Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

Post by HybridStatAnim8 » Tue, Apr 21, 2026, 7:40 PM UTC

1attice wrote: post #96

ryandrake wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They do one thing: make as secure a phone OS as they can. That’s it. If you’re expecting them to do anything in a friendly way, it ain’t gonna happen, that’s not who they are or what they do. These things are not mutually exclusive: You can make a great technical product while being friendly. You can make a great technical product while not being friendly. You can make a compromised or flawed technical product whil…

Actually, you can't make a great product if you've alienated your allies, because all successes are intrinsically social, from the iPhone to Python to even the processor itself. Going it alone is that nineties libertarian romanticism, a persistent self-destructive tendency that in present market conditions is unsustainable

Post by HybridStatAnim8 » Tue, Apr 21, 2026, 7:43 PM UTC

fwipsy wrote: post #47

roughly wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Graphene is not a consumer brand and they do not intend to be a consumer brand. They do one thing: make as secure a phone OS as they can. That’s it. If you’re expecting them to do anything in a friendly way, it ain’t gonna happen, that’s not who they are or what they do. That will absolutely limit their scope and reach, but it also allows them to focus on the one thing they’re trying to do without making compromises.…

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.

Post by busterarm » Tue, Apr 21, 2026, 7:45 PM UTC

HybridStatAnim8 wrote: post #170

busterarm wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

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.

Post by HybridStatAnim8 » Tue, Apr 21, 2026, 7:47 PM UTC

fph wrote: post #50

ekjhgkejhgk wrote: post #3

[flagged]

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.)

Post by orblivion » Tue, Apr 21, 2026, 7:52 PM UTC

HybridStatAnim8 wrote: post #182

orblivion wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just about being friendly. If they have a bubble around them of employees, true believers, and people just afraid of speaking out that chills free expression of criticism, the truth has trouble getting out, which hurts trust. Still a user though.

GrapheneOS is open to criticism about their project. The issue is criticism is often used as an excuse to conceal attacks.