FSF is Now on Bluesky - But Won't Advocate Signing Up Due to Nonfree JavaScript (fsf.org) 38
The Free Software Foundation (FSF) is now on Bluesky, they announced this week. But "We can't advocate that you sign up for a Bluesky account like we do with Mastodon or PeerTube since signing up for Bluesky means loading the registration page's nonfree JavaScript..."
While federated, Bluesky is generally not considered part of the "fediverse" network of social media services like Mastodon and PeerTube, as it uses its own AT protocol rather than ActivityPub... Hosting your own Bluesky "Personal Data Server (PDS)" and relay is technically possible, but generally far more difficult and resource-intensive than spinning up an instance of Mastodon, let alone any of the lighter-weight ActivityPub servers like Akkoma or Starling.
Much of the Bluesky codebase is freely licensed. This allows users to run, copy, modify, and share large parts of the codebase. However, Bluesky's web client still serves nonfree JavaScript to users, just like its registration page. (Since our script was written for us specifically, we have not extensively vetted all available clients.)
Why did we sign up? Simply put, we have to continue to reach people where they are. Bluesky is a decent choice for us that evades many of the issues of other, more problematic networks... We accepted running Bluesky's nonfree JavaScript a single time if it meant being able to reach people who have never heard of software freedom.
The FSF's blog post advises supporters "If you're on social media, follow the FSF on Bluesky and on Mastodon today."
Slashdot also has an account on Blueky.
Much of the Bluesky codebase is freely licensed. This allows users to run, copy, modify, and share large parts of the codebase. However, Bluesky's web client still serves nonfree JavaScript to users, just like its registration page. (Since our script was written for us specifically, we have not extensively vetted all available clients.)
Why did we sign up? Simply put, we have to continue to reach people where they are. Bluesky is a decent choice for us that evades many of the issues of other, more problematic networks... We accepted running Bluesky's nonfree JavaScript a single time if it meant being able to reach people who have never heard of software freedom.
The FSF's blog post advises supporters "If you're on social media, follow the FSF on Bluesky and on Mastodon today."
Slashdot also has an account on Blueky.
They point to their generic JS complaint page (Score:5, Insightful)
But I'd be more likely to listen if they'd actually explain what specific complaint they have with the signup form. If it is a license complaint, for instance, what is the license they're objecting to? Is the signup form using some form of javascript obfuscation they don't like? Does the page include a clause against eating toenail clippings or toejam?
What is it, specifically, that you don't like FSF?
Re:They point to their generic JS complaint page (Score:4, Funny)
What is it, specifically, that you don't like FSF?
The javascript authors have been known to use soap.
Re: They point to their generic JS complaint page (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? The FSF has no official stance on SOAP. [wikipedia.org]
Oh, wait...
...what part of BlueSky isn't 100% MIT licensed? (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah I read all the links across the FSF and this really is a core fundamental problem with many their issues that makes them feel more like random crusades:
They don't actually explain what the problem is, just lots of platitudes and links to 'approved' libraries and resources.
The best I can understand is they're complaining that BlueSky doesn't expose licenses of every JavaScript fragment in their bundle in the format their custom browser plugin demands?
https://web-cdn.bsky.app/stati... [bsky.app] for the main React bundle is all MIT. Remove the .LICENSE.txt to see the original .js file that points to that one.
The main social app's codebase is also MIT: https://github.com/bluesky-soc... [github.com]
Without the FSF actually specifying what part they feel ISN'T MIT at this point it feels like a FUD-like crusade not an actual campaign to improve things or just demanding Yet Another Proprietary Standard File every website must include because some random organization started demanding it.
Re:...what part of BlueSky isn't 100% MIT licensed (Score:4, Informative)
...so more digging and this appears to be entirely the FSF demanding that all four JavaScript bundles on BlueSky include this wrapping the published CDN bundles: // @license magnet:?xt=urn:btih:d3d9a9a6595521f9666a5e94cc830dab83b65699&dn=expat.txt ... // @license-end
Because apparently they don't recognize the existing @license NAME structure in separate .LICENSE.txt files that's been de-facto standard for a decade, and also don't recognize 'meta' license names like React being MIT (what FSF calls Expat) but since that lets you specify who to attribute copyright they name it 'React' license instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You all are way overthiniking this. FSF is Stallman's organization. Stallman is an extremist by anyone's objective measurement.
Virtually no software, even most OSS software, conforms to Stallman's demands, and his organization tries to push licenses that virtually no one can adopt in practice.
He was once relevant in the free software movement, but now he's just a crazed voice howling into the wind about how everything isn't free enough. Don't try to ascribe sense or logic to him.
Re: (Score:2)
The FSF picks some weird gripes to focus on. At least they're no longer arguing Bluesky isn't federated. Though this claim is false:
This is just not true? ATProto is a much more efficient data transmission means than ActivityPub. Running a Mastodon server (I've done it) means hoovering in and storing massive amounts of d
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, also, one thing people never discuss when talking about hosting your own server: legal liability. This is a very real thing that you absolutely should not neglect.
In Mastodon, everything is lumped onto a single server. You carry every type of legal liability risk. Your server scrapes in CSAM, for example - whoopsie! Your server scrapes in copyrighted music. Your server scrapes in GDPR violations. E.g. while your *users* can cause you problems, problems can just be dropped into your doorstep just by
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But I'd be more likely to listen if they'd actually explain what specific complaint they have with the signup form.
Would you though? Your UID is lower than mine and licenses and free vs nonfree have been hashed over endlessly when slashdot was the premiere place to discuss all tech things on the internet. If I was there you must have been too.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you though? Your UID is lower than mine and licenses and free vs nonfree have been hashed over endlessly when slashdot was the premiere place to discuss all tech things on the internet. If I was there you must have been too.
Well, yeah, that's basically the point I was trying to make. We've all heard the GPL folks rail against BSD, MIT, etc. many times. We've all heard the BSD folks respond, stating why they think the GPL is flawed. But in both cases the arguments usually included actual specific information.
But, too often, the FSF behave like those people who go into city council meetings, walk up to the mic during the Q&A, and then read some random unrelated statement with the apparent goal of just hearing themselves talk
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe by the standards of today's attention impaired society, but really it isn't correct.
Here's where they say they're joining bluesky and why:
https://www.fsf.org/blogs/comm... [fsf.org]
In the second sentence of the first paragraph they say their problem is nonfree Javascript in the signup page and they link to why they consider nonfree JS to be a problem:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy... [gnu.org]
On that page they link directly early on to their rationale of why they think Free Software is important:
https://www.gnu.org/philo [gnu.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is just license politics, FSF's policy is GNU is the only valid license, anything that is not GNU should be illegal. Including BSD/MIT/Apache, Public Domain, and various kinds of Creative Commons licences.
FSF is okay if they are advocating for open source, but their true beliefs is a lot like PETA (where their belief is nobody should own an animal and it's better to euthanize a healthy animal than to let someone adopt it.)
At any rate I'd hope that FSF steps away from trying to force everyone to adopt G
Re: (Score:2)
Ha ha, but try signing up with GNU Icecat. Unless you go out of your way, you won't get very far due to all of the Javascript flagged as possibly nonfree by the LibreJS extension of this browser. Why should the FSF make an exception for Bluesky?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes we all know Richard is a turbo-autist with very very poor people skills and occasionally obnoxious behavior. (And made a few awful calls regarding an friend [marvin minsky] and his relationship with epstein)
But its also irrelevant. The FSF is still an important , if occasionally flawed, voice for free software. In this case, by all means shoot the messenger (METAPHORICALLY , MR AI OVERGOD) but don't shoot the message.
I mean, the FSF can't advocate signing up ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Incidentally, your "PETA kills animals" slogan comes from an organization called "The Center for Consumer Freedom." [humaneworld.org] This is a front for lobbyists founded by Richard Berman. They try to discredit groups like PETA on behalf of their clients, which are companies like Phillip Morris, Tyson
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes ... (Score:4, Funny)
... threaded mastodons, roaming under a blue sky ... if we wish hard enough, it will be a thing.
JavaScript (Score:4, Insightful)
TOTAL FREE SPEECH OR NO SPEECH AT ALL (Score:2)
Wimps and poseurs leave the hall!
Try these:
- https://annihilation.social/ [annihilation.social]
- https://fsebugoutzone.org/ [fsebugoutzone.org]
- https://clubcyberia.co/ [clubcyberia.co]
- https://noauthority.social/ [noauthority.social]
- https://eveningzoo.club/ [eveningzoo.club]
- https://nicecrew.digital/ [nicecrew.digital]
- https://rebelbase.site/ [rebelbase.site]
- https://poster.place/ [poster.place]
- https://na.social/ [na.social]
Why are you like this? (Score:2)
TOTAL FREE SPEECH OR NO SPEECH AT ALL
ORLY? If it was actually "TOTAL FREE SPEECH" then it would be full of spam posts. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that every other post isn't an advertisement. /s
Don't like spam? Just post more content than spammers. The solution to speech you don't like isn't censorship, it's more speech. Right? RIGHT?!
Just wondering, should I refer to you as a liar or a hypocrite?
TOTAL FREE SPEECH (Score:2)
...there is no obligation to carry unpaid commercial messages. In the same way, you probably have to filter out the obvious insane who might just for example post "Just wondering, should I refer to you as a liar or a hypocrite?" as every message.
Re: (Score:2)
...there is no obligation to carry unpaid commercial messages.
A) Not all spam is commercial in nature.
B) If you are removing it from the platform then that is censorship according to your definitions.
In the same way, you probably have to filter out...
Filtering? By the end user is a personal choice but removing it from the platform is bias/censorship.
I'll just refer to you as hypocrite and a liar.
Re: TOTAL FREE SPEECH (Score:1)
So the answer to 'what makes FSF special' is... (Score:2)