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”.
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.