Is minified JS fundamentally different? JS is already used as a write-only compilation target, and wasm doesn't seem worse than that (if you're concerned about its binary nature, there's a standard textual format).
There's no technical way to enforce that code is shipped to people in an easily readable/editable format: JS or wasm or machine code can all be equally difficult to consume. Enforcing this requires a human solution, and that is exactly why viral copyleft licenses exist (including the AGPL you reference).
No, unreadable, non-free JavaScript is not fundamentally different. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Unreadable, non-free JavaScript is used to reach a goal. That goal is to withhold the source from the users to bind them to the service. This leads to centralization, power imbalances, and thus attacks on the freedom and sovereignty of the users.
WebAssembly is a technology to achieve the formerly stated goal easier and more convenient. Of course, some people will be interested in that and work on it.
Mozilla is working on this. So far so good (or bad). The issue arises when you combine this fact with the self-portrait of Mozilla as the one defending the rights and freedom of the users.
> WebAssembly is a technology to achieve the formerly stated goal easier and more convenient.
WebAssembly is a technology to achieve better performance on the web, and that as a side-effect happens to achieve withholding the source easier.
Actually, it's pretty much like minifiers. And I guarantee you: the main reason most people are using minifiers is to improve performance, not to hide the source. That just happens to be a side effect.
What you call a "side-effect" can quickly turn into the main reason for using it.
Companies can develop big, bulky WASM-only framework with graphic primitives & so on, very much like Java applets, and effectively kill the openness of the web standards.
As an end-user there's no way to avoid loading hundreds of MB of WAMS every day, contrarily to desktop software installation.
wasm's true goal is to bring more performance and technology-independence to the web, which leads to more decentralization, user power, etc. For instance, more things can "run everywhere" because the performance is acceptable in a browser and so writing native applications for individual platforms isn't necessary. Moving things to the web becomes much easier because it is easy to retarget existing code in native languages without having to rewrite it all. And, importantly for freedom, those mean more things can be freely accessible webapps rather than having to go through the mobile vendors' stores and vetting.
All of these benefits come without a significant cost to user freedom because the cost has already been paid, and will always be paid no matter the underlying technology: companies will always ship obfuscated code if they feel that's important. (Also, I suspect most minification is driven by bandwidth and page speed concerns.)
Lastly, I don't think wasm is actually noticeably more convenient: shipping wasm requires a compilation step, just like minifying JS.
There's no technical way to enforce that code is shipped to people in an easily readable/editable format: JS or wasm or machine code can all be equally difficult to consume. Enforcing this requires a human solution, and that is exactly why viral copyleft licenses exist (including the AGPL you reference).