FSF is Now on Bluesky - But Won't Advocate Signing Up Due to Nonfree JavaScript (fsf.org)
- Reference: 0185437166
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/26/09/05/0452205/fsf-is-now-on-bluesky---but-wont-advocate-signing-up-due-to-nonfree-javascript
- Source link: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/2026-bluesky
> 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 [6]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 [7]on Bluesky and [8]on Mastodon today."
Slashdot [9]also has an account on Blueky .
[1] https://bsky.app/profile/fsf.org
[2] https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/2026-bluesky
[3] https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/a-new-challenger-to-twitters-walled-garden-mastodon
[4] https://framatube.org/video-channels/fsf_channel/videos
[5] https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/freejs
[6] https://www.fsf.org/facebook
[7] https://bsky.app/profile/fsf.org
[8] https://hostux.social/@fsf
[9] https://bsky.app/profile/slashdot.org
I mean, the FSF can't advocate signing up ... (Score:2)
But there is precedent for having [1]someone do it for you [youtu.be].
[1] https://youtu.be/qIige41_h1Q&t=171
Re: (Score:3)
[1]PETA kills animals [theatlantic.com].
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/petas-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-history-of-killing-animals/254130/
Ah yes ... (Score:3, Funny)
... threaded mastodons, roaming under a blue sky ... if we wish hard enough, it will be a thing.
JavaScript (Score:5, Insightful)
Bring back the unscripted web, please.
TOTAL FREE SPEECH OR NO SPEECH AT ALL (Score:2)
Wimps and poseurs leave the hall!
Try these:
- [1]https://annihilation.social/ [annihilation.social]
- [2]https://fsebugoutzone.org/ [fsebugoutzone.org]
- [3]https://clubcyberia.co/ [clubcyberia.co]
- [4]https://noauthority.social/ [noauthority.social]
- [5]https://eveningzoo.club/ [eveningzoo.club]
- [6]https://nicecrew.digital/ [nicecrew.digital]
- [7]https://rebelbase.site/ [rebelbase.site]
- [8]https://poster.place/ [poster.place]
- [9]https://na.social/ [na.social]
[1] https://annihilation.social/
[2] https://fsebugoutzone.org/
[3] https://clubcyberia.co/
[4] https://noauthority.social/
[5] https://eveningzoo.club/
[6] https://nicecrew.digital/
[7] https://rebelbase.site/
[8] https://poster.place/
[9] https://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?
They point to their generic JS complaint page (Score:3)
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: (Score:3, 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)
It's funny cause it's true.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? The FSF has no official stance on [1]SOAP. [wikipedia.org]
Oh, wait...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOAP
...what part of BlueSky isn't 100% MIT licensed? (Score:3)
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?
[1]https://web-cdn.bsky.app/stati... [bsky.app] for the main React
[1] https://web-cdn.bsky.app/static/js/3035.acfb0c22.js.LICENSE.txt
Re: (Score:3)
...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)