This is great to point out. For me a person needs to argue fine grained, so I could think they understand of what they are speaking. And this I have never seen from nostr:nprofile1qyt8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kytcqyp2x308wkaxwxh95zu7uext5hhdvn6y55a9l84z0nj5tw42xqhy768qv490 account.

I am always open to change this view, when I see finegrained well explained critique, including sources.

These kind of critique just seems like the user is not working scientifically at all. And when he leads to people thinking that nonscientific work would be accepted within the graphene project, then it takes away a lot of credibility of the project.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

For me, nostr:nprofile1qqs9g69ua6m5ec6ukstnmnyewj7a4j0gjjn5hu75f7w23d64gczunmgpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumt0wd68ytnsw43q4gnztg is one of the few accounts that actually knows what they're talking about. Most privacy projects (or all projects) just give social media to an intern. nostr:nprofile1qqs9g69ua6m5ec6ukstnmnyewj7a4j0gjjn5hu75f7w23d64gczunmgpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumt0wd68ytnsw43q4gnztg is always to the point, understanding what they are writing about, sometimes down to the level of AOSP source code.

They often sound very critical, but the main reason is that the state of Android security and privacy is horrible and many people are just selling snake oil.