The #FSD purpose is to help people “find freedom-respecting programs”. Browsing the directory reveals copious freedom-disrespecting resources. For example:
- projects jailed in MS #Github (amid substantial ethical issues)
- projects jailed in #Gitlab·com (amid substantial ethical issues)
- projects with resources (docs, forums, wikis, APIs, etc) that are jailed in #Cloudflare’s walled garden (amid substantial ethical issues)
FSF has no tags for these anti-features. It suggests a problem with integrity and credibility. People expect to be able to trust FSF as an org that prioritizes user freedom. Presenting this directory with unmarked freedom pitfalls sends the wrong message & risks compromising trust and transparency. Transparency is critical to the FOSS ideology. Why not clearly mark the freedom pitfalls?
UPDATE
The idea of having exclusive clubs with gatekeepers is inconsistent with FSF’s most basic principles, specifically:
All important site functionality that's enabled for use with that package works correctly (though it need not look as nice) in free browsers, including IceCat, without running any nonfree software sent by the site. (C0)Does not discriminate against classes of users, or against any country. (C2)Permits access via Tor (we consider this an important site function). (C3)
Failing any of those earns an “F” grade (Github & gitlab·com both fail).
If Cloudflare links in the #FSF FSD are replaced with archive.org mirrors, that avoids a bulk of the exclusivity. #InternetArchive’s #ALA membership automatically invokes the Library Bill of Rights (LBR), which includes:
V. A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views.VI. Libraries which make exhibit spaces and meeting rooms available to the public they serve should make such facilities available on an equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use.VII. All people, regardless of origin, age, background, or views, possess a right to privacy and confidentiality in their library use. Libraries should advocate for, educate about, and protect people’s privacy, safeguarding all library use data, including personally identifiable information.
The LBR is consistent with FSF’s principles so this is a naturally fitting solution. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is also noteworthy. Even if the FSD is technically not a public service, the public uses it and FSF is an IRS-qualified 501(c)(3) public charity, making it public enough to observe these UDHR clauses:
art.21 ¶2. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.art.27 ¶1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
These fundamental egalitarian principles & rights are a minimum low bar to set that cannot be construed as “unreasonable” or “purist” or “extremist”.
Those might look like freedom pitfalls but are actually not. On the one hand gitlab dot com is not really bad for freedom as it has at least an open core and is very freedom friendly. Gitlab can be easily circumvented by using got client directly. Maybe a tag could be helpful here.
Any way, just clearing cookies after closing the session is very enough for github.
Cloudflare? Why are you even mentioning this? This is part of projects infrastructure. We need to draw a line somewhere. For example would you visit a website if it was hosted on Windows server? If they use ESXi? Or if user account are managed with Active Directory or firebase?
Sure you are free to be as eclectic as you want, but at the end, those are very minor issues that do not dent FSF credibility. Remember it stand for Free software first.
Edit: typos
No, and I visit cloudfare websites too.
But I still agree with everything OP says. Like the warnings in the F-Droid android app store informing users that an app promotes non-free services, but it doesn’t stop me, or anyone else, from installing them. I simply think people should be informed that services are less free than they can be, and made aware of the many risks that come with non-free services. It’s an idealist stance, a goal to push our reality towards, rather than a way of life for most (those who treat it like a way of life are very, very rare).
But this is a false analogy anyways. Windows servers aren’t banning users behind tor, or cgnat for no apparent reason like cloudfare is. I think we should discourage the use of nonfree services, but it’s not a yes/no binary. Certain things are more free than others, and we should encourage people to choose the freer option. Cloudfare tunneling a linux service is more free than hosting your website using vendor locked cloud tech (AWS s3, lambda, dns, etc). Hosting your won website on an windows server is still not free, but arguably more free than vendor locked cloud stuff. Linux deployments using only FOSS is arguably the most free software you can get, but you still have to deal with nonfree hardware and drivers.
I still use GitHub. But I hate that it has no ipv6 connectivity, meaning that those who don’t have ipv4 are excluded, and it’s absolutely unacceptable for a tech company of all things, to not keep up to date. The moment federation gets added to forgejo or another one of the self hostable git forges, I will switch (but probably mirror stuff for recruiter purposes), since that’s more inclusive than github, but right now, they are not more inclusive than github because instances are small and do not interoperate.
I’ve known people who were absolutely like this, who wouldn’t use a site/service/etc. because it wasn’t on a 100% FOSS stack. It’s tiresome.
I’m all for open source, open standards, being able to modify and share the tools you use, etc. But people like that are extremists who seem to go out of their way to undermine their own credibility and message.
It depends on how it is hosted. Is Tor blocked, thus forcing me to reveal metadata that identifies me to MS in order to reach the resource? If yes, then no, I would walk. Is it enshitified with popups & CAPTCHAs? If yes, then no. It comes down to what information must I share with who and what hoops do I have to go through.
If the website is sufficiently usable without unreasonable data compromise, then the mere fact that MS is in the supply chain would not stop me using it. This is only due to global lack of social advancement. That is, when we are up to our necks in garbage, who we choose to support (and to what extent) is relative. If Cloudflare did not exist and the communities being marginalized by CF were liberated, then there would be a theoretical point where a 100% boycott on all things Microsoft would be sensible. ATM, we’re not even close to that degree of progress where picking that battle would be wise.
It’s tiresome that exclusivity & enshitification persists on such a huge scale which encumbers people on a daily basis because there are so many pushovers feeding & pushing shitty websites. The digital rights movements are starving for more people with integrity.
It’s the hypocrisy of not practicing what you preach that undermines one’s own credibility and the digital rights mission. Quite perverse to claim the contrary— that adherence to one’s own ideology in practice would “undermine their own credibility and message.” It’s tiresome to see digital rights activists needlessly using contradictory tech that’s antithetical to the purpose they claim to support.
You’re conflating a specific instance (the flagship one) with the software it uses, and also neglecting that it runs a non-free enterprise-licensed package, not free s/w. SaaS ≠ software. This particular instance scores poorly by FSF’s own freedom criteria.
There are FOSS-based Gitlab community repos which have no notable freedom issues, but these are not what my comment refers to. The Gitlab CE instances would not need an anti-feature tag. But Gitlab dot com does.
Restricted-access docs exclude people and also violates the Free Documentation License.
Software as a service was rightfully cautioned by RMS himself and it is well inside the purview of FSF which has published various essays on the topic.
Going way overboard to the point of being pure is one of the biggest issues the FSF has in terms of relevance and your suggesting they go further down the rabbit hole. It is better to direct people to good FOSS they can and will use then some imagined pure breed that no one will ever use. It is better to have a big tent then a miniscule one too.
Do I like github. Not really. For that matter do I like git… No. Biggest issue with github is that it mixes FOSS and non-FOSS and even worse not all projects have clear licensing.
As far as Cloudflair… they are a CDN. relax. Nothing is locked there. Nothing is locked to source hosting either. Just pull the source.
Nonsense. Cloudflare (a proxy not a CDN) is exclusive. People like myself are in the excluded group. If Cloudflare gives you no problems personally, then you are in the included group. It’s designed so those excluded are invisible to the included group. You can only see the barriers to entry if you are actually excluded.
Please tell me how and why you are excluded. Curios I am.
First of all Cloudflare does not disclose to excluded communities why they are excluded. This non-transparency keeps the marginalized in the dark about both the technical criteria for exclusion and also the business reason for exclusion.
Why I personally have been excluded is irrelevant trivia. The full extent of CF’s exclusion is unknown but it’s evident that at a minimum these groups of people are excluded:
I personally experience exclusion by all of the above except CGNAT.
I’m gonna need you to explain that one super chief. Do you seriously believe blind people browse the web through a terminal using Lynx or something?
From the perspective of screen readers: yes
Please explain this non-sequitur of a reply. Blind people don’t generally actually use apps just designed for blind people. One of the mods of r/Blind pointed this out to Spez during the blackouts. Also, loading images has nothing to do with not passing the Cloudflare check.
This just feels like a really poor attempt at virtue signalling. Like, phone screens could just display black for a blind user. But they don’t. I have a few disabilities myself, and know a couple people who are blind. They just use Firefox.
Sounds to me like this is the kind of abuse blocking any site would use not just cloudflair. Do you have any evidence that Cloudflair is unique in any way in this?
I mention this because I am not sure not using Cloudflair would change much. You would have to use another CDN or build your own solution. Abuse is a real thing and is the reason we cannot have nice things.
Edit: By the way, I am sorry you have had issues. I am just not sure what the solution is and am skeptical that this is a Cloudflair only issue.
That’s not a meaningful comparison. Blocking sites do indeed block differently in various different circumstances & discriminate against different groups of people. There are patterns (like Tor blocking) but the meaningful comparison is CF to inclusive sites. E.g. gnucash.org. Gnucash demonstrates how a website can be deployed in an inclusive manner that respects user’s rights.
Cloudflare is unique in how it deceives its users (e.g. tells its users they have a “zero trust” model when in fact you must trust CF with visibility on all traffic payloads). CF holds the SSL keys, unlike other implementations. The recommendation to anti-feature tag CF sites would cover the vast majority of exclusive access-restricted projects. But if a link leads to a rare Siteground site, that should also get an anti-feature tag for being exclusive.
Of course it would. Cloudflare brings in a long list of problems. Not using CF (like gnucash.org does) solves all those problems of exclusivity and privacy.
The Gnucash project disproves this. Furthermore, a CF link can often be replaced with an archive.org link.
Many, many sites and services block Tor, and for good reason. It’s a massive attack vector. Yes, there are legit uses for it. But the legit users pale in comparison. If you run a financial institution, for example, or anything that houses sensitive personal information, are you willing to allow an entire threat model to attack, just to let the handful of legit users from that model? No. You wouldn’t.
30% at most. Cloudflare compromises ~20—30% of the web and non-CF tor blocking is almost insignificant (likely in the 5—10% of non-CF sites range).
Most of the above-mentioned CF portion blocks Tor out of naïvety. They’re just blindly running with the shitty CF defaults not knowing they can whitelist Tor. Most don’t even know they’re blocking Tor & many don’t even know what Tor is.
Nonsense. Most Tor users are legit. You’ve apparently been reading Cloudflare’s propaganda where they claim irrationally Tor users are mostly bad actors. It’s a false claim.
I insist on using Tor to access my bank account. Banks admit in their ToS that they use customer’s IP address for the express purpose of tracking & logging their realtime location. Some banks are more competent than others. If a bank’s security relies on arbitrary pre-emptive blocking based IP reputation, their security is not up to scratch.
Likewise, there are FOSS projects that also demonstrate ability to serve Tor users. This will stand out when anti-feature tags are applied.
Yeah, when I hear things like this, what I hear is “I was a user of a site/community/forum/etc. that got banned for hate speech, brigading, etc.” Hopefully that’s not the case here, but these days when you see people talk about “censorship” or “exclusion” or whatever wrt internet services that almost always what it ends up being
You’re mixing up cranks and bigots. Bigots tend to get banned because they’re harmful. Cranks tend to exclude themselves on principle.
The term “crank” is usually used as a pejorative, but cranks can sometimes be beneficial. Richard Stallman is the prototypical example of a Free Software crank. Definitely annoying, but also definitely a net benefit to all of us.
To be fair, if the free software “hardliners” like the FSF soften their stance, then that “hardline” just shifts. If nobody maintains that stance the strongest libre software principles will become weaker, if that makes sense.
The FSF is very useful for preventing that, even if they’re not quite as big as softer movements like “Open Source”
Framing inclusion of all people as a “purist” agenda is a bit rich. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn’t say it’s okay to deny equal access to some people. for example. And we don’t call the UDHR “purist” or extremist for being all inclusive. Being inclusive is where the bar should be set. It’s achievable and there are some projects that prove that.
You’re not grounded in reality. Tagging anti-features does not lead to “some imagined pure breed that no one will ever use.” Nor would anyone avoid listings which have no anti-feature tags. It’s the contrary. Projects that lack anti-features are superficially attractive.
That is not the biggest issue with Github. Github is exclusive, feeds copilot, feeds a company that’s antithetical to the FSF mission, among other issues that were listed in the OP.