On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 6:50:42 PM UTC+4:30, Jorge Villalobos wrote: > On 5/14/13 6:29 AM, [email protected] 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 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
