T
@GrapheneOS If you must reply to individual threads yourself, you could probably save lots of time by having an evergreen section on your website dedicated to debunking FUD and just linking to that. There's little point in formulating individual responses on very similar topics repeatedly. Either a person is open to look at new information without prejudice, or they're not.
You have more important work to do.. and you know it 
Not trying to be harsh, I want you guys to succeed!
@GrapheneOS Most other organizations (Wikipedia, Signal..) respond to FUD or backlash by making a blog post. This is then shared by the org a few times on their socials, and community members will of course also use it to counter FUD/backlash in the relevant threads.
@GrapheneOS
> We're aware it results in /e/ and Murena doubling down on attacks. We're also aware that it results in their supporters doubling down on attacks. These will be addressed with additional posts.
I.. don't know if attempting to fight fire with fire is a reasonable investment of the team's time. It's not your goal to find every instance of a false claim to debunk it, right?
@GrapheneOS It's great you're taking time to clear up factually incorrect claims, whether they're made out of maliciousness or naivety. Constructive community engagement is great!
But please, for the love of god, this information only belongs A) in the threads where factually incorrect claims are being made and B) on your website in the FAQ section.
I know it's not intuitive, but pushing conflict into everyone's face again and again makes your project seem *less* trustworthy, not more.
@yugthebug @zed @royaards @pluralistic So technically @zed is correct by claiming Apple doesn't sell user data. But most companies engaging in advertising don't, and it's still an unethical shitshow, so it's a moot point.
@yugthebug @zed @royaards @pluralistic Selling vs. indirectly giving access to user data: a distinction without a meaningful difference.
1) collect the data
2) make assumptions (e.g. whether you're part of a minority, prone to spending impulsively, what your stance on refugees might be...) based on it
3) tell other companies that they can advertise to users based on one of hundreds of criteria, such as the above
This is why Google, Facebook and Apple can all claim they don't sell your data.
@zed @royaards
Apple implicitly claims that if you pay a premium for their hardware, they'll treat you better than tech companies in the freemium business model. That was probably true at one point, but it stopped being true years ago.
The first two reads are from the excellent @pluralistic. He sometimes drops a bit too many jawdropping facts at once, but he does a great job of providing sources.
[1] https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/14/luxury-surveillance/#liar-liar
[2] https://pluralistic.net/2021/05/18/unhealthy-balance-sheet/#think-manorialism
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/17/technology/apple-china-censorship-data.html
@zed @royaards I used to think that, too. Turns out: when you're a publicly traded company, given enough time, anything you can get away with to increase shareholder value, you will do.
Not only does Apple engage in advertising (and collect much of the same info that Facebook collects) [1], they have double standards when upholding their purported values matters the most [2,3].
A publicly traded company is not able to protect your interests long term.
