362125 - myDirtyDates toolbar should indicate that it contains explicit material

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(addons.mozilla.org Graveyard :: Policy, defect)

Description

[VanillaMozilla]

Sexually explicit material, inappropriate for AMO.

"Quick access to myDirtyDates.com, the place for Adult Dating Online. Chat, view pictures, rate profiles, go to private webcam rooms and more."

"Warning: This site includes chat, video and other explicit sexual material
You must be 18 or older to proceed. All members on this site are 18 or older."

( http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?p=2623722#2623722 )

Comment 1

[Mike Shaver (:shaver -- probably not reading bugmail closely)]

Just so I'm clear: you're saying that we should have a policy prohibiting add-ons that relate to explicit content?  Or that we do have such a policy and this is in violation of it?

Having such a policy, for a global project like Mozilla, would be pretty troublesome to manage.  Would a Sports Illustrated toolbar violate it?  A Dallas Cowgirls theme?  A toolbar for the old hypothetical "women without veils" site?

The add-on description itself doesn't have any explicit content, which I think would be inappropriate; it should probably have a warning in the description that the site for which the toolbar is built contains explicit material.

Comment 2

[VanillaMozilla]

(In reply to comment #1)
> Just so I'm clear: you're saying that we should have a policy prohibiting
> add-ons that relate to explicit content?  Or that we do have such a policy and
> this is in violation of it?

If AMO wants to promote "Quick access to myDirtyDates.com, the place for Adult Dating Online", this is a good way to do it.  Currently, "Mozilla reserves the right to remove or modify such material as it deems necessary and appropriate to serve the interests of the project and its users."  I'm not sure how this serves anyone, since the services are easily available in other ways, and this exposes a seamy underside of Mozilla.

As to what is appropriate, links to such material are quickly deleted in mozillaZine, for example.  In my opinion, this one crosses the line because it promotes sexually explicit material.


> Having such a policy, for a global project like Mozilla, would be pretty
> troublesome to manage.  Would a Sports Illustrated toolbar violate it?  A
> Dallas Cowgirls theme?  A toolbar for the old hypothetical "women without
> veils" site?

If there's a line to be crossed, it can and should be enforced.  That's what reviews are for.  If there's no line, there's a pretty serious precedent that's about to be set here.


> The add-on description itself doesn't have any explicit content, which I think
> would be inappropriate; it should probably have a warning in the description
> that the site for which the toolbar is built contains explicit material.
 
I certainly agree with that.

Comment 3

[VanillaMozilla]

(In reply to comment #1)
> Just so I'm clear: you're saying that we should have a policy prohibiting
> add-ons that relate to explicit content?

Actually, yes, there should be a policy.  For it or against it.  Either way, there should be a policy.  I can file another bug report if you want.

Comment 4

[Mike Shaver (:shaver -- probably not reading bugmail closely)]

> Currently, "Mozilla reserves the
> right to remove or modify such material as it deems necessary and appropriate
> to serve the interests of the project and its users."

That's from the *draft* policy document, as I'm sure you're aware, but even as written it doesn't speak to your point.  It simply states that we _can_ remove or modify listings as we deem necessary, which I don't think was in dispute at all.

If you have requests or suggestions for an addition to that draft with respect to what kinds of site affiliations we should permit for hosted ("promoted" language will not make your case any more effective, in case that concerns you) add-ons, please add it to the discussion page there.

To be useful in guiding policy decisions, you should describe in as much concrete detail as possible what criteria should be used to permit or disqualify a given add-on.  My previous questions may be a useful guide for determining whether your proposed policy is concrete enough to be useful:

> > Having such a policy, for a global project like Mozilla, would be pretty
> > troublesome to manage.  Would a Sports Illustrated toolbar violate it?  A
> > Dallas Cowgirls theme?  A toolbar for the old hypothetical "women without
> > veils" site?

(Please, other comments on this or other policy requests should be kept out of this bug; my somewhat-rhetorical questions were not intended to turn this bug into a long-running debate over the morality threshold of AMO listings, and keeping commentary on the draft in the discussion page will make it much easier to avoid missing comments or input as we finalize the policy from that draft.)

I'm morphing this bug to cover the request for a more explicit (heh) label on the myDirtyDates toolbar listing, though I will say that I would be very surprised to discover that someone reading that listing wouldn't already expect to find explicit content within the orbit of the toolbar in question.  (Does the toolbar itself in fact contain explicit material?  I haven't had time to look yet for myself.)

Comment 5

[VanillaMozilla]

(In reply to comment #4)
> (Does
> the toolbar itself in fact contain explicit material?  I haven't had time to
> look yet for myself.)

It links to an "adults-only" site; it implicitly uses AMO to advertise that site.


> I'm morphing this bug to cover the request for a more explicit (heh) label on
> the myDirtyDates toolbar listing, though I will say that I would be very
> surprised to discover that someone reading that listing wouldn't already expect
> to find explicit content within the orbit of the toolbar in question.

I too am skeptical of the value of a warning label.  I'm not sure it would have much benefit except to provide AMO a fig leaf of deniability.

>other comments on this or other policy requests should be kept out of
this bug; ...keeping commentary on the draft in the discussion page will make it much easier to avoid missing comments....

Agreed.  There is already a discussion, and a draft policy has been posted.  For a hot topic like that I wouldn't want to be driving without one.

Comment 6

[Mike Shaver (:shaver -- probably not reading bugmail closely)]

This add-on is no longer on AMO.