WIRED has gone ahead with publishing an extraordinarily inaccurate article about GrapheneOS.
-
WIRED heavily misled about the article. They led us to believe the article would be about GrapheneOS with little coverage of the history. They repeatedly reassured us it would hardly have any of the content it ended up being based around. Therefore, we had no opportunity to properly address it.
@GrapheneOS the articles third sentence reads "Claude refers to him as [...]" so you know it's quality journalism if there is ai prominently among their sources lol
-
@GrapheneOS the articles third sentence reads "Claude refers to him as [...]" so you know it's quality journalism if there is ai prominently among their sources lol
@June I'm truly baffled by the deference some people display towards LLMs. Like, even using it for work where it can just make stuff up undeterred, but saying "this mindless program referred to the person in question as..." as if that meant anything at all is alarming
-
WIRED heavily misled about the article. They led us to believe the article would be about GrapheneOS with little coverage of the history. They repeatedly reassured us it would hardly have any of the content it ended up being based around. Therefore, we had no opportunity to properly address it.
We made a forum post at https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/34369-original-grapheneos-responses-to-wired-fact-checker which contains an overview of the situation along with the unmodified answers we provided to WIRED's fact checker. You can see for yourself what we provided and that it wasn't anywhere close to adequately incorporated into the article.
-
@GrapheneOS may be worthwhile to publish both their fact-checker's questions and your responses somewhere.
People will be able to draw their own conclusions by contrasting info available to their editors vs. things they omitted from the final text.
@paulnatsuo We made a post at https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/34369-original-grapheneos-responses-to-wired-fact-checker containing an overview of the situation and then the full unmodified response we provided to WIRED for their long series of questions about the article. It's plainly visible that they didn't come anywhere close to adequately incorporating this into the article. There's also the massive issue that this was only asked by a fact checker after the article was entirely written. That's not how things should be even if it was properly incorporated.
-
We made a forum post at https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/34369-original-grapheneos-responses-to-wired-fact-checker which contains an overview of the situation along with the unmodified answers we provided to WIRED's fact checker. You can see for yourself what we provided and that it wasn't anywhere close to adequately incorporated into the article.
@GrapheneOS you should sue them, and everyone else spreading lies and slander about GrapheneOS.
-
@SharpCheddarGoblin @GrapheneOS
cuz an article about grapheneos gets clicks (even false information) and clicks mean ad revenue and profit -
We made a forum post at https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/34369-original-grapheneos-responses-to-wired-fact-checker which contains an overview of the situation along with the unmodified answers we provided to WIRED's fact checker. You can see for yourself what we provided and that it wasn't anywhere close to adequately incorporated into the article.
After the article was submitted, we received that list of questions from WIRED's fact checker. We realized the article was largely going to be a fake account of the history of the project based on Donaldson's claim. That's when we made these posts:
https://x.com/GrapheneOS/status/2043854907116027914
https://bsky.app/profile/grapheneos.org/post/3mjyyndedqc2i -
After the article was submitted, we received that list of questions from WIRED's fact checker. We realized the article was largely going to be a fake account of the history of the project based on Donaldson's claim. That's when we made these posts:
https://x.com/GrapheneOS/status/2043854907116027914
https://bsky.app/profile/grapheneos.org/post/3mjyyndedqc2iA small portion of our response to those questions was incorporated, but not most of it. There's also more we weren't asked about which we can now see is in the article. We tried to address that at in the initial overview at https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/34369-original-grapheneos-responses-to-wired-fact-checker prior to the submitted answers.
-
A small portion of our response to those questions was incorporated, but not most of it. There's also more we weren't asked about which we can now see is in the article. We tried to address that at in the initial overview at https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/34369-original-grapheneos-responses-to-wired-fact-checker prior to the submitted answers.
@GrapheneOS I've been a happy user of GrapheneOS for years. Shame to see WIRED's low standards for journalistic integrity here. Wishing everyone at Graphene well.
-
@GrapheneOS you should sue them, and everyone else spreading lies and slander about GrapheneOS.
@von We're dealing with Donaldson but that has branched out into an enormous number of different attacks on the project. We can't go after everyone legally even if there's grounds for it. We need to pick our battles carefully for lawsuits. There are a small number of specific people and companies where it may make sense to file a lawsuit but this is hardly one of those situations. It's better to try to pressure them to make fixes to the article and properly incorporate our responses to it.
-
R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic
