For those unfamiliar, GrapheneOS is a privacy and security enhanced custom ROM endorsed by Snowden. Despite these big names, plenty of people give it backlash

Even @TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml gives it backlash despite being a moderator of Lemmy’s biggest privacy community. A quote here: “grapheneOS trolls are downvoting every single post and comment of mine, and committing vote manipulation on Lemmy. They are using 5-6 accounts.” That was in response to downvotes on a comment posted in the c/WorldNews community, which is entirely unrelated to technology.

One of the reasons is that GrapheneOS can only be installed on Google Pixels due to security compatibility, which makes complete sense considering Android should be most compatible with Google’s own devices. GrapheneOS even lists the exact reasons they chose Pixels, and encourage people to step up and manufacture a different supported device.

One year ago, Louis Rossmann posted this video outlining his reasons for deleting GrapheneOS. Mainly, he had multiple bad experiences with Daniel Micay (the founder and main developer of GrapheneOS) which put his distrust in the GrapheneOS project. Since then, he has stepped down and will no longer be actively contributing to the project.

So, I am here to learn why exactly people still do not like GrapheneOS.

  • semitones@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    For me it is a matter of trust. What does it matter if you’re getting security updates faster than everyone else if you’re getting them Solar Winds? In other words, if you don’t need security against nation-state actors, the highest threat is Google / Apple themselves.

    • twig@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Your logic doesn’t escape me but in point of fact, when we’re talking about GrapheneOS we’re not talking about volunteering usage data to Google. GrapheneOS does a better job of protecting user privacy than any other mobile option I can think of.

      The problem I have is treating security and privacy like they’re opposing forces. They’re not. You don’t need to make security concessions to ensure privacy and that line of thinking doesn’t make sense when you examine it.

      Genuinely curious: what your privacy metrics (what does this actually mean to you) and what is an organization that you trust?

      • semitones@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Not too many unfortunately. I trust Proton bc I am not breaking any Swiss laws, and I know they leak recovery emails so I don’t have one listed, but that’s about it.

        To be honest I’m not an expert in this, definitely haven’t achieved de-googled life yet, but someday I dream I will. Even if they are not collecting usage data they’re surely getting metadata

        • twig@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          I think that’s a good baseline. Not placing unnecessary trust is definitely a priority. The idea is definitely to remove as much of the need as possible for trust.

          You have good goals and they are attainable. I wish you luck.