There are at least a dozen people spending at least several hours attacking GrapheneOS across platforms on a daily basis.
-
There are at least a dozen people spending at least several hours attacking GrapheneOS across platforms on a daily basis. It's a very strange situation. How do these people have so much time and dedication to keep making posts across platforms attacking us? It's relentless.
@GrapheneOS to be fair to them, it is not allowed to discuss any custom ROM. Not just GOS
-
There are at least a dozen people spending at least several hours attacking GrapheneOS across platforms on a daily basis. It's a very strange situation. How do these people have so much time and dedication to keep making posts across platforms attacking us? It's relentless.
@GrapheneOS if i remember the discussion about the os in france correctly there might easily be some paid actors among tose "critics" ... -
@GrapheneOS to be fair to them, it is not allowed to discuss any custom ROM. Not just GOS
@Lhyr The mods of /r/privacy specifically targeted GrapheneOS with this rule which is clear in their announcement. In their announcement, they claim to have implemented it to protect us. In reality, the mods are hostile towards GrapheneOS and one has even publicly participated in personal attacks on our team. The mod team misrepresented us wanting people to use our discussion forum instead of our subreddit as us not wanting people to be able to discuss GrapheneOS on Reddit which is nonsense.
-
@GrapheneOS The French Wikipedia page for GrapheneOS is currently the only accurate one and I am one of the contributors, another community member started rewriting the page, and I joined in. I haven't contributed to the page in quite a while, but everything looks fine to me.
The US page is managed by people hostile to GrapheneOS, as you already know. If you change the content, a member will revert your edit. I’ve tried several times with no success, it’s deplorable.
Attacks from scammers and companies selling snake oil seem to have intensified since the collaboration with Motorola Mobility. It’s absurd how many trolls and malicious people I see on X, and it’s almost impossible to respond to them all. This social network is terrible, I’ve rarely seen so much violent content on a platform, fortunately, there are also people who support the project.
@Xtreix
What kind of misinformation do you claim about the english Wiki page of GrapheneOS?
I've looked through a few edits and didn't find much that I would call malicious (other than one vandalism where Edward Snowden recommends Classic Amiga OS instead of GrapheneOS)
@GrapheneOS -
@Xtreix
What kind of misinformation do you claim about the english Wiki page of GrapheneOS?
I've looked through a few edits and didn't find much that I would call malicious (other than one vandalism where Edward Snowden recommends Classic Amiga OS instead of GrapheneOS)
@GrapheneOS@m1k3y @Xtreix It presents an inaccurate narrative about the origin of GrapheneOS. GrapheneOS was started in 2014. It's the direct continuation of the CopperheadOS project. We still have the original repositories from 2014 and 2015 on GitHub which are still relevant. It has an inaccurate narrative about our response to the massive escalated harassment towards Daniel in 2023 too. It's interpreting a primary source (incorrectly) which goes against Wikipedia policy and yet has been there for ages.
-
@m1k3y @Xtreix It presents an inaccurate narrative about the origin of GrapheneOS. GrapheneOS was started in 2014. It's the direct continuation of the CopperheadOS project. We still have the original repositories from 2014 and 2015 on GitHub which are still relevant. It has an inaccurate narrative about our response to the massive escalated harassment towards Daniel in 2023 too. It's interpreting a primary source (incorrectly) which goes against Wikipedia policy and yet has been there for ages.
@m1k3y @Xtreix Why is there a separate article for the original name of the GrapheneOS project which presents it as a product from a company and yet it predates the company existed and was renamed to GrapheneOS? It's because Copperhead heavily edited Wikipedia prior to their business collapsing due to us preventing them continuing to fork our code on a yearly basis. Copperhead made a fork of GrapheneOS in 2018, not the other way around. Wikipedia presents a false narrative from them.
-
@Lhyr The mods of /r/privacy specifically targeted GrapheneOS with this rule which is clear in their announcement. In their announcement, they claim to have implemented it to protect us. In reality, the mods are hostile towards GrapheneOS and one has even publicly participated in personal attacks on our team. The mod team misrepresented us wanting people to use our discussion forum instead of our subreddit as us not wanting people to be able to discuss GrapheneOS on Reddit which is nonsense.
@GrapheneOS they must have deleted the announcement where they said that. I can't find it (or I just suck at searching
)I genuinely hope they've stopped misrepresenting you now. Anyway, from my experience, they deleted all my comment, whether I named GOS or other privacy minded roms like Calyx or Iodé.
They treat everyone equally now it seems (publicly at least). I still think it's a shame they ban that kind of conversation
-
@KnobbyTiresOnly It isn't Apple or Google. In fact, the attacks on us have largely been put in motion by companies selling dubious products marketed as avoiding Google and giving people privacy. Those products don't actually provide what they're claiming they do and they feel very threatened by GrapheneOS. They've attacked us themselves and started their supporters going attacking us which they aren't capable of stopping even if they tried. They're doing the opposite of trying to stop it though.
@GrapheneOS it's unfortunate, too many dirtbags in this world.
On the other hand, I can barely wait for the Motorola that is in the works with Graphene OS and possibly pre installed right out of the box, I seen a video about it from my favourite source for tech info on Youtube, Sam Bent. -
@GrapheneOS The French Wikipedia page for GrapheneOS is currently the only accurate one and I am one of the contributors, another community member started rewriting the page, and I joined in. I haven't contributed to the page in quite a while, but everything looks fine to me.
The US page is managed by people hostile to GrapheneOS, as you already know. If you change the content, a member will revert your edit. I’ve tried several times with no success, it’s deplorable.
Attacks from scammers and companies selling snake oil seem to have intensified since the collaboration with Motorola Mobility. It’s absurd how many trolls and malicious people I see on X, and it’s almost impossible to respond to them all. This social network is terrible, I’ve rarely seen so much violent content on a platform, fortunately, there are also people who support the project.
@Xtreix @GrapheneOS Your edit had the pretty big problem of replacing sourced content with unsourced content that sometimes uses buzzwords, after which you didn't engage in [discussion the revert pointed you to](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:GrapheneOS/Archive_4#Special:Diff/1324505725). That said, the sources in the article do seem enough to say that Micay was a co-founder and that gOS is meant to be the very similar successor to Copperhead. Without contradicting information from other editors I'm sure I can add this.
-
@Xtreix @GrapheneOS Your edit had the pretty big problem of replacing sourced content with unsourced content that sometimes uses buzzwords, after which you didn't engage in [discussion the revert pointed you to](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:GrapheneOS/Archive_4#Special:Diff/1324505725). That said, the sources in the article do seem enough to say that Micay was a co-founder and that gOS is meant to be the very similar successor to Copperhead. Without contradicting information from other editors I'm sure I can add this.
> That said, the sources in the article
Articles based on press releases and Wikipedia aren't reliable sources. Laundering inaccurate content through authors of articles taking Wikipedia claims at face value isn't acceptable.
> gOS is meant to be the very similar successor to Copperhead
GrapheneOS is not a successor to CopperheadOS. GrapheneOS is the direct continuation of the open source project formerly known as CopperheadOS. There's plenty of verifiable info proving it.
-
> That said, the sources in the article
Articles based on press releases and Wikipedia aren't reliable sources. Laundering inaccurate content through authors of articles taking Wikipedia claims at face value isn't acceptable.
> gOS is meant to be the very similar successor to Copperhead
GrapheneOS is not a successor to CopperheadOS. GrapheneOS is the direct continuation of the open source project formerly known as CopperheadOS. There's plenty of verifiable info proving it.
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix It would be very helpful for the encyclopedia to know these sources! That's the hardest part of writing any Wikipedia article content, imo.
Golem Magazine appears to have had close communications with Micay and done their fact-checking. The article links an archived copy of Micay's own r/android post saying "true successor of CopperheadOS", so I'm curious to know what's the case here. Isn't "successor" and "continuation" the same thing?
-
> That said, the sources in the article
Articles based on press releases and Wikipedia aren't reliable sources. Laundering inaccurate content through authors of articles taking Wikipedia claims at face value isn't acceptable.
> gOS is meant to be the very similar successor to Copperhead
GrapheneOS is not a successor to CopperheadOS. GrapheneOS is the direct continuation of the open source project formerly known as CopperheadOS. There's plenty of verifiable info proving it.
@aliu @Xtreix The Wikipedia article currently presents a false narrative about the history of GrapheneOS based on Copperhead's debunked claims. Their claims didn't hold up in their attempt at filing a lawsuit against us.
The article also heavily misrepresents Daniel stepping down as lead developer based on an inaccurate interpretation of primary sources. This goes against Wikipedia policy, particularly since it's referring to a living person and making libelous claims about them.
-
> That said, the sources in the article
Articles based on press releases and Wikipedia aren't reliable sources. Laundering inaccurate content through authors of articles taking Wikipedia claims at face value isn't acceptable.
> gOS is meant to be the very similar successor to Copperhead
GrapheneOS is not a successor to CopperheadOS. GrapheneOS is the direct continuation of the open source project formerly known as CopperheadOS. There's plenty of verifiable info proving it.
@GrapheneOS @aliu @Xtreix
Look, man - Graphene is awesome!!!
Huge thanks to the Graphene OS team - y'all are amazing human beings!!! This is my third de-Googled OS in the last 5 years and I must say, with respect to and love for /e/OS and Calyx OS and appreciating their contributions to the world,... that Graphene OS is simply better. -
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix It would be very helpful for the encyclopedia to know these sources! That's the hardest part of writing any Wikipedia article content, imo.
Golem Magazine appears to have had close communications with Micay and done their fact-checking. The article links an archived copy of Micay's own r/android post saying "true successor of CopperheadOS", so I'm curious to know what's the case here. Isn't "successor" and "continuation" the same thing?
> Golem Magazine appears to have had close communications with Micay and done their fact-checking.
The article has major inaccuracies. Communicating with someone doesn't mean they have an opportunity to review the article before publication or that the author and editor are willing to fix the issues.
> The article links an archived copy of Micay's own r/android post saying "true successor of CopperheadOS",
No, that's not true. Daniel never posted any such thing on Reddit.
-
@aliu @Xtreix The Wikipedia article currently presents a false narrative about the history of GrapheneOS based on Copperhead's debunked claims. Their claims didn't hold up in their attempt at filing a lawsuit against us.
The article also heavily misrepresents Daniel stepping down as lead developer based on an inaccurate interpretation of primary sources. This goes against Wikipedia policy, particularly since it's referring to a living person and making libelous claims about them.
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix Assuming you mean citing Micay's tweet, [primary sources are perfectly fine for uncontroversial claims about their author](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_or_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves). What contradicts that tweet?
-
> Golem Magazine appears to have had close communications with Micay and done their fact-checking.
The article has major inaccuracies. Communicating with someone doesn't mean they have an opportunity to review the article before publication or that the author and editor are willing to fix the issues.
> The article links an archived copy of Micay's own r/android post saying "true successor of CopperheadOS",
No, that's not true. Daniel never posted any such thing on Reddit.
@aliu @Xtreix https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/b8fhiv/comment/ejxoooy/ is a post from https://www.reddit.com/user/Titokhan/ who has nothing to do with GrapheneOS. You're claiming someone posted something they never did.
> Isn't "successor" and "continuation" the same thing?
No, they're not the same thing. CopperheadOS was renamed to the Android Hardening Project and then to GrapheneOS. GrapheneOS still uses multiple of the original repositories from 2014-2018 on GitHub. It was renamed, not succeeded by another project. That's wrong.
-
> Golem Magazine appears to have had close communications with Micay and done their fact-checking.
The article has major inaccuracies. Communicating with someone doesn't mean they have an opportunity to review the article before publication or that the author and editor are willing to fix the issues.
> The article links an archived copy of Micay's own r/android post saying "true successor of CopperheadOS",
No, that's not true. Daniel never posted any such thing on Reddit.
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix Ah, I see, the post is made by a different user while Micay did comment on it. I found another source that I can use to lend enough weight to include how GrapheneOS says it was a renaming of CopperheadOS. That's the best secondary source I've found, though, so the article can't state that ("in wikivoice") without attributing the claim to GrapheneOS yet.
-
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix Ah, I see, the post is made by a different user while Micay did comment on it. I found another source that I can use to lend enough weight to include how GrapheneOS says it was a renaming of CopperheadOS. That's the best secondary source I've found, though, so the article can't state that ("in wikivoice") without attributing the claim to GrapheneOS yet.
@aliu @Xtreix The biggest issues in the article are the incredibly inaccurate narrative about the history of GrapheneOS presenting it entirely based on Copperhead's debunked claims which they widely propagated with press releases and their own direct edits to Wikipedia. They heavily wrote the content in the CopperheadOS article which is still present there. CopperheadOS is the former name of GrapheneOS and after that was a zombie project based on repeatedly forking our code.
-
@aliu @Xtreix The biggest issues in the article are the incredibly inaccurate narrative about the history of GrapheneOS presenting it entirely based on Copperhead's debunked claims which they widely propagated with press releases and their own direct edits to Wikipedia. They heavily wrote the content in the CopperheadOS article which is still present there. CopperheadOS is the former name of GrapheneOS and after that was a zombie project based on repeatedly forking our code.
@aliu @Xtreix The next biggest issue in the article is how it cites an announcement from us about the harassment towards Daniel completely out-of-context while ignoring most of what we said and misrepresenting it. Interpreting primary sources that way isn't supposed to be happening especially when it involves a living person. We didn't announce what it claims we did and it omits the context of what we said we were dealing with and why it was happening. Why is the main context omitted from it?
-
@aliu @Xtreix The next biggest issue in the article is how it cites an announcement from us about the harassment towards Daniel completely out-of-context while ignoring most of what we said and misrepresenting it. Interpreting primary sources that way isn't supposed to be happening especially when it involves a living person. We didn't announce what it claims we did and it omits the context of what we said we were dealing with and why it was happening. Why is the main context omitted from it?
@aliu @Xtreix The article very clearly takes something out of context, misrepresents it and tries to present it as a contradiction entirely based on direct interpretation of primary sources. If the article cannot cite the ownership of the original GitHub repositories, commit history and much more to correctly present the history of the project then why does it use primary sources to misrepresent our statements? The standard being used to justify the inaccuracies is ignored to justify others.
