Topic: On Proprietary Websites
I have noticed that many websites have extreme restrictions imposed upon them, where the TOS serves as a license to forbid almost all forms of copying and modification of non-user works. Many news sites do this; Fandom and Github too. I have noticed that some companies (such as Vox Media, LCC; Fandango and Hearst) will hold copywrong over a very large amount of websites, most (if not all) of them proprietary. Some of these proprietary TOSes make it clear that the copywrong holder won't listen to criticism: if you disagree with the terms, the TOS affirms that your only option is for you to get lost and stop visiting the website altogether.
Some websites such as www.fsf.org tend to be a bit more permissive with licensing, but they still don't go far enough, as their No-Derivates clause makes it much harder to build upon their work. Some complain that the FSF is not radical enough, and I agree, so it might be good for people to be allowed to fork www.fsf.org and create their own, more radical version of it. The Debian and Libreboot people could also benefit from this as they disagree with the FSF on some aspects. Allowing derivates could quickly increase the ideological diversity in the free software community. The No-Derivates clause fails at its purpose as it is easy to misrepresent an author even without violating such clause (see the RationalWiki article on Quote-Mining, which shows how easy it is to misrepresent authors through Fair Use, therefore bypassing the clause). If the concern for authors being misrepresented is so huge, then you could just add a clause demanding that any modified works clearly state that they may not represent the author's original intent, or a clause demanding that any modified works alter the attribution to indicate that the work was modified by a third party. I dislike clauses in general, but atleast the latter don't make the work proprietary.
Wikihow, Uncyclopedia and xkcd have non-commercial restrictions. I don't make commercial use of websites, atleast not yet, but I respect the people who wish to do so as we sadly live in a system that punishes those who don't engage in commercialization, and I fear that non-commercial restrictions could make it extremely hard for forks to gather up enough money, so I oppose these restrictions.
To fix this proprietariness in websites, I think we should do the following:
1. Do a full boycott on the websites that deliberately try to restrict their works. This may seem daunting, but I am writing a hosts file that should make this easier by blocking connections to websites that engage in copywrong restrictions.
2. Ask the authors of small websites to release their works under public domain or under a license that respects the four freedoms, and explain to them why this is important. As these small websites tend to be less corporate, it will be easier to convert them to freedom. This could quickly increase the amount of libre websites available. We could also try to convice the gopher and gemini people to liberate their sites
3. Engage in websites that try to respect the 4 freedoms, such as zortazert.codeberg.page, wikispooks.com, www.tastyfish.cz, eff.org, hacktivis.me, wizards-of-os.org, faow.referata.com, tilde.club/~xwindows/art, questioncopyright.org, gemini.techrights.org, spyware.neocities.org, billdietrich.me, mikegerwitz.com, croatianhistory.net, blog.ncase.me, rationalwiki.org, freepd.com.