From cdecf4be9acd8b6ec68ff1e15b5cd89b791c6746 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Rohan Kumar <seirdy@seirdy.one>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 11:13:09 -0800
Subject: [PATCH] Strip useless <nav>.

---
 content/posts/floss-security.md | 8 ++------
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/content/posts/floss-security.md b/content/posts/floss-security.md
index 32e48b2..5762686 100644
--- a/content/posts/floss-security.md
+++ b/content/posts/floss-security.md
@@ -7,17 +7,13 @@ outputs:
 footnote_heading: Notes
 title: "The right thing for the wrong reasons: FLOSS doesn't imply security"
 ---
-I find it easy to handle views different from my own. I feel more troubled when I see people agree with me for the wrong reasons.
+I find it quite easy to handle views different from my own. I feel more troubled when I see people agree with me for the wrong reasons.
 
 It's no secret that I'm a passionate supporter of software freedom: I've written two posts about how Free, Libre, and Open-Source software (<abbr title="Free, Libre, and Open-Source Software">FLOSS</abbr>) is necessary but insufficient to preserve user autonomy:
 
-<nav>
-
-1. **[Whatsapp and the Domestication of Users](./../../../2021/01/27/whatsapp-and-the-domestication-of-users.html)**<br>The phenomenon of user domestication and defense measures: FLOSS, open platforms, and simplicity.
+1. **[Whatsapp and the Domestication of Users](./../../../2021/01/27/whatsapp-and-the-domestication-of-users.html)**<br>The phenomenon of a class of predatory businesses models I call "user domestication" and defense measures: FLOSS, open platforms, and simplicity.
 2. **[Keeping Platforms Open](./../../../2021/02/23/keeping-platforms-open.html)**<br>How open platforms can lose their openness, and what measures can prevent this. The Web, XMPP, email, and Matrix are examples that highlight both sides of the issue.
 
-</nav>
-
 After two posts spanning over 5000 words, I need to add some nuance.
 
 One of the biggest parts of the Free and Open Source Software definitions is the freedom to study a program and modify it; in other words, access to editable source code. I agree that such access is essential; however, far too many people support source availability for the _wrong_ reasons. One such reason is that source code is necessary to have any degree of transparency into how a piece of software operates, and is therefore necessary to determine if it is at all secure or trustworthy. Although security through obscurity is certainly not a robust measure, this claim has two issues: