In the long term, I see that as the future of Mozilla’s responsibility to the Web; not here merely to protect the Web, not merely to defend your freedom to participate in the Web, but to mount a positive defense of people’s opportunities to participate. And on the other side of that coin, to build accountable tools, systems and communities that promise not only freedom from arbitrary harassment, but even freedom from the possibility of that harassment.

The author wants “freedom from the possibility of harassment”? That sounds an awful lot like the freedom from the possibility of copyright infringement which the EU parliament has decided lately. To remove even the possibility of some harm usually requires draconian acts. Freedom from the possibility of harassment requires you to reduce false negatives (not rejecting harmful behaviors and people) and that usually comes at the expense of more false positives (rejecting harmless things and people). Being open always comes with a risk. If you reduce the risk, you reduce the openness.

In short, I see openness and safety as two goals in conflict. I don’t see how Mozilla can improve one without hurting the other by building something.