I accept your apology; it must have been a misunderstanding.
I believe that in my case, the use of JavaScript is justified because it's information that doesn't require a separate page; there are just a couple of configuration buttons. On the other hand, the page is rendered using HTML over WebSockets, and what you're experiencing is the vanilla SEO version... hut of course, that's just my opinion.
If you don't want limitations, host your social.org site yourself, or move it to GitHub Pages or similar services. org-social-host is a free hosting service I offer openly to help you get started, but it's not unlimited.
Yes, there are people who want their own host (The IndieWeb or Gemini communities are a clear example). The problem is that convenience is always the priority; there are no incentives.
By the way, what you're saying isn't true. That link isn't present in either the HTML or the JS, the URL is sent via WebSockets. You had to open the modal to see it.
Thanks for the advice, but I intentionally removed `<link rel="alternate">`. I think if you take some time to explore the feed modal, you'll understand why I did it.
That's why I created a modal that explains the different RSS feeds for subscribing and their possibilities.
My blog is over a decade old, and I've never used advertising, had sponsored articles, or tried to monetize it (except for asking for donations to maintain the server). I've written freely, sharing knowledge, creating tutorials, and developing courses. Your comment makes me lose the motivation to keep doing it.
First, you're assuming my entire website should work without JavaScript. You don't understand my design reasoning, nor have you asked about the underlying cause.
Second, for a modal, I should use a `<dialog>` that opens via a `<button>`, which it already does. JavaScript does the magic. Not a `<a>` as you suggested.
Finally, if it's a bug, which I find very strange because it's a very simple piece of code and no one has reported it, you're not posting it in the right place. An email or the contact form would have been more appropriate.
Managing or owning your own server is already a way to decentralize the network.
You can always do it like in the old days and ask your friends to add your IP to your host file.
IndieWeb wasn't born as an anti-capitalist movement, but rather at a time when protocols were more prevalent than content. If you review its core principles, everything revolves around creating, sharing, and persevering over time. Companies aren't the enemy.
A CV on your personal domain is the most IndieWeb thing you can do, it means your professional identity lives under your control, not LinkedIn's. The "anarchy symbol on expensive clothes" critique works when someone claims to reject the system while feeding it. IndieWeb does not claim to reject professionalism, it claims that your content should belong to you and outlive any platform. The headshot, the CV, the polished blog... those are fine. Locking them inside a silo that can shut down, sell your data, or vanish is the thing being criticized.