Lemongrab

This is true. I agree that developers should use more inclusive language in their documentation. I mostly just thought people saw the other post already.

“Singular they” has been common in english since somewhere in the 1300s. Idk how it is confusing, and even if it is, do those individual’s opinion outweigh like grammar? If people are confused they can learn, lest they be confused forever. “They” in this instance would be replacing “he”, so I think the benefit is clear. Or avoid ambiguity by just saying “the developer” (cus I think it was Dev documentation iirc).

Edit:
Maybe it was referring to the browser itself? Therefore “it” would make things much less confusing.

I was only commenting that this post has been posted already twice, once in a closely related community. I have already had to argue with people supporting the Dev’s choice to be bigoted. I will just scroll past, just not excited to see more transphobes crawl out of the woodwork.

It think the discussion of this issue has been thoroughly explored in your other post on the “free and open source” community. People know about this now. Is there anything else to cover? All that will be talked about is either “wow, that was an overreaction from the Dev, they seem close-minded” or “you should separate the tech from the developer” or people (bigots) just saying they think he made the right choice.

The discussion is stale.

It seems more nuanced than that. Reading over the pull request I saw that brought up, but the “they” was referring to a developer receiving a feedback from the application in some way.

Here is my explanation:

Situation: User asks for gender inclusive language reasoning not everyone is male. Dev responds saying that the user is trying to advertise their personal politics in the project pull-request, suggesting that by personal politics they mean “inclusive pronouns”.

Reason it is transphobic: Note the Dev does not mention cis women, they dont mention women at all (but it isn’t like women are accused of pushing an agenda related to inclusive language). It is heavily implied to be trans people because of the dogwhistle language. Trans people are the main targets who are accused by others of pushing an agenda when it relates to personal pronouns. At the very least it is male-centric, which apparently from the context of the PR was making some contributors uncomfortable. If the Dev had said, “I got other more important stuff to do, someone edit the text and request a merge”, no one would be talking about it. It was his immediate 0 to 100 response accusing the user of pushing a political agenda. They dont need to say the words “I am transphobic” to say something transphobic.

Snap is closed-source backend and is hardcoded to use Canonical’s repo (therefore centralized). Kinda ironic I think. I can’t find it through flathub sadly.

I do agree with this. I dont want to discount Brave (just) because of their CEO. Fuck CEOs. Brave has done some iffy things in the past, but their Chromium patches are general decent for privacy.

You obviously do not understand what I am saying. I dont think I can explain it to you, especially when you are so sarcastic and opposed to honest conversation.

The plain and simple is I cannot agree with bigots nor trust someone to pays thousands to lobbyist to back up their bigotry. I dont think this is a political issue; I have said nothing of my politics. I could never trust a human who spends thousands to attempt to erase a third of the population. Saying that I dont trust a homophobe is not “sharing my political opinions”. The lives of gay people may be affected by politics (just as we all are), but that doesn’t mean homophobia (or being against homophobia) is a political opinion.

You did nothing by quoting my original comment. It only illustrates your categorical misunderstanding of my comments.

I do not understand the aggression you are putting forth. I am not sharing political opinions, neither am I a liberal. It may be hard to understand, but I do not trust people who discriminate against social minorities (and pay thousands to back it up) to simultaneously protect personal privacy. Why would I trust someone who thinks me and my friends shouldn’t exist? I am not being toxic about it, I am just stating what I observe as a conflict of interest. I also was not being aggressive towards you, so I don’t understand your vitriolic response.

I don’t really understand what you mean, and I am sorry if I misunderstand you.

Privacy is important because we have a right to not have everything broadcast, tracked, and sold. Privacy is both good for our personal health and safety, especially because of how useful collected info is for even amateur threat actors. Society is toxic, but calling out people who specifically want to legally control how others (harmlessly) live their lives is not itself toxic.

His opinion is that gay people shouldn’t be allowed to marry. I think this is rather invasive. My point is that someone who is willing to donate thousands to homophobic lobbyists doesn’t seem to care about gay people’s rights to Privacy or freedom, and therefore I wouldn’t want to use a browser that he leads. It takes a real POS to spend money towards homophobic legislation.

Regardless of that though, Brave is still worse at protecting fingerprintable metrics than hardened Firefox. Brave browser is decent, maybe the best chromium based privacy browser, but not close to Firefox. There really isn’t such things as blending in with a crowd of other Brave users, like what is possible with Tor and Mullvad browsers.

CEO is a homophobic shithead. Even if “politics” have nothing to do with the quality of software (I dont think donating to legislatures to block gay marriage is a case of “having a different political opinion”), people who care that much about how other people live their lives should NOT be trusted for a privacy respecting browser. The browser is decent, but it is stained by his presense, contributes to the chromium monoculture, and is filled with crypto bullshit.

Victims of trauma dont just forget because time passes. They graduate (or dont) and move on in their lives, but the lingering effects of that traumatic experience shape the way the look at the worlds, whether they can trust, body disphoria, whether they can form long-lasting relationships, and other long last trauma responses. Time does not heal the wounds of trauma, they remain as scars that stay vulnerable forever (unless deliberate action is taken by the victim to dismantle the cognitive structure formed by the trauma event).

Librewolf for Desktop (fork of Firefox with Arkenfox user.js and removed Firefox anti-features) and Mull for Android (fork of Firefox which is deblobbed of proprietary blobs and uses much of Arkenfox’s user.js and Tor upstreamed privacy patches). Firefox’s Resist Fingerprint (RFP) is extremely important in my opinion for privacy because it normalizes much of the identifiers for better privacy. IceRaven still has proprietary blobs included for Google Safebrowsing and other things.

Mobile browser comparison: https://divestos.org/pages/browsers

I very much recommend Kicksecure hardened Debian as a daily driver. Eventually I will test gaming on Kicksecure making use of the steam flatpak, but I currently dont have the time.

IIRC, there is a way to force hardened_malloc for flatpaks, but this breaks many flatpak applications. For another hardened by default OS distromorph (the process of turning one distro into another closely related derivative OS) check out secureblue

Requiring webassembly will break the website for most privacy hardened browsers (arkenfox, Librewolf, cromite, Mullvad, etc). Webassembly is disabled for security and privacy reasons in these browsers. Not worth IMO. See a short snippet of Arkenfox’s reasoning here: https://arkenfox.github.io/gui/?s=javascript.options.wasm

Ok, understandable. I hate mobile devices because of their limited usable life and limited OS compatiblity. Verified boot is nice, libre-android is better. Not worth it for a person of interest to install /e/OS, but neither would stock Android or AOSP without significant hardening. DivestOS is my top pick for degoogled Android, but as I learn more (been reading kicksecure’s wiki on mobile device security) maybe Root isn’t as bad as I thought for security. I trust Kicksecure’s security research because of their significance as the base OS for Whonix and Whonix-qubes.

Related to relockable bootloaders and the security they provide, I was under the impression that if a malicious bit of software were to make use of some privilege escalating vulnerability and modify the kernel, the phone would fail to run in some way (ignore the rest of this if that isn’t the case). I dont think security should be dependent on the user behavior in basically any case.

For example, a FOSS developer in our communities could suddenly lose it and modify an existing app of theirs to inject malicious code making use of a vulnerability in android and we’d have know what of knowing until the damage is reported. Good user behavior is very important for security, but we can’t all be auditing our apps for each new release, even though its quite unlikely to happen.

It still has much of the google proprietary blobs still included and relies on google services, also without significant effort to harden Android. I have also heard that sometimes they fall behind on updates to their apps by weeks at a time (correct me if I’m wrong I am still looking for the source I found this info from). It may be moderately degoogled, but their security just ain’t there. In some cases (like OEM EOSL for older devices) having a 3rd party ROM may improve security with more up to date patches. Unless the bootloader is relockable and secure boot is possible, you will be compromising your device’s security (and privacy along with it) and destroying the Android security model in general.

I’m out here living my comfy carpenter bee life eating wood and other shit