Live data from Hacker News

Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

discuss.grapheneos.org

191–200 of 343 posts

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#191

[flagged]

#1 imo is the fact that some orgs are resilient to libel, and some are heavily affected. If someone is lying about your security protect in order to harm your reputation, I don't find it odd to respond with some zeal. #2 on the other hand sounds unhinged, though no source is provided. Threatening legal action for broad criticism of project management is wild.

Its not broad criticism, its attacks that use criticism as a false excuse. Defending themselves neutrally and objectively is not unhinged.

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

What they said here is accurate, not sure what youre trying to show?

What exactly is accurate? Have you seen my reply to that? Hardware kill switches cut power and prevent any recording.

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#194
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the main criteria to differentiate "rants" from "correcting falsehoods" is proper citing of sources. In the case of Grapheneos, unfortunately I often see very few sources in what they post online. (But, if you ignore the rants, that's a fantastic OS.)

GrapheneOS has plenty of evidence and they post it alongside their claims. They post it carefully though, and are willing to provide it to people upon request.

How far down do you have to scroll on https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS to find a citation to a source for one of their claims?

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#195
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they were doing that one thing, they would not have posted this. It's fine not to market to consumers, but this raises additional concerns about the founder's judgement. Someone else claimed that they deleted update signing keys for copperhead devices. That's seriously concerning if true; possibly bad enough to switch away from grapheneOS.

He deleted the signing keys because it looked like the other owner of Copperhead OS wanted to make the signing keys available to government agencies and/or criminal organizations. He deleted the signing keys to protect their users against malicious updates, which is the right thing to do and should increase trust in him and the project. It's worth actually reading the linked post. Relevant segment: In 2018, matters b…

Ah, thanks for setting me straight. That's reassuring. I think I would still have more respect and trust for GrapheneOS if they either didn't respond, or struck a more neutral tone; but that's more subjective.

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#196
post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Durov is about as anti-Putin and russia in general as one can get. He go fucked hard in russia and has been going extremely hard against the censorship in russia. TG is one of the few chat apps that can avoid russia's suppression measures, when everything else working over internet fails.

Durov has been going hard against censorship because the pressure on Russians to switch to MAX might consign his own app to oblivion. But to call Durov “anti-Russia” when Telegram development and servers remained in Russia, is to ascribe to him a dissident status that he doesn’t actually deserve. (Durov himself is known to regularly visit Russia, while denying he ever visits Russia. Telegram opened a Dubai office cla…

Do you have a source for any of this? Wikipedia and news that I can find support that he fled Russia after government conflicts. It’s also well known that he keeps his and the dev team’s location secret, so anybody going knocking on incorporation addresses in Dubai then feigning surprise is acting in bad faith.

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#198

I love GrapheneOS and I use it daily for more than 2 years. However, and as Louis Rossmann pointed out in one of his videos, they really need to work on the "defensiveness" and "rants" of their communication. Even when they are 99% right most of the time, they sometimes don't come as mature and professional.

Personally, I like that they come across as a little paranoid. That's exactly the attitude I want in the people protecting my privacy and security. I hope the developers lie awake at night, unable to fall asleep because terrified that someone somewhere is plotting to attack and exploit them

While I understand you are trying to be positive about this, I don't think it's good to want our team portrayed like this, sorry. Paranoid people are people who'd easily be influenced into doing harmful behaviors because it believes it will stop their problems. Making a response to inaccuracies and bad journalism platforming an extremely malicious actor isn't a symptom of that. We don't have people with severe mental illness on the team. That would be irresponsible and mental illness is not something to romanticise in my opinion.

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GrapheneOSs posts are made to combat misinformation. Drawing public attention from those who may be misled and put at risk is how one combats misinfo. Its not ranting and its not somehow unreasonable to defend oneself.

Your entire comment history on HN exists across two separate posts about GrapheneOS. You're not a community member, you're an astroturfer.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN