GrapheneOS3d ago
There are at least a dozen people spending at least several hours attacking GrapheneOS across platforms on a daily basis. It's a very strange situation. How do these people have so much time and dedication to keep making posts across platforms attacking us? It's relentless.
Show threadGrapheneOS3d ago

Every day, dozens of new accounts join our chat rooms to spread the same fabrications about GrapheneOS including via direct messages.

On Hacker News, one of the accounts making personal attacks based on fabrications in most threads about GrapheneOS has been doing it for 8 years.

Show threadGrapheneOS3d ago
Y Combinator has a financial stake in numerous surveillance and exploit development companies. Hacker News is a platform they own and the moderators on it have permitted years of vile harassment towards our team which they'd normally remove if others were targeted.
Show threadGrapheneOS3d ago
Hacker News mods micromanage it enough to repeatedly ask us not to reuse a bit of text across our comments. Meanwhile, they do nothing about disgusting personal attacks and harassment content consistently being spread in threads about GrapheneOS on their heavily moderated site.
Show threadGrapheneOS3d ago
The largest privacy community on Reddit /r/privacy bans any discussion or mentions of GrapheneOS. A bot automatically removes any post mentioning GrapheneOS they'll very actively ban people who evade their filters. The mods of the subreddit misrepresent this as something we want.
Show threadGrapheneOS3d ago
Many privacy subreddits have mods who are hostile towards GrapheneOS. We were banned from posting on /r/Android for multiple years. The mod who banned us said our official project account on Reddit was ban evading because they once unjustifiably banned one of our team members.
Show threadGrapheneOS3d ago
On Wikipedia, a company attacking GrapheneOS project made years of edits to the site pushing false narratives about us. They cited articles based on their own press releases. Other content was made paraphrasing Wikipedia which ended up being cited by it. It continues to this day.
Show threadXtreix3d ago

@GrapheneOS The French Wikipedia page for GrapheneOS is currently the only accurate one and I am one of the contributors, another community member started rewriting the page, and I joined in. I haven't contributed to the page in quite a while, but everything looks fine to me.

The US page is managed by people hostile to GrapheneOS, as you already know. If you change the content, a member will revert your edit. I’ve tried several times with no success, it’s deplorable.

Attacks from scammers and companies selling snake oil seem to have intensified since the collaboration with Motorola Mobility. It’s absurd how many trolls and malicious people I see on X, and it’s almost impossible to respond to them all. This social network is terrible, I’ve rarely seen so much violent content on a platform, fortunately, there are also people who support the project.

Show threadaliu15h ago
@Xtreix @GrapheneOS Your edit had the pretty big problem of replacing sourced content with unsourced content that sometimes uses buzzwords, after which you didn't engage in [discussion the revert pointed you to](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:GrapheneOS/Archive_4#Special:Diff/1324505725). That said, the sources in the article do seem enough to say that Micay was a co-founder and that gOS is meant to be the very similar successor to Copperhead. Without contradicting information from other editors I'm sure I can add this.
Talk:GrapheneOS/Archive 4 - Wikipedia

Show threadGrapheneOS15h ago

@aliu @Xtreix

> 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.

Show threadaliu15h ago

@GrapheneOS @Xtreix It would be very helpful for the encyclopedia to know these sources! That's the hardest part of writing any Wikipedia article content, imo.

Golem Magazine appears to have had close communications with Micay and done their fact-checking. The article links an archived copy of Micay's own r/android post saying "true successor of CopperheadOS", so I'm curious to know what's the case here. Isn't "successor" and "continuation" the same thing?

Show threadGrapheneOS15h ago

@aliu @Xtreix

> Golem Magazine appears to have had close communications with Micay and done their fact-checking.

The article has major inaccuracies. Communicating with someone doesn't mean they have an opportunity to review the article before publication or that the author and editor are willing to fix the issues.

> The article links an archived copy of Micay's own r/android post saying "true successor of CopperheadOS",

No, that's not true. Daniel never posted any such thing on Reddit.

Show threadaliu15h ago
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix Ah, I see, the post is made by a different user while Micay did comment on it. I found another source that I can use to lend enough weight to include how GrapheneOS says it was a renaming of CopperheadOS. That's the best secondary source I've found, though, so the article can't state that ("in wikivoice") without attributing the claim to GrapheneOS yet.
Show threadGrapheneOS15h ago
@aliu @Xtreix The biggest issues in the article are the incredibly inaccurate narrative about the history of GrapheneOS presenting it entirely based on Copperhead's debunked claims which they widely propagated with press releases and their own direct edits to Wikipedia. They heavily wrote the content in the CopperheadOS article which is still present there. CopperheadOS is the former name of GrapheneOS and after that was a zombie project based on repeatedly forking our code.
Show threadGrapheneOS15h ago
@aliu @Xtreix The next biggest issue in the article is how it cites an announcement from us about the harassment towards Daniel completely out-of-context while ignoring most of what we said and misrepresenting it. Interpreting primary sources that way isn't supposed to be happening especially when it involves a living person. We didn't announce what it claims we did and it omits the context of what we said we were dealing with and why it was happening. Why is the main context omitted from it?
Show threadGrapheneOS15h ago
@aliu @Xtreix The article very clearly takes something out of context, misrepresents it and tries to present it as a contradiction entirely based on direct interpretation of primary sources. If the article cannot cite the ownership of the original GitHub repositories, commit history and much more to correctly present the history of the project then why does it use primary sources to misrepresent our statements? The standard being used to justify the inaccuracies is ignored to justify others.
Show threadaliu14h ago
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix Well, I don't know the context and I can't find a secondary source to provide the context, while there are secondary sources other secondary sources claim are reputable that contextualize the early repo history you mention.
I think that's the problem: Wikipedia has yet to find a better objective indicator of truth than being published by the bubble of secondary sources, and I can't think of any either.
Show threadGrapheneOS14h ago
@aliu @Xtreix People who aren't subject matter experts doing cursory research based on the equivalent of blog posts by people who aren't subject matter experts isn't a recipe for writing accurate content. The approach is incredibly biased and primary sources do get heavily cited including in this article. Conveniently, the primary sources are cited to take statements in an announcement from us out-of-context in order to present a warped take on it and try to make us look bad based on it.
Show threadaliu14h ago
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix The problem with that is you're also a blog post. I really appreciate what you are doing but lowering the RS barrier to interpreting primary sources when people still disagree on a fact would make a lot of fact-finding discussions the equivalent of Reddit toxicity and Truth Social toxicity combined.
Show threadaliu14h ago
@GrapheneOS @Xtreix I think it's a tiny bit plausible that these sources were bought by Donaldson to parrot his claims while also painting Donaldson as the villain. But the sources we have only contextualize the part where you think primary sources favor your view and not when it doesn't, and absent of an official announcement that tries to contextualize the 2024 resignation we can cite, this is what's best.
Show threadGrapheneOS
@aliu @Xtreix You're demonstrating that you're extremely biased and apply double standards. It's not something which is going to stand. We know the reality of Wikipedia which is that it's extremely astroturfed and biased. It reflects the overall bias of the editors. It doesn't reflect a consensus among people who want to have accurate content.
3:20amWeb
Show threadaliu14h ago
@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! As I've mentioned, that should be usable as a primary source.
Show threadGrapheneOS1h ago
@aliu @Xtreix We're not going to give you more things you can misrepresent as part of the existing attacks on the GrapheneOS project by Wikipedia contributors. You folks are misrepresenting public statements by GrapheneOS and warping what was said into a gotcha. Why would we give you more so that you can add another sentence to the article continuing the attempt at misrepresenting what happened as a gotcha? Why would we help you justify including it in the first place? We know what you're doing.