An alternative framing for the harms section

[martinthomson]

In looking at Robin's edits in #123, I was inspired to write something different.

It retains the same basic idea, but tries to avoid some of the hedging language.

That said, hedging is essential here. We're talking about evolutions to the web here and any change comes with consequences, just as not changing does. No action at this scale avoids harms, but we have a framework within which we can make these decisions in the priority of constituencies.

[hober]

I wish whitespace changes weren't mixed in with substantive changes.

[hadleybeeman]

@martinthomson we're minded to close this as we don't think it fits together with the language of the rest of the document. The document is very focused on our commitments and aspirations — we've tried to keep the language to a minimum — and it seems like the language you're proposing is descriptive. While we don't disagree with your proposed content, we'd like to keep this document as minimal as we can.

Also in general we think the current version of the document needs to play the role it needs be in use as a Statement for some time before we consider wording changes.