seeing how the GrapheneOS team bans people without any given reason, goes out of their way to point out how they’re the only good OS choice and literally anything else one might consider is insecure garbage (it really feels like mentioning Graphene and any other custom ROM on Mastodon in one post summons them with a 10-post thread pointing out why the two aren’t in the same league and shouldn’t be compared to each other, ever), and then paints themselves as the victim who is constantly harrassed by the competition without ever showing much evidence, I probably wouldn’t be very comfortable running their product, even if it was available for my device.
It’s a good product but yes, the team is ridiculous. Either because they do this incessantly or never stop the people doing it.
How hard is it to just let your product speak for itself? I wouldn’t trust the team because they insist on making an echo chamber and mountains out of molehills. It simply reads as a team that isn’t stable.
It’s a team of around 10 full time developers and also other project members with moderation responsibilities. Some of them sadly have to deal with adressing harassment on a daily basis yes. But what is the alterantive? Just letting yourself be harassed? Would you also reply like this to a person getting bullied? “Just ingore the bullies, don’t defend yourself against them and let your personality speak for yourself!” That’s not fair. GrapheneOS has every right to defend themselves.
Just put on your big boy pants and ship code man. I know open source development is tough, you don’t do it for the money and you deal with lots of idiots who act like you owe them something. But you’re wasting your time with them and it seems to me like it’s more about ego than anything else
I’m not a GrapheneOS developer, nor part of the GrapheneOS team, I’m a GrapheneOS user and community member. I can’t go ship code. Agreed that open source development is a difficult work environment due to some people feeling heavily entitled and those people being very vocal. As to for the actual GrapheneOS team, they would love to waste less time with responding to attacks and false information. However, it’s a very normal, human response to not want misinformation about yourself and your project to thrive all across the internet. This also can hurt the project in many ways, it’s not an ego thing.
Look I have no idea about all of the community drama and I don’t care if you are a community member of the leading dev. I’m shipping code every day and if someone talks shit, let them talk, I literally don’t have time for it because I’m busy shipping code. So if you just code and not react, what are those vocal people gonna do about it? Jump out of their screens and beat you up irl?
This is a huge mischaracterization of what the project account does across socials. They are on the receiving end of misinformation like that being spread in this blog post, designed to stir up drama and provoke harassment towards the project. Anyone who has looked at the actual evidence (not the blog post), has found the claims in the blog post to be baseless.
People ask genuine questions about the differences between Android forks and the project account is available to provide factual information on those differences…and you’re mad about it?
I honestly don’t think it’s false. I’ve seen people be on the receiving end of graphene developers propensity to claim their solution is the best and most secure ROM out there. GrapheneOS users are just as inclined to make those claims unsolicited, and that in threads that just mention custom ROMs and aren’t talking about security or anything close to it.
The devs and community need to take a chill pill or go into therapy, because it seems like they all went through some traumatic event(s) and GrapheneOS or ROMs in general are their trigger.
I’d be much more willing to use the ROM and donate if the community weren’t as intense and it also ran on devices other than Google’s. Right now, both points drove me away from GrapheneOS and I actively discourage those around me to use or install it. If the devs and community were less intense and open to civil, friendly discussion + compromise, things would be different. Not everybody out there is a threat and has to be treated as such.
I’ve criticized aspects on GrapheneOS before & have gotten well thought out & reasonable reasons why they made the decisions they do. They took the time to address my concerns respectfully & even linked independent research that supported their position.
Also I am not an active member of the GrapheneOS community, just an enjoyer of the project. So unless you’ve actually joined their community & tried engaging with them respectfully, I have no idea what you’re talking about. Every single interaction I’ve had with them has been positive. Anytime I’ve looked in their chat rooms I see people helping out new users & answering questions I imagine have been asked hundreds of times.
Stop listening to what other people say, just go & see for yourself.
Stop listening to what other people say, just go & see for yourself.
I’m speaking from experience. Read my other responses to understand that it’s not the technical feedback or whatever that I have trouble with. The GrapheneOS community inserts itself into every discussion about ROMs possible.
Someone brings up LineageOS for a OnePlus phone? Get a pixel and flash GrapheneOS.
Someone brings up CalyxOS for a no pixel phone? Buy a pixel and flash GrapheneOS!
So you bought a Volla phone with VollaOS? Wrong! You should’ve given Google your money for the most secure phone in the planet and flashed GrapheneOS!
Oh, you don’t have enough money for a new phone? Stop being poor and sell your assets because the TLAs are after you and your life is worthless without a Pixel and GrapheneOS!
You think the pyramid of needs starts with food and physical safety? Guess what! That’d wrong again, because it starts with digital safety and that means GrapheneOS!
It feels even worse than the damn “Arch BTW” people, because we know it’s a goddamn meme but the GrapheneOS people are serious. It’s as if GrapheneOS is a status symbol that makes them levitate above the rest of us lowly LineageOS, CalyxOS, eOS, VollaOS, custom ROM plebs. As if GrapheneOS is the final stage of enlightenment that Buddha reached before he flashed his Pixel and ascended.
That’s what the OP was talking about and I am too.
Though most of what you described isn’t hostile toxicity, their hearts in the right place & they want to spread privacy & security. Just not the best way to sell your ideals to someone.
I’m just imaging your last comment, its glorious. Maybe I should just start memeing about how great GrapheneOS is rather then being so serious about it.
The blog post is false. You can verify it by looking at the repos. This person was being childish in their attempts to get GrapheneOS and other projects to accept the feature request. They were told “No”. Now whether they or anyone else feels the reason behind that decision is valid or not is separate from the fact that this person then went out of their way to make noise and trouble for the project (by opening the repo, pinging the developers, etc.). We’ll call it “entitlement”. When they were blocked, instead of moving on and accepting that the feature wouldn’t be implemented, they wrote up this blog post and spread it around the internet so that it would stir up drama, and direct more attacks towards the project. I’d call that a vendetta.
Other companies and projects have a tendency to take criticisms coming from the project as directed attacks. I take less issue with the project making objective criticisms. To respond to that criticism by pointing a finger back calling the founder “delusional”, “insane”, etc., doesn’t seem appropriate. Even if it were true (which no one has evidence to claim), it would still be completely unacceptable to talk about someone like that. Your comments about them or the community “needing therapy” perpetuates that sentiment.
Intensity is one thing. That is arguably true and the OS may not be the leading AOSP fork in terms of security and privacy (see: Capabilities against forensic extraction) if it weren’t the case. It is the projects unwillingness to compromise in this area that makes it stand out in that regard.
Other projects and companies make claims about and market their projects/devices/services. Not that I’m arguing that GrapheneOS should be the only ones able to comment on or evaluate those claims, but they are certainly some of the most qualified to. We shouldn’t give them a pass because they claim to protect us against “big tech”. Those things should be critically evaluated because it matters so much.
GrapheneOS evaluates other’s primarily based on their technical merits and against their claims they make. How many of those who oppose do the same? Or do they just call them divisive, crazy, and incendiary?
Thank you for the civil discussion. I hope it can continue.
Most people get banned for a clearly stated reason and many people who post harassment material in the community even get given second chances if it becomes clear they just do this because they are misinformed instead of being malicious.
GrapheneOS does not make many posts on their social media timelines about other projects which other people think are competing in the same space as GrapheneOS. Most of their posts referring to other projects are in reply of posts from other people that tagged (@'ed) GrapheneOS in their post. GrapheneOS replies to these people to inform them. Like many companies and oranganisation do, it’s okay to point out how your project differs from others.
Many projects that claim or think to compete with GrapheneOS make many claims regarding the security and privacy they would offer even if their appraoch actually is detrimental to security and privacy compared to the upstream projects (AOSP) they are based on. This mismarketing is a big problem, it makes sense that GrapheneOS points this out if people are tagging them in social media post while putting them in the same category as those other OSes.
You are also reverting the situation. The other projects started personal attacks and harassment first. GrapheneOS just replies to it. Defending yourself from harassment and bullying is not bullying. Don’t blame the victim. Don’t rever the roles.
I’m in active community member in the GrapheneOS community. I go by the same name there as I’m using here. It became clear from the community chat that a lot of misinformation and lies are spread about GrapheneOS on social media. I’m passionate about the project, which I rely upon everyday so I want to do my part in helping to correct any misinformation out there. You can’t argue with the fact that the post that has been made is a complete lie. The title is a complete falsehood. They were not a contributor, nor are they banned from using GrapheneOS. The reason I’m active in multiple communities on Lemmy about this is because the OP has decided to spread his blogpost on multiple Lemmy instances, mtuliple subreddits, Mastodon, Linkedin, … If they spread in in multiple channels, users and community members who want to discuss GrapheneOS online will also show up in multiple channels to discuss it. I would prefer to only have to reply to one post, they decided to make 12 posts on Lemmy (if I counted correctly). And yes, I made my account yesterday. Am I not allowed? Do I have to wait 2 years and engage in random discussions not related to my interests before I join the threads about topics that I’m passionate about?
You just look like an idiot right now because he’s not a sock puppet. Just look in any online chat room associated with GrapheneOS, Tranquil has an extremely well established identity.
I’ve even seen him myself helping people in the community for years now & Tranquil is very active. But okay, enjoy being a gullible pawn following whatever maltfield says.
seeing how the GrapheneOS team bans people without any given reason, goes out of their way to point out how they’re the only good OS choice and literally anything else one might consider is insecure garbage (it really feels like mentioning Graphene and any other custom ROM on Mastodon in one post summons them with a 10-post thread pointing out why the two aren’t in the same league and shouldn’t be compared to each other, ever), and then paints themselves as the victim who is constantly harrassed by the competition without ever showing much evidence, I probably wouldn’t be very comfortable running their product, even if it was available for my device.
It’s a good product but yes, the team is ridiculous. Either because they do this incessantly or never stop the people doing it.
How hard is it to just let your product speak for itself? I wouldn’t trust the team because they insist on making an echo chamber and mountains out of molehills. It simply reads as a team that isn’t stable.
It’s a team of around 10 full time developers and also other project members with moderation responsibilities. Some of them sadly have to deal with adressing harassment on a daily basis yes. But what is the alterantive? Just letting yourself be harassed? Would you also reply like this to a person getting bullied? “Just ingore the bullies, don’t defend yourself against them and let your personality speak for yourself!” That’s not fair. GrapheneOS has every right to defend themselves.
Just put on your big boy pants and ship code man. I know open source development is tough, you don’t do it for the money and you deal with lots of idiots who act like you owe them something. But you’re wasting your time with them and it seems to me like it’s more about ego than anything else
I’m not a GrapheneOS developer, nor part of the GrapheneOS team, I’m a GrapheneOS user and community member. I can’t go ship code. Agreed that open source development is a difficult work environment due to some people feeling heavily entitled and those people being very vocal. As to for the actual GrapheneOS team, they would love to waste less time with responding to attacks and false information. However, it’s a very normal, human response to not want misinformation about yourself and your project to thrive all across the internet. This also can hurt the project in many ways, it’s not an ego thing.
Look I have no idea about all of the community drama and I don’t care if you are a community member of the leading dev. I’m shipping code every day and if someone talks shit, let them talk, I literally don’t have time for it because I’m busy shipping code. So if you just code and not react, what are those vocal people gonna do about it? Jump out of their screens and beat you up irl?
This is a huge mischaracterization of what the project account does across socials. They are on the receiving end of misinformation like that being spread in this blog post, designed to stir up drama and provoke harassment towards the project. Anyone who has looked at the actual evidence (not the blog post), has found the claims in the blog post to be baseless.
People ask genuine questions about the differences between Android forks and the project account is available to provide factual information on those differences…and you’re mad about it?
I honestly don’t think it’s false. I’ve seen people be on the receiving end of graphene developers propensity to claim their solution is the best and most secure ROM out there. GrapheneOS users are just as inclined to make those claims unsolicited, and that in threads that just mention custom ROMs and aren’t talking about security or anything close to it.
The devs and community need to take a chill pill or go into therapy, because it seems like they all went through some traumatic event(s) and GrapheneOS or ROMs in general are their trigger.
I’d be much more willing to use the ROM and donate if the community weren’t as intense and it also ran on devices other than Google’s. Right now, both points drove me away from GrapheneOS and I actively discourage those around me to use or install it. If the devs and community were less intense and open to civil, friendly discussion + compromise, things would be different. Not everybody out there is a threat and has to be treated as such.
Anti Commercial-AI license
I’ve criticized aspects on GrapheneOS before & have gotten well thought out & reasonable reasons why they made the decisions they do. They took the time to address my concerns respectfully & even linked independent research that supported their position.
Also I am not an active member of the GrapheneOS community, just an enjoyer of the project. So unless you’ve actually joined their community & tried engaging with them respectfully, I have no idea what you’re talking about. Every single interaction I’ve had with them has been positive. Anytime I’ve looked in their chat rooms I see people helping out new users & answering questions I imagine have been asked hundreds of times.
Stop listening to what other people say, just go & see for yourself.
I’m speaking from experience. Read my other responses to understand that it’s not the technical feedback or whatever that I have trouble with. The GrapheneOS community inserts itself into every discussion about ROMs possible.
Someone brings up LineageOS for a OnePlus phone? Get a pixel and flash GrapheneOS. Someone brings up CalyxOS for a no pixel phone? Buy a pixel and flash GrapheneOS! So you bought a Volla phone with VollaOS? Wrong! You should’ve given Google your money for the most secure phone in the planet and flashed GrapheneOS! Oh, you don’t have enough money for a new phone? Stop being poor and sell your assets because the TLAs are after you and your life is worthless without a Pixel and GrapheneOS! You think the pyramid of needs starts with food and physical safety? Guess what! That’d wrong again, because it starts with digital safety and that means GrapheneOS!
It feels even worse than the damn “Arch BTW” people, because we know it’s a goddamn meme but the GrapheneOS people are serious. It’s as if GrapheneOS is a status symbol that makes them levitate above the rest of us lowly LineageOS, CalyxOS, eOS, VollaOS, custom ROM plebs. As if GrapheneOS is the final stage of enlightenment that Buddha reached before he flashed his Pixel and ascended.
That’s what the OP was talking about and I am too.
Anti Commercial-AI license
Haha I’m actually in love with this comment.
Though most of what you described isn’t hostile toxicity, their hearts in the right place & they want to spread privacy & security. Just not the best way to sell your ideals to someone.
I’m just imaging your last comment, its glorious. Maybe I should just start memeing about how great GrapheneOS is rather then being so serious about it.
Thank you for this great read.
The blog post is false. You can verify it by looking at the repos. This person was being childish in their attempts to get GrapheneOS and other projects to accept the feature request. They were told “No”. Now whether they or anyone else feels the reason behind that decision is valid or not is separate from the fact that this person then went out of their way to make noise and trouble for the project (by opening the repo, pinging the developers, etc.). We’ll call it “entitlement”. When they were blocked, instead of moving on and accepting that the feature wouldn’t be implemented, they wrote up this blog post and spread it around the internet so that it would stir up drama, and direct more attacks towards the project. I’d call that a vendetta.
Other companies and projects have a tendency to take criticisms coming from the project as directed attacks. I take less issue with the project making objective criticisms. To respond to that criticism by pointing a finger back calling the founder “delusional”, “insane”, etc., doesn’t seem appropriate. Even if it were true (which no one has evidence to claim), it would still be completely unacceptable to talk about someone like that. Your comments about them or the community “needing therapy” perpetuates that sentiment.
Intensity is one thing. That is arguably true and the OS may not be the leading AOSP fork in terms of security and privacy (see: Capabilities against forensic extraction) if it weren’t the case. It is the projects unwillingness to compromise in this area that makes it stand out in that regard.
Other projects and companies make claims about and market their projects/devices/services. Not that I’m arguing that GrapheneOS should be the only ones able to comment on or evaluate those claims, but they are certainly some of the most qualified to. We shouldn’t give them a pass because they claim to protect us against “big tech”. Those things should be critically evaluated because it matters so much.
GrapheneOS evaluates other’s primarily based on their technical merits and against their claims they make. How many of those who oppose do the same? Or do they just call them divisive, crazy, and incendiary?
Thank you for the civil discussion. I hope it can continue.
Most people get banned for a clearly stated reason and many people who post harassment material in the community even get given second chances if it becomes clear they just do this because they are misinformed instead of being malicious.
GrapheneOS does not make many posts on their social media timelines about other projects which other people think are competing in the same space as GrapheneOS. Most of their posts referring to other projects are in reply of posts from other people that tagged (@'ed) GrapheneOS in their post. GrapheneOS replies to these people to inform them. Like many companies and oranganisation do, it’s okay to point out how your project differs from others.
Many projects that claim or think to compete with GrapheneOS make many claims regarding the security and privacy they would offer even if their appraoch actually is detrimental to security and privacy compared to the upstream projects (AOSP) they are based on. This mismarketing is a big problem, it makes sense that GrapheneOS points this out if people are tagging them in social media post while putting them in the same category as those other OSes.
You are also reverting the situation. The other projects started personal attacks and harassment first. GrapheneOS just replies to it. Defending yourself from harassment and bullying is not bullying. Don’t blame the victim. Don’t rever the roles.
whatever you say, 3 hour old account heavily invested in discussing just this one and only thing in multiple communities
I’m in active community member in the GrapheneOS community. I go by the same name there as I’m using here. It became clear from the community chat that a lot of misinformation and lies are spread about GrapheneOS on social media. I’m passionate about the project, which I rely upon everyday so I want to do my part in helping to correct any misinformation out there. You can’t argue with the fact that the post that has been made is a complete lie. The title is a complete falsehood. They were not a contributor, nor are they banned from using GrapheneOS. The reason I’m active in multiple communities on Lemmy about this is because the OP has decided to spread his blogpost on multiple Lemmy instances, mtuliple subreddits, Mastodon, Linkedin, … If they spread in in multiple channels, users and community members who want to discuss GrapheneOS online will also show up in multiple channels to discuss it. I would prefer to only have to reply to one post, they decided to make 12 posts on Lemmy (if I counted correctly). And yes, I made my account yesterday. Am I not allowed? Do I have to wait 2 years and engage in random discussions not related to my interests before I join the threads about topics that I’m passionate about?
okay Daniel
You just look like an idiot right now because he’s not a sock puppet. Just look in any online chat room associated with GrapheneOS, Tranquil has an extremely well established identity.
I’ve even seen him myself helping people in the community for years now & Tranquil is very active. But okay, enjoy being a gullible pawn following whatever maltfield says.
thanks, I will