I find all these principles sensible, although I also struggle to differentiate them from each other, i.e. to find the specific idea in each one that distinguishes it from the general idea that a healthy and safe internet that is “open and accessible to all” requires the set of attributes described in the various principles, including a commitment to inclusion, cross-cultural collaboration, encouraging multiple viewpoints, and tolerance.
(This may be simply a lack of contextual understanding on my part; I haven’t read the raw feedback from which these principles were derived.)
Have we given thought to the conclusions we would draw from these principles about changes we would want to make to the internet, and how we might go about making those changes? It isn’t necessary to do so, but I find that it’s useful when reasoning about principles to consider their practical implications.
For example, it strikes me that an internet that conforms to these principles would require:
- some form of active governance over internet activities and individual/organizational behavior on the internet (as opposed to a laissez faire approach in which “anything goes” and individuals/organizations are expected to self-organize rules and enforcement mechanisms for behavior in the activities they control);
- governance that is global and public in nature (as opposed to national—via laws and regulatory agencies—which is public but not global; or corporate governance—policies and procedures—which may be international but is private).
And thus a change Mozilla might want to make is to establish/strengthen international, non-governmental bodies (perhaps along the lines of IANA/ICANN and IETF/ISOC) that develop and enforce rules and policies for individual behavior in internet activities.
I’m curious to hear what others think the practical consequences of these principles would be.