standarize em dashes

content/posts/nophones/index.md

@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ Another primary goal of targeted surveillance is to map the target's social netw
 
 The normalization of constant connectivity within dominant society has led some anarchists to correctly note that phone [metadata](/glossary/#metadata) is useful to investigators. However, the conclusion that some draw from this insight, that we should ["never turn off the phone,"](https://web.archive.org/web/20210126183740/https://325.nostate.net/2018/11/09/never-turn-off-the-phone-a-new-approach-to-security-culture) takes us in the wrong direction. Their logic is that if you step out of the normal metadata patterns, those moments become suspicious, and if those moments coincide with when an action occurs, that could be used as evidence to link you to the crime or to investigate you more closely. While this is true, it makes far more sense to minimize the creation of normal metadata patterns in the first place.
 
-Our connections to the infrastructures of domination must remain sporadic and unpredictable if we are to retain any semblance of freedom and ability to strike at the enemy. What if the reconnaissance required for an action requires an entire weekend away from electronic devices? Or let's start with the simple fact that phones must be left at home during an action - this only becomes the outlier to a pattern if phones otherwise accompany us wherever we go. In a normatively "always connected" life, either of these metadata changes would stick out like a sore thumb, but this is not the case if you refuse to always be plugged in. **This requires leaving your phone at home by default**. 
+Our connections to the infrastructures of domination must remain sporadic and unpredictable if we are to retain any semblance of freedom and ability to strike at the enemy. What if the reconnaissance required for an action requires an entire weekend away from electronic devices? Or let's start with the simple fact that phones must be left at home during an action — this only becomes the outlier to a pattern if phones otherwise accompany us wherever we go. In a normatively "always connected" life, either of these metadata changes would stick out like a sore thumb, but this is not the case if you refuse to always be plugged in. **This requires leaving your phone at home by default**. 
 
 # Do You Really Need a Phone? 
 
@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ You may choose to live without phones entirely, if you don't feel that you need
 
 Many bureaucratic institutions that we are forced to deal with make it difficult to live without a phone: health care, banking, etc. Since these communications do not need to be encrypted, you can use a [Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)](/glossary#voip-voice-over-internet-protocol) application (which allows you to make phone calls over the Internet rather than through cell towers). 
 
-Any VoIP application option on a computer is asynchronous because it doesn't ring when the computer is off - you rely on the voicemail feature to return missed calls. For example, a service like [jmp.chat](https://www.kicksecure.com/wiki/Mobile_Phone_Security#Phone_Number_Registration_Unlinked_to_SIM_Card) gives you a VoIP number, which you can pay for in cryptocurrency, and you make calls using an XMPP application - [Cheogram](https://cheogram.com/) works well. 
+Any VoIP application option on a computer is asynchronous because it doesn't ring when the computer is off — you rely on the voicemail feature to return missed calls. For example, a service like [jmp.chat](https://www.kicksecure.com/wiki/Mobile_Phone_Security#Phone_Number_Registration_Unlinked_to_SIM_Card) gives you a VoIP number, which you can pay for in cryptocurrency, and you make calls using an XMPP application — [Cheogram](https://cheogram.com/) works well. 
 
 If you use an "encrypted landline", you can use a [VoIP app](/posts/grapheneos/#voip).
 
@@ -100,13 +100,13 @@ Perhaps taking the example of architecture can better illustrate something as co
 
 It is the same with all the technologies of today that are presented to us as progress and as something that makes life easier. They were designed with the intention of making money and controlling us, and will always carry that. No matter how many supposed benefits your smartphone brings you, those who get rich by collecting your data and monitoring you will always benefit more than you. 
 
-If in the past it was said that "knowledge is power", today it should be said that "information is power". The more rulers know about their flocks, the better they can dominate them - in this sense, technology as a whole is a powerful tool of control to predict and thus prevent people from coming together to attack what oppresses them.
+If in the past it was said that "knowledge is power", today it should be said that "information is power". The more rulers know about their flocks, the better they can dominate them — in this sense, technology as a whole is a powerful tool of control to predict and thus prevent people from coming together to attack what oppresses them.
 
 These smartphones seem to need a little more than just a little electricity... In our generation, which at least knew a world without smartphones, there might still be some people who understand what I'm talking about, who still know what it's like to have a discussion without looking at their phone every thirty seconds, to get lost and discover new places by doing so, or to debate something without immediately asking Google for the answer. But I don't want to go back to the past, even though it wouldn't be possible anyway, but the more technology penetrates our lives, the harder it becomes to destroy it. What if we are one of the last generations able to stop this evolution of human beings into completely controlled robots? 
 
 And what if at some point we will be unable to reverse this development? Humanity has reached a historically new stage with technology. A stage where it is able to annihilate all human life (nuclear energy) or to modify it (genetic manipulation). This fact underlines once again the need to act today to destroy this society. To do this, we need to encounter other people and communicate our ideas. 
 
-Isn't it obvious that if instead of talking to each other, we only communicate in messages of five sentences or less, there will be long-term effects? Apparently not. First of all, the way we think influences the way we speak, and vice versa - the way we speak and communicate influences the way we think. If we are only able to exchange the shortest and most concise messages, how can we talk about a completely different world? And if we can't even talk about another world, how can we reach for it?
+Isn't it obvious that if instead of talking to each other, we only communicate in messages of five sentences or less, there will be long-term effects? Apparently not. First of all, the way we think influences the way we speak, and vice versa — the way we speak and communicate influences the way we think. If we are only able to exchange the shortest and most concise messages, how can we talk about a completely different world? And if we can't even talk about another world, how can we reach for it?
 
 Direct communication between autonomous individuals is the basis of any shared rebellion, it is the starting point of shared dreams and common struggles. Without unmediated communication, a struggle against this world and for freedom is impossible.