
> to install it an use it. And these people will install the add-on either
>
> from AMO or from other sites. Removing it from AMO will diminish its
>
> visibility, but not by a lot, given that the same people could install
>
> the add-on from a government site.

First of all, currently this addon is using Mozilla's fame, its servers and power to strengthen the mandatory filtering tool which violates web openness and freedom. Yeah, they always can proceed to their goals in this way or other, as they've already filtered internet without this addon. But Mozilla must not help them to restrict internet in Iran.
Second, we don't expect Mozilla to host an addon which is trying to restrict internet OPENNESS while it's promoting web openness through its Manifesto, as Sameer said.

>
>
>
>
>
> >> What we are asking here is different - is it right to reason from
>
> >>
>
> >> "Mozilla does not support X" to "Mozilla should refuse to host software
>
> >>
>
> >> which does X"?
>
> > Yes. Otherwise you should also allow adult, gambling and warez addons to be hosted by Mozilla. You don't support them, so you refuse to host those addons. This is the same and even worse, because also adult and gambling software can have negative effects on individuals, and warez software can result loss for some companies, but this addon results in direct restriction of over 70'000'000 people and is far more dangerous.
>
>
>
> The reason we don't allow adult material is because we want a "family
>
> friendly" site. We have discussed including this sort of material behind
>
> a flag, so that you have to opt-in to see it. I personally would prefer
>
> this to be the case, so that there are less reasons to reject add-ons
>
> based on their content.
>
>
>
> Online gambling isn't allowed because of US law (as I understand it),
>
> and it's unfortunate that we have to block one category of content based
>
> on what one country requires. This is one of the reasons we have to be
>
> careful when introducing exceptions like the one you're demanding. If we
>
> decide to take down this add-on, we need to know where we are drawing
>
> the line, since it will have a potential effect on all add-ons that are
>
> submitted in the future.

I completely understand that you want to act based on rules rather than situational exceptions. But I think you actually have that rule and you've already drawn a line which you can now act based on that. According to Mozilla Manifesto Principle 2:
"The Internet is a global public resource that must remain OPEN and ACCESSIBLE."
This addon is violating that principle and must be removed. You don't even need to change your policies, because you have this principle in your Manifesto. You must only act based on it.

Judging about this addon is very simple and clear. About governing other addons based on their content we can speak in another place.

>
>
>
> >> A case for Mozilla has a whole not supporting any government censorship
>
> >>
>
> >> of the Internet could be made from Manifesto principles 2 and 5.
>
> >>
>
> >> However, I would want the Mozilla leadership to confirm that this is our
>
> >>
>
> >> position before we took action based on it.
>
> >
>
> > I hope Mozilla leadership accept that this addon violates Mozilla manifesto principles 5 and especially 2.
>
>
>
> Let's wait and see what the Mozilla leadership has to say about this
>
> case. I think it's important that we make this decision the right way.

I respect the Mozilla's leadership and its role. But we brought clear reasons; we have clear rules (in the Manifesto) and we should act based on that rules. Otherwise, making decisions based on a person's desire will bring the dictatorship. I hope Mozilla's leadership take the reasonable decision based on the rules and principles.

>
>
>
> Jorge

[Justin Dolske]

On 5/13/13 1:39 PM, Jorge Villalobos wrote:

>> Please take a look at:
>> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/filter/
>>
>> The above addon helps our government to censor web and internet which is against the openness of web and also users rights. In Iran government filtered people access to many, many websites, web content and internet access. It's clearly against the mission of mozilla and even human rights.

[...]

>
> Just to expand a little bit on this, the add-on is just a reporting tool
> that people can use to submit inappropriate sites to (what looks like)
> the Iranian authorities. The add-on itself doesn't do any censorship itself.

What happens to sites that are reported?

If reports are essentially ignored (a "feel-good" mechanism) or fed into
a list whereby like-minded people can choose to have reported sites
blocked, I don't see any problem. That would make is basically the same
as Adblock, parental-filters, or various anti-porn filters.

But if it's being used to feed into a list that unconditionally blocks
users in Iran from being able to access reported sites (ie, without any
user consent or opt-in), I think that's a significant issue that _does_
run directly afoul of Mozilla's principles and goals -- even if the
add-on itself is ok from a technology/code perspective.

I'm not terribly familiar with internet censorship in Iran (but a brief
skim of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Iran
indicates it's a thing). But the same reasoning would apply to an add-on
designed to feed new entries into China's "Great Firewall". If a country
wants to filter their internet, I don't think we need to play even a
passive role in making it easier to install their reporting software.

Justin

[dani....@gmail.com]

Please also consider that this add-on can even make people get killed more fast and easy than before, too. For example you can look at Sattar Beheshti's Wikipedia page that mentioned before ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sattar_Beheshti ). I think this add-on is against human right at the most ultimate level which a software can be.

[Mohammad reza Kamalifard]

I agree with that,please remove this addon.

[Benjamin Smedberg]

On 5/14/2013 3:44 PM, Justin Dolske wrote:
>
>
> But if it's being used to feed into a list that unconditionally blocks
> users in Iran from being able to access reported sites (ie, without
> any user consent or opt-in), I think that's a significant issue that
> _does_ run directly afoul of Mozilla's principles and goals -- even if
> the add-on itself is ok from a technology/code perspective.
>
> I'm not terribly familiar with internet censorship in Iran (but a
> brief skim of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Iran
> indicates it's a thing). But the same reasoning would apply to an
> add-on designed to feed new entries into China's "Great Firewall". If
> a country wants to filter their internet, I don't think we need to
> play even a passive role in making it easier to install their
> reporting software.

Which of Mozilla's principles or positions do you think this harms? As
far as I know, the Mozilla project has never stated that government
internet censorship is inherently a bad thing.

Most of the project lives in Western democracies and we assume a shared
context that government censorship is a bad thing. But I don't think
it's necessarily our role to try and impose that idea of openness onto
countries which don't currently share that context.

--BDS

[Tim Chien]

While I haven't figure out how Mozilla AMO should do with this add-on,
I must respectfully sound my disagreement with what Benjamin just said
here.

Human rights is a universal concept, apply to everyone, everywhere, in
the same way. The concept also happen to be codified in the United
Nations charters.

There is no different human rights in different contexts, for
different countries. If (by if I mean I don't know if Benjamin think
of that) government censorship (and/or prosecution on individual based
on her/his access of a censored website) is a violation of human
rights, it would always be a wrong thing to do.

What a non-profit organization that promotes the innovation, openness,
and opportunities of the web, deal an action of potential violation of
human right, remain to be debated and decided. After all, the action
to take down an add-on itself, is a form of censorship, on AMO.

(Disclaimer: this email represents opinion of my own even through I
send it with an @mozilla.com e-mail address.)

[Justin Dolske]

On 5/15/13 7:05 AM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:

> Which of Mozilla's principles or positions do you think this harms?

Well, from the the Manifesto's "Principles" section:

1. The Internet is an integral part of modern life�a key component in
education, communication, collaboration, business, entertainment and
society as a whole.
2. The Internet is a global public resource that must remain open and
accessible.
3. The Internet should enrich the lives of individual human beings.
....
5. Individuals must have the ability to shape their own experiences on
the Internet.
....
10. Magnifying the public benefit aspects of the Internet is an
important goal, worthy of time, attention and commitment.

> Most of the project lives in Western democracies and we assume a shared
> context that government censorship is a bad thing. But I don't think
> it's necessarily our role to try and impose that idea of openness onto
> countries which don't currently share that context.

Small bit of nuance: I'm not suggesting we launch an effort to battle
government censorship in various countries or force them to openness.
I just think we don't need to be helping them, even passively so, by
providing a distribution point for this add-on.

(TBH I don't think there even needs to be a policy change, this seems
like a rare 1-off to be dealt with as a special case.)

Justin

[Majken Connor]

Yes, regarding government censorship, it is possible it reflects the will
of the people and I definitely don't disagree with a crime reporting tool
in principle.

The issue in this case is that it seems to be a tool to help suppress the
will of the people. What options do people who disagree with the government
have? Someone already mentioned that those violating these rules are
potentially subject to torture and death, not just to having their site
blocked. I agree that we could use human rights violations as a line to
draw.

We could also agree to be apolitical entirely and don't host any government
tools on AMO, I'm not sure that would be detrimental to our users as it
makes more sense for them to get these types of tools from their government
websites anyway.

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Justin Dolske <dol...@mozilla.com> wrote:

> On 5/15/13 7:05 AM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
>

> Which of Mozilla's principles or positions do you think this harms?
>>
>

> Well, from the the Manifesto's "Principles" section:
>

> 1. The Internet is an integral part of modern life—a key component in

> education, communication, collaboration, business, entertainment and
> society as a whole.
> 2. The Internet is a global public resource that must remain open and
> accessible.
> 3. The Internet should enrich the lives of individual human beings.
> ....
> 5. Individuals must have the ability to shape their own experiences on the
> Internet.
> ....
> 10. Magnifying the public benefit aspects of the Internet is an important
> goal, worthy of time, attention and commitment.
>
>

> Most of the project lives in Western democracies and we assume a shared
>> context that government censorship is a bad thing. But I don't think
>> it's necessarily our role to try and impose that idea of openness onto
>> countries which don't currently share that context.
>>
>

> Small bit of nuance: I'm not suggesting we launch an effort to battle
> government censorship in various countries or force them to openness.
> I just think we don't need to be helping them, even passively so, by
> providing a distribution point for this add-on.
>
> (TBH I don't think there even needs to be a policy change, this seems like
> a rare 1-off to be dealt with as a special case.)
>
>
> Justin

> ______________________________**_________________
> governance mailing list
> gover...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/**listinfo/governance<https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance>
>

[Rubén Martín]

El 15/05/13 16:05, Benjamin Smedberg escribió:

> Which of Mozilla's principles or positions do you think this harms? As
> far as I know, the Mozilla project has never stated that government
> internet censorship is inherently a bad thing.

http://www.mozilla.org/sopa/ ;)

[smmsa...@gmail.com]

Iranian laws on internet censorship is already the most restrictive in the whole world and Iranian government extend its Internet censorship every day. This is enforced filtering of the Internet and it puts human rights in danger. Please don't support this action.

[Gervase Markham]

On 15/05/13 16:56, Tim Chien wrote:
> There is no different human rights in different contexts, for
> different countries. If (by if I mean I don't know if Benjamin think
> of that) government censorship (and/or prosecution on individual based
> on her/his access of a censored website) is a violation of human
> rights, it would always be a wrong thing to do.

Most governments make some attempt to censor child pornography on the
Internet, and prosecute individuals who access it. If government
censorship is (in all circumstances) a human rights violation, than all
of these governments are violating human rights.

Mozilla is not a human rights organization, it's an open internet
organization. This is what we have come together and agree on.
Therefore, I suggest that arguments for or against keeping this addon on
AMO should be based on Mozilla's principles, not on anything else.

> (Disclaimer: this email represents opinion of my own even through I
> send it with an @mozilla.com e-mail address.)

Don't worry, that's the default :-)

Gerv

[Majken Connor]

Ah we're for the machines, not the humans ;)

I think it was unnecessary to use the comparison you did, and particularly
avoided it myself earlier. Most countries have laws restricting
(censoring?) content. Copyright infringement is a good example.

The human rights violation isn't necessarily the prosecution itself, it's
the method of prosecution. Though denying access to certain things through
law could also be a violation.

Maybe Mozilla isn't a human rights organization, but I was under the
impression it's a human right organization - the right to safe and free
communication and access of information on the internet.

On May 16, 2013 10:52 AM, "Gervase Markham" <ge...@mozilla.org> wrote:

> On 15/05/13 16:56, Tim Chien wrote:

> > There is no different human rights in different contexts, for
> > different countries. If (by if I mean I don't know if Benjamin think
> > of that) government censorship (and/or prosecution on individual based
> > on her/his access of a censored website) is a violation of human
> > rights, it would always be a wrong thing to do.
>

> Most governments make some attempt to censor child pornography on the
> Internet, and prosecute individuals who access it. If government
> censorship is (in all circumstances) a human rights violation, than all
> of these governments are violating human rights.
>
> Mozilla is not a human rights organization, it's an open internet
> organization. This is what we have come together and agree on.
> Therefore, I suggest that arguments for or against keeping this addon on
> AMO should be based on Mozilla's principles, not on anything else.
>

> > (Disclaimer: this email represents opinion of my own even through I
> > send it with an @mozilla.com e-mail address.)
>

> Don't worry, that's the default :-)
>
> Gerv
>

> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> gover...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>

[hand...@mozilla.com]

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

[Majken Connor]

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?

[Jorge Villalobos]

The listing has been disabled, per the reasoning presented above.

Thank you, Harvey.

Jorge Villalobos
Add-ons Developer Relations Lead

[Sameer Rahmani]

Thanks for your consideration.

[smmsa...@gmail.com]

It's not a complete solution for access to free information but's a positive step to show our communities can help each other to solve such problems.
Thank you.

[Gervase Markham]

On 17/05/13 04:35, hand...@mozilla.com 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.

Thanks for stepping in, and providing careful analysis.

I am not in agreement with the idea that unfiltered Internet access is a
human right, but I think your conclusion is the correct one.

Gerv