freedomPusher

I’m not sure what the Tor Project advice is these days, but my phone is setup to have Netguard hijack the VPN option of AOS and force select apps over tor (to Orbot). It’s annoying because in fact it is impossible for me to run Netguard and Tor over a VPN. Because Netguard hijacks the VPN, I cannot use a real VPN. I can run a VPN (generally openVPN), but then I must give up Tor if I do that. Orbot can only run in parallel, but because Netguard loses the VPN slot I can only use Tor-aware apps in that situation. So ultimately what you’re thinking is not possible with my tool chain (of old versions).

My version of Orbot apparently pre-dates that. At the bottom of the orbot screen it says “trouble connecting? Use bridges [boolean slider]”, and the switch is toggled off. I don’t see mention of “Smart Connect” in the settings.

I am not going to keep track of your esoteric personal preferences. If you non-transparently keep this rule concealed, the consequences are on you.

Please put your bizarre new rule in the sidebar so people who accurately discuss past events do not get broad-sided by unexpected interventionalism. The norm is that people use the present gender for present tense chatter, which needs no explicit rule. But this zealous idea of inserting someone’s new identity into their past (prior to the current identity) at the risk of disrepecting their privacy really calls for some explicit wording. Feel free to name the rule of this niche scenario after me, if you want.

UPDATE

I see the new rule in the sidebar. I agree with it. It does not cover this corner case of the context of historic accounts.

I appreciate the tip but this does not explain the Debian-Orbot difference I experienced. I have not configured either to use bridges, yet I saw Orbot connect and Debian not.

A bridge would likely be a solution for Debian. My work around has been to use Tor over a VPN in situations where Debian’s Tor fails, but that results in a very unstable connection where the VPN falls over every 5-10 min and must be re-established. So I am tempted to try a Tor bridge to see if that’s more stable.

It turns out I was in fact getting 10 days ahead with the default weather source. I just did not realise it because I didn’t know the daily forecast scrolls further to the right.

Anyway, I’m sorted.. thanks!

Oof! Good find. That apparently renders the app toast for all but self-hosters. I wonder if it has been down since 2023:

https://github.com/xddq/libre-weather/issues/5

Thanks for the tip. Someone suggested the Breezy Weather app but it seems to only cover the current day. I need several days.. ideally a week ahead.

(edit) Sorry, I was wrong.. The daily forecast goes 4 days out. That’s good enough.

Thanks! But I should have mentioned that I need the forecast for the week ahead. It seems to only cover the current day.

(edit) Sorry, I was wrong.. The daily forecast goes ~~4~~ ~10 days out. That’s good enough.

I am curious how many times have you gone to court?

I’ve been to court countless times, but only twice that I recall for choosing an analog lifestyle.

You obviously have access to internet or else you would not be here,

My gaming desktop is at home where I have no Internet. I /could/ bring a gaming laptop into a public library and do gaming there, but I should not need to. It’s an absurd injustice that I cannot game from the comfort of my home on a big screen because the game makers want to snoop on people arbitrarily.

you are on one of the more private places on the internet (fediverse) sure so the likelihood of “them” finding you on here is slim.

I have no idea what motivates this comment. I would certainly object to anyone outside the fedi finding me in the fedi, but this is entirely orthoganol to anything said here. What does the fedi privacy have to do with the freedom of an offline person to play a game?

If you are concerned about your privacy on line as I am sure many of us on Lemmy are look into getting an internet connection to your home, accept that you will have to pay taxes and invest in a really solid Pihole or Adguard home setup.

“Privacy” is such a broad concept spanning countless ways to achieve countless forms of privacy, it’s really bizarre that you make this suggestion. I cannot trace this suggestion to any specific privacy scenario that I have mentioned. A general change that like you suggest simultaneously grants some forms of privacy while compromising privacy in other ways. Also no idea what taxes has to do with this.

I have not used pihole but I know it is something I need to research. Adguard does not strike me as a like-with-like comparison, but my knowledge of the two is superficial. In any case, I struggle to see how these tools relate.

Perhaps you are suggesting that forcing all connections over Tor solves the privacy problem. I would first say: no it does not. We have no idea what info is sent when a closed-source blob phones home. But more importantly, even if I could sufficiently circumvent the snooping, I shouldn’t fucking have to. Snooping cannot be justified by the existence of circumvention hacks.

removing something doesnt mean disinterest in nuance. it means something seemed off and worth removing.

It’s not the removal that shows disinterest in discussing the removal. It’s the fact that they were surreptitious about it. Then when tagged in a conversation and consciously chose not to react. It’s their choice. They had the option to be foreward about their action and chose the path of a shitweasel. Then I also gave them the option by tagging them in this thread and they did not take it.

degendering someone’s past entirely isn’t really a solution

I’m not convinced.

trans folk generally (excluding genderfluidity and other things like that) do not change their gender but change their gender presentation

Consider this fictitious scenario:

Bob is born male and identifies as such until reaching 25, at which point they realize/determine that they are female and change their name to Alice. Bob tried to enter a club at age 20 but the door security refused entry because of sausage control. Clubs don’t want to be sausage parties, so they allow women to enter without constraint but only select males (e.g. males accompanied with women). Yes, this really happens. Now let’s say Alice is 40 and we are telling the story of the past. Consider 2 ways to tell the story:

1. “She was denied entry to the club because the gate keepers were only allowing women to enter.”
2. “He was denied entry to the club because the gate keepers were only allowing women to enter.”

Paragraph 1 of this story is confusing and inaccurate. Par 2 is accurate and comprehensible.

Trans people themselves don’t necessarily know at every given moment with confidence what gender to claim. Bob may have very well been confident of his male gender at 20 and only started questioning it at 24. It’s not our job as outsiders to take liberties in that guesswork. We aren’t going to rewrite history without evidence. Historians use the best information they have to determine history. But as well I would not say there is a duty to investigate thoroughly on the part of non-historians recounting events in some social setting. I’m not going to track down Alice today and ask what her confidence level was in her male presentation 20 years ago before continuing to tell the club-bouncing story in a conversation, assuming it’s even possible to make contact with Alice.

But I would say historians and journalists have a higher standard and duty to get these details right. It’s unreasonable to expect the general public to inherently distrust journalists on political correctness. If a layperson refers to a news article and works with the info as presented, fault the journalist if it is wrong, not the reader who used the best info they had (the article).

Trans folks should be prepared for being addressed in the wrong gender if their presentation is mismatched at the time of presentation. I face this all the time because the pitch of my phone voice differs from my gender which causes people to misgender me. I don’t fault them. I don’t complain. I don’t even correct them. They are addressing me with the best information they have (my voice). If I get bent out of shape, annoyed, or feel a loss of dignity when they get it wrong, that’s my problem for having an unhealthily fragile ego. Rather than demanding that everyone adapt to me, I adapt and just roll with it. It gives me a slight bit of pleasure in having privacy of the other person not even knowing my gender. Privacy and dignity go hand in hand. If I attached more importance to the dignity of gender perception than the dignity of privacy, I would use a voice changing app to ensure I don’t get misgendered.

Did you message the mod to discuss?

The mod did a surreptitious censor without inquiry. This implies they aren’t interested. But they were tagged in the thread (b/c unlike them, I try to be transparent) so the opportunity is there.

Transphobia is a field where a lot of people use technicalities to normalize poor practices

The arbitrary hunt for suspect transphobes cannot serve as an excuse to disrespect people’s privacy and cause confusion about history. I find it very annoying to encounter incorrect attempts to push political correctness. If someone wants to go around finger-wagging people, they damn well better get it right themselves because they are threadcrapping to interrupt people to make an off-topic point. It’s like someone interrupting an interesting conversation to correct your English or grammar when in fact you had it right to begin with and the person doing the interruption got it wrong.

also, would that mean that you would use male pronouns for Ms. Manning when talking about her actions at the time?

I would favor singular they in the context of the past. Who’s to say (as a general case) when someone changed their gender identity w.r.t. their name? As a general principle, without knowing exactly when someone re-gendered, it’s fair enough to use the pronoun of the time along with the name of the time. It’s confusing and inaccurate to refer to Manning as a /her/ before she was a “her” (or widely known as such), as if to suggest that Manning has some kind of retroactive shame in their previous gender identity. You risk abusing their privacy at the same time as getting the gender (of the time) wrong. Manning was a man at one point in time. But again, singular they is likely safest when referencing a time before their current identity.

What if they switch their gender a 2nd time, and you are talking about a time between the first and second change?

You should think about what is the whole fucking point anyway? If you get someone’s gender wrong today, in the present, it can be offensive. But when talking about the past, the risk of offending someone gets out in the weeds with an off chance of some kind of hyper sensitivity, when there is a possible greater injustice of undermining their privacy. Privacy should be respected first and foremost. Someone who changes their identity has no reasonable expectation that everyone will know whether a fragile-dignity-ego is in play in a historic context, particularly when journalists are trusted sources of who they write about and political correctness. The article that was cited is relevant here.

Ms. Manning did request during her trial that her new name be used so i think probably she’s fine with her deadname not being used for her actions in that period.

We can guess. And because Manning is a high-profile figure we could do plenty of research before uttering a word about Manning, like reading court documents. I see negative value in using such research to finger-wag others though -- people who are prima facie superficially aware of the timeline should not have to see threadcrap because a particular trans individual happened to indicate that they were not interested in the privacy benefit of a name and/or gender change and someone else kept sharp track of both that preference and exactly when changes occurred.

That does nothing.

Doing nothing is already far better than 99% of the population, who feeds oppressors. Not being part of the harm is in itself an important minimal baseline for me.

From there, it’s an oversight to neglect the fact that living offline makes the battleground visible. It shows me where I need to fight battles. It’s how I know where to fight. When I force the gov to partake in analog transactions, it’s being offline that enabled me to gather the intel for what fights to bring to them.

Concrete example: if I were online, I would visit the website that shows my city’s newsletter and view it on the website. But because I am offline, I pop into a cafe and try to download it instead, for later offline reading. They have some shitty web app that blocks saving a PDF. It actually breaks the law AFAIK, so I can harass them about it and force them to stop imposing a shitty app that impedes downloading the newsletter as a PDF. I would not know that or think deep enough to give a shit if I simply had always-on cloud access from my residence.

There are mandated transactions with the gov that have no offline means. When the gov drags me into court for not filling out an online form, being able to truthfully state that I don’t have cloud access or required info for the web form (like email address) gives me a defense that the court cannot ignore. When I play that card, it’s effectively a push back that overcomes oppression.