Skorp comments on GrapheneOS: Another contributor attacked & banned by Daniel Micay


Why I was banned from GrapheneOS by Daniel Micay)

[–] Skorp@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The blog post is false.

That wasn't what I meant by false. It was your phrase about the activity of project socials being mischaractered, which I still maintain it is not.

Other companies and projects have a tendency to take criticisms coming from the project as directed attacks.

It really depends what is said and how. As I have said before, and as the original comment you responded to said, the project socials (and community) constantly put down other projects and bring up grapheneOS in any discussion about ROMs. The problem is they seem to lack awareness and often ignore context.

For example, if I mentioned LineageOS as a good option for somebody who wants to degoogle their Samsung phone, you can bet that a grapheneOS maintainer or sympathiser will show up. They will inform everybody how insecure lineageos is, throw a bunch of technical terms around, and finally recommend the purchase of a google pixel and to flash it with grapheneOS. This happens regardless of what the original user says they want (a degoogled Samsung phone), here the question was asked (possibly thread about Samsung phones), what budget the user has (they might not have any to buy a new phone), and so on.

Your comments about them or the community "needing therapy" perpetuates that sentiment

I could call it "making objective criticism" like you call the actions of the grapheneOS maintainers and community. Do you understand now why that argument doesn't work? To you it may seem objective, but to others it is brigading, unwanted, annoying, and also insulting. Immediately entering every discussion about another ROM with a "that insecure" and "you might as well not have a passcode and hand over everything to Google" is far from the objective arguments you think the maintainers and community are making.

Hopefully it is more understandable now what I (and some others) take issue with. If grapheneOS maintainers and the community could just please stay on topic, make relevant comments, and be more diplomatic, maybe even supportive of other projects, that would improve their image so much...