C'mon. Based on me saying I didn't find anything substantial in these 'social networks' you mentioned (which search functionalities are a mess btw) you conclude that I am part of the problem. 🤔

Rather sounds like you wish to silence critical questions. I am having doubt you participate in GrapheneOS at all. Therefore quitting the 'discussion'. Get a life, man 😂

Imagine it will be shut down by some Twitter API mess quite soon. They safeguard their platform's data pretty well. 🙈

Did you find any proof for the claims in this thread yet? I am struggling with that, honestly.

I am not asking the thread starter as he/she wasn't willing to give you any more details.

But the best I can find are recent quotes from Gäel Duvan saying, he wants to ignore the GrapheneOS community.

https://mastodon.social/@gael/114355049421396428

As the internet is a highly ambiguous place and people can pretend to be whoever they'd like to be (or not being people after all but bots), did you ever consider that someone else is after you, while they're framing it on another open source community? Do you really have any proof that Murena leadership authorized these actions? I am a little irritated that you're so bold on these attributions.

In game theory, it would be much more adequate to assume that these attacks were orchestrated by a government entity which is annoyed that GrapheneOS is making it hard for them to spy on people.

Call me naïve, but hopefully the current POTUS will stop those unlawful practices.

I couldn't find those references, unfortunately. It doesn't make sense after all anyway, why should Murena people harass Graphene people, or the other way round. But I would really like to see it, if it's there.

I have another assumption, as I have seen these allegations in former open source projects, almost in the same fashion: there are people in these communities (both Murena and GrapheneOS) that get paid to stir up feelings of hatred, in order to destroy these two great open source projects.

Both challenge the status quo by providing a better control of privacy and security. Both could do better, in my opinion (e.g. the case of Daniel Micay's behavior), but it would be a great loss if either of them disbanded. And there are some very capital-rich competitors who want them to be gone...

Keyword here is 'now'. I understand they needed to make that shift of founding a company to receive funding, but their arguments why they did that weren't compelling (at least to me). Point is, someone will want to get his ROI someday. Possibly to the detriment of the users. Plus, a central company can be sued more easily (by law enforcement etc.)

Yes, on Obamas birthday, 4th of August, as everyone knows

No applause at the end...

#[0]