There are at least a dozen people spending at least several hours attacking GrapheneOS across platforms on a daily basis.
-
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix If there's already a post on the gOS website somewhere that says Micay will not be succeeded by a different director or whatever you want to add, feel free to link it!
@aliu @Xtreix The post is citing us as a source out-of-context while ignoring the vast majority of what we've said about it. We said those steps were taken to protect Daniel from harassment and yet harassment isn't mentioned in the article. It's presented in an incredibly slanted way as part of false narratives being pushed about GrapheneOS to attack it.
-
@aliu @Xtreix The post is citing us as a source out-of-context while ignoring the vast majority of what we've said about it. We said those steps were taken to protect Daniel from harassment and yet harassment isn't mentioned in the article. It's presented in an incredibly slanted way as part of false narratives being pushed about GrapheneOS to attack it.
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix Give me of a link of a website that you know.
-
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix Give me of a link of a website that you know.
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix PSST: Just as a test please reply to this post, not the previous one, ASAP if you see it.
-
@aliu @Xtreix The post is citing us as a source out-of-context while ignoring the vast majority of what we've said about it. We said those steps were taken to protect Daniel from harassment and yet harassment isn't mentioned in the article. It's presented in an incredibly slanted way as part of false narratives being pushed about GrapheneOS to attack it.
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix If you were confused by other replies: Sorry about that, you're replying so clickly that I suspected you were a bot! I again apologize.
Where did you say that? It would be best to cite it as an official statement from your website.
-
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix If you were confused by other replies: Sorry about that, you're replying so clickly that I suspected you were a bot! I again apologize.
Where did you say that? It would be best to cite it as an official statement from your website.
@aliu @Xtreix There was no official announcement from GrapheneOS saying what's claimed there. It's citing a personal account and misinterpreting what it says. If the content cannot be sourced from a reliable secondary source, it should be removed. It's an incredibly biased interpretation of a primary source. How does that qualify as something notable if you can't find any secondary source saying what it does, but yet you would remove factual information about GrapheneOS without one?
-
@aliu @Xtreix There was no official announcement from GrapheneOS saying what's claimed there. It's citing a personal account and misinterpreting what it says. If the content cannot be sourced from a reliable secondary source, it should be removed. It's an incredibly biased interpretation of a primary source. How does that qualify as something notable if you can't find any secondary source saying what it does, but yet you would remove factual information about GrapheneOS without one?
@aliu @Xtreix Why is the article directly interpreting what someone posted on their personal Twitter account and subsequently deleted as if it was an official announcement? You can't actually justify that, especially when it's warping what was said by leaving out the context. Why is harassment not mentioned when the topic of the posts was harassment and a plan for dealing with it? The plan was revised a few more times prior to official announcements about the actual concrete details...
-
@aliu @Xtreix There was no official announcement from GrapheneOS saying what's claimed there. It's citing a personal account and misinterpreting what it says. If the content cannot be sourced from a reliable secondary source, it should be removed. It's an incredibly biased interpretation of a primary source. How does that qualify as something notable if you can't find any secondary source saying what it does, but yet you would remove factual information about GrapheneOS without one?
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix WP:ABOUTSELF is fine if without reasonable doubt. Making a statement about how exactly that's misleading would provide that reasonble doubt as well as clear up confusion for anyone not very active on Mastodon.
-
@aliu @Xtreix Why is the article directly interpreting what someone posted on their personal Twitter account and subsequently deleted as if it was an official announcement? You can't actually justify that, especially when it's warping what was said by leaving out the context. Why is harassment not mentioned when the topic of the posts was harassment and a plan for dealing with it? The plan was revised a few more times prior to official announcements about the actual concrete details...
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix Could you link those official announcements?
-
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix WP:ABOUTSELF is fine if without reasonable doubt. Making a statement about how exactly that's misleading would provide that reasonble doubt as well as clear up confusion for anyone not very active on Mastodon.
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix I think it would benefit both of us here if we each went back and re-read posts a little carefully. So carefully, in fact, that I unfortunately won't be able to reply for a few hours. This is a very interesting rabbit hole and I do want to see where this conversation leads.
-
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix WP:ABOUTSELF is fine if without reasonable doubt. Making a statement about how exactly that's misleading would provide that reasonble doubt as well as clear up confusion for anyone not very active on Mastodon.
@aliu @Xtreix It's a misrepresentation of what was posted on a personal account which was never an official announcement by the project.
Why is the article talking about it in the first place? What makes it notable when you cannot find any secondary source about it?
We're well aware that Wikipedia editors simply interpret the rules how they want to achieve the end results they want and that there are extreme double standards applied everywhere including here. It's not honest or acceptable.
-
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix I think it would benefit both of us here if we each went back and re-read posts a little carefully. So carefully, in fact, that I unfortunately won't be able to reply for a few hours. This is a very interesting rabbit hole and I do want to see where this conversation leads.
@aliu @Xtreix Both the CopperheadOS and GrapheneOS articles on Wikipedia make libelous claims about the founder of GrapheneOS. People involved in the harassment towards him have been involved in editing the article. That's why the article is citing his posts about harassment while leaving out the fact that it was about harassment. That's why it's trying to present something as a gotcha which isn't at all. Those posts did not say or imply that he permanently stepped down as a director.
-
@aliu @Xtreix Both the CopperheadOS and GrapheneOS articles on Wikipedia make libelous claims about the founder of GrapheneOS. People involved in the harassment towards him have been involved in editing the article. That's why the article is citing his posts about harassment while leaving out the fact that it was about harassment. That's why it's trying to present something as a gotcha which isn't at all. Those posts did not say or imply that he permanently stepped down as a director.
@aliu @Xtreix The actual content of the posts says that he was stepping down from those roles to recover from the harassment. It's quite clear from the content of the posts that he wasn't leaving the project but rather stepping away from demanding roles due to stress. Nowhere is it implied that he was leaving the project or permanently leaving as a director. That narrative comes from people engaging in harassment and they've been editing the article including linking harassment content in it.
-
@aliu @Xtreix The actual content of the posts says that he was stepping down from those roles to recover from the harassment. It's quite clear from the content of the posts that he wasn't leaving the project but rather stepping away from demanding roles due to stress. Nowhere is it implied that he was leaving the project or permanently leaving as a director. That narrative comes from people engaging in harassment and they've been editing the article including linking harassment content in it.
@aliu @Xtreix Harassment content linked by the article was recently removed but there are still many leftover parts from the groups who added that content. Any approach which leads to this happening is awful. Misrepresenting primary sources to try to make a gotcha attack on GrapheneOS by twisting what was said is somehow fine but verifiable facts debunking the false narratives presented as a history of GrapheneOS are ignored. Wikipedia thoroughly fails to defend against astroturfing and trolls.
-
> 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 What is with heise.de? Are they articles about GrapheneOS trustworthy?
-
@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 There's a possibility that maybe Google (or any interested entity) doing a proxy war against the project using these small companies.
-
> 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 wait I thought you wrote somewhere on the history or what that you were before making a new project named like Android hardening project over different source but not fully reusing old code. Citing possible departure over CopperheadOS since the fight over rights. Probably also considering previous work were licensed as CC making it hard to be forked. Then later renamed as GrapheneOS or such.
-
@GrapheneOS wait I thought you wrote somewhere on the history or what that you were before making a new project named like Android hardening project over different source but not fully reusing old code. Citing possible departure over CopperheadOS since the fight over rights. Probably also considering previous work were licensed as CC making it hard to be forked. Then later renamed as GrapheneOS or such.
Idk, I have vague memory when I was researching it and it's all feeling like puzzle that this is likely something like if LineageOS just depart from Cyanogen. But this part, Cyanogen already have a license that makes it possible to fork, just fork old repo. And Idk much of the history of GrapheneOS. So it's direct successor aka. fork?
-
@GrapheneOS There's a possibility that maybe Google (or any interested entity) doing a proxy war against the project using these small companies.
@joe9nf Google definitely isn't doing it. They're not particularly hostile towards us specifically. We know of multiple companies directly involved in it especially since they directly use their project and personal accounts for it to wield their supporters as a weapon.
-
Idk, I have vague memory when I was researching it and it's all feeling like puzzle that this is likely something like if LineageOS just depart from Cyanogen. But this part, Cyanogen already have a license that makes it possible to fork, just fork old repo. And Idk much of the history of GrapheneOS. So it's direct successor aka. fork?
@kouki21 GrapheneOS is the original open source project started in 2014. We have the original repositories created prior to 2018 with several dating back to 2014 and 2015. GrapheneOS was created prior to the Copperhead company and ownership or control of the project was explicitly never turned over to the company. There was a clear agreement between the open source project and the company that it remained independent. This is why Copperhead's legal attacks on us failed.
GrapheneOS (@GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social)
GrapheneOS started in 2014 and was originally named CopperheadOS. In late 2015, the Copperhead company was founded which was meant to support the project. Copperhead didn't create CopperheadOS and didn't own or control it. Copperhead made a failed takeover attempt on it in 2018.
GrapheneOS Mastodon (grapheneos.social)
-
@GrapheneOS wait I thought you wrote somewhere on the history or what that you were before making a new project named like Android hardening project over different source but not fully reusing old code. Citing possible departure over CopperheadOS since the fight over rights. Probably also considering previous work were licensed as CC making it hard to be forked. Then later renamed as GrapheneOS or such.
@kouki21 GrapheneOS is the original open source project started in 2014. We have the original repositories created prior to 2018 with several dating back to 2014 and 2015. GrapheneOS was created prior to the Copperhead company and ownership or control of the project was explicitly never turned over to the company. There was a clear agreement between the open source project and the company that it remained independent. This is why Copperhead's legal attacks on us failed.
GrapheneOS (@GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social)
GrapheneOS started in 2014 and was originally named CopperheadOS. In late 2015, the Copperhead company was founded which was meant to support the project. Copperhead didn't create CopperheadOS and didn't own or control it. Copperhead made a failed takeover attempt on it in 2018.
GrapheneOS Mastodon (grapheneos.social)
