Re: Ideas for policies to protect Suggested Tiles users' data

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:09 AM, Patrick Finch <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> On 4/24/2015 7:12 PM, Chris Hofmann wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Philip Chee <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  On 24/04/2015 05:23, Robert Kaiser wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ed Lee schrieb:
>>>>
>>>>> - focus on uncontroversial topics, so exclude adult content,
>>>>> drugs/alcohol/tobacco, illegal gambling, weapons, politics,
>>>>> religion
>>>>>
>>>> Be careful with the phrasing here: what gambling is legal or illegal
>>>>   varies across the world (actually even within countries, e.g. states
>>>>   within the US). ;-)
>>>>
>>> religion: the LDS are against stimulants so you better add coffee to
>>> drugs/alcohol/tobacco
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>>>  Again, lets get back to what the system will try to do and what the
>> assumptions are.
>>
>> Sounds like what the system will do looks something like:
>>
>>    The system will try to stay way from displaying "controversial topics"
>>
>> This will be hard, and gets even harder when expanded globally where there
>> is possible
>> conflict between definitions of what is acceptable and what is
>> controversial.
>>
>
> I don't think that this captures the complexity of the issue. Applying a
> broad definition of what is controversial (and therefore a narrow one of
> what is acceptable) would represent an unwelcome cultural bias.  This will
> not be something we do once, but something that we will have to frequently
> and probably continually evaluate.
>

Exactly.  That's why we need to be clear with a set of guidelines, and
examples of what complies, and what does not, so that when different
individuals get involved to suggest new tiles, or their removal, over time
there will be some level of consistency in the decision making.   That's
what drives most of the questions below.

Also by writing down the framework for the decision making people will be
able to understand how specific content approval decisions got made, or how
to suggest changes to the framework if there are concerns that arise.

Certainly, what is acceptable now for content is likely to change 1, 3, 5,
or 10 years from now.


>
>> The questions around this topic might look like:
>>
>> 1) Where will we write down what the current policy is, and details about
>> the definition of the policy?
>>
> We will at least have some form of that policy on a sales-facing site.
> What level of granularity we go into may be questionable.
>

I'm guessing that it will be valuable to share the policies beyond the
sales facing side.  At some time in the future someone's going to be upset
by a content selection, and if the rational for how that selection is
posted somewhere a couple of things happen.   We might make fewer mistakes
when the global community spots a policy that will likley to be offensive,
and secondly if widely offensive content does get included we will quickly
be able to explain how we got to including that content and what the
rational was.


>  2) Who will define, and manage, and be responsible for the policy, and any
>> ongoing updates that are needed?
>>
> I would imagine that Content Services and Legal & Business Affairs teams
> would drive the above.  I think we need international input on this,
> however.  Do you have suggestions on that front?
>

I think both of those things are important.  In the past we have attempted
to push as much ownership of localized versions of Firefox to the
localization module owners, but the complexity and management of these
feature makes that approach more difficult.   Its probably the right
approach for BD and Legal to drive the suggestion of what partnerships are
constructed, but the localization module owners and the localization
communities should be in the communication loop as the content deals
progress.  These folks are our valuable "eyes and ears on the ground" and
will be invaluable on making sure the right choices are made
internationally.


>
>  3) What will be the process for requesting change to the policy or adding
>> or removing specific criteria  (e.g. drugs/tabacco/etc.. ) to the policy?
>>
> I would imagine that most such requests would originate from Content
> Services, and would involve discussion with Legal & Business Affairs (did
> you imagine the same?).  Is perhaps a closer question, "what is the forum
> which will be notified about proposed and actual changes to the policy ?"
>

Yeah, that gets at the heart of the question.  Both the forum and the
process would be good to work out.  If I find that we are showing a tile,
or have a policy that is deeply offensive in a particular region of the
world what should I do?

Having some instructions that explain that would be good.  It can be as
simple as "file a bug under component X, and module owner Y will consider
your request"  if indeed this process is managed under the bug system.


>
>  4) How will we ensure that any ad/sponsorship deals are reviewed against
>> the current policy, and that deals will include terms that meet the
>> current
>> and possibly future definitions of the policy?
>>
>
> This question confuses me.  I would not propose that any deal has to
> include terms that meet possible future policies, although that is possibly
> not what you mean.  At the moment, this is a fairly manual process whereby
> deals are reviewed and the terms are contractual.
>

The manual process is where mistakes can get introduced.   Understanding
the restrictions mozilla wants to place on content to avoid offensive
content will be a difficult job and could get more complex over time.
Constructing deals will also continue to be a difficult job and we will get
a wider array of proposals for content if the program is successful.
Having both of these worlds in the same head will bring about many
exploding heads ;-)

If we have someone that is responsible for understanding the current state
of both world, or at least making sure that the deals are in-line with
policy and examples we are likely to do a much better job of this as it all
gets more complex.


>
>
>> 5) Will it be possible to understand the full list of ad/sponsorship
>> partners and the content that could be presented to users as a back up to
>> make sure the content matches the policy?
>>
>
> I would imagine can create a list of all partnerships and categorise them
> by industry, if it adds value for someone.  What problem are you trying to
> solve for here?  This sounds like an audit to me.
>
>
Yes, its a way to audit.   Since tile presentation is non-deterministic in
the browser it would be hard for anyone to know all the content choices
that Mozilla might be presenting at anyone point in time.  If we had a
place where anyone could view the cumulative set of tiles that anyone in
the world might see, that would help anyone that wanted to participate in
this auditing.    This might also be a helpful general testing tool.

-chofmann


> Patrick
>
>  -chofmann
>>
>