Whenever I report a broken¹ website, which is mostly websites that matter (e.g. gov & public services), the answer that comes back is “works for me… it’s you; we’ve had no complaints”.

Out of refusal to play the pushover, I respond by submitting my request/application on paper. This ensures they have the cost and burden of manual processing as a penalty for arbitrarily blocking a demographic of people on the whim of a lazy admin. The extra perk is that when the recipient responds, they must pay postage to help feed the postal service, which helps reduce the threat of heading in the direction of the Danish devolution (they eliminated the postal services nationwide). The other perk is that it helps make the number of offline people look bigger, which helps that demographic fight the oppression of a forced digital transformation.

Reaching a cached archive of the target is useful for getting a snail mail address. But archive.org is shutting out Tor traffic much more frequently lately.

Anyway, am I the only one doing this? Are most Tor users bootlicking pushovers who simply bounce to clearnet or vpn upon encountering a tor-hostile entity? Tor Project should research this.

¹ indeed “broken” in this context means silently tor hostile (blocking Tor but no dignity-respecting anti-tor DoS msging). If they can’t can’t be bothered to disclose their policy, then I play dumb and just say their page is broken.