HybridStatAnim8

Rossmann made a thread on Kiwi Farms because Kiwi Farms members support him, and they support harassing his targets.

Rossmann has an account on Kiwi Farms for the purpose of engaging with his supporters on the site. He acts friendly with them and they choose to actively support him.

Rossmanns thread on the site is in support of him, not a harassment thread against him.

At the time of writing, I scrolled 4 posts down and found one. GrapheneOS are security researchers, so they often are a first party source. As for the attacks, they have plenty of evidence for their claims. They avoid giving any attacks more publicity, but they usually provide evidence if you ask.

Their entire post regarding pinephones is accurate.

Hardware kill switches need to be correctly implemented. A kill switch cutting off mics and not sensors or speakers is incomplete and privacy theater.

Not to mention kill switches assume the device is already compromised, at which point everything on it is likely compromised as well.

GrapheneOS wants to post more positive things, rather than just defensive replies. But they have very little choice in the matter. If the inhumane levels of attacks werent happening, they would have more time to discuss future features, how they choose to approach features, etc. But ignoring the attacks only make it worse. The suggestions to ignore it, even if genuine, arent helpful.

Its not broad criticism, its attacks that use criticism as a false excuse. Defending themselves neutrally and objectively is not unhinged.

None of this is accurate. Community backlash was not what forced them to step down. The attacks, including attempted murder, was what led them to handing the lead developer position to another trusted project member.

Attacks against GOS have not been quiet for years, attacks have still been ongoing during that time.

Micay was distressed due to ongoing circumstances. Rossmann choice to publicly blast what was supposed to be a private discussion, lied to his own viewers, twisted what was happening, etc. Also note Rossmann has an identity verified kiwifarms account.

GrapheneOS has plenty of evidence and they post it alongside their claims. They post it carefully though, and are willing to provide it to people upon request.

What they said here is accurate, not sure what youre trying to show?

GrapheneOS has never concealed this information, it has been publicly accessible on the GrapheneOS website for years, as an article describing the projects history. https://grapheneos.org/history/

Deleting signing keys under threat of a hostile takeover is the responsible thing to do.

GrapheneOS is open to criticism about their project.

The issue is criticism is often used as an excuse to conceal attacks.

GrapheneOS does not consider those who attack them as allies.

GrapheneOS needs to defend themselves. There would be more time for other types of posts other than defensive ones if they did not have to defend themselves.

They dont have any history of attacking others. They have a history of defending themselves from attacks.

Other organizations having the resources to continue despite the damage does not mean GrapheneOS can or should deal with the damage it causes. That makes no sense and its excusing horrible behaviour from attackers. They arent rants, the truth just often requires more words than a lie, such is the nature of computer science.

The claim anyone on the GrapheneOS team is paranoid is unsubstantiated.

The GrapheneOS team does find corporate speak/slop to be undesirable. I appreciate that a lot.

Defending oneself isnt an unreasonable thing to do. GrapheneOS is entirely funded by donations and receives a lot of donations to this day. Them defending themselves is not an existential risk, the attacks against them are.

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.

Rossmann publicly blasted a private discussion, twisting what was going on, and then lied to his own viewers. Such a claim from an identity verified kiwifarms account holder holds no weight.

This is false. Commentary and criticism is not treated as a coordinated attack. Coordinated attacks are treated as coordinated attacks. Criticism is often used as an excuse to try and hide attacks, and many people unfortunately cannot tell the difference.

All of the defensiveness is warranted. They speak neutrally and objectively.

The project is not going to relinquish control to any 3rd party. Not even the Motorola partnership is given control over the GOS project. The hypothetical you describe is not possible by design.

The GOS project takes no issue with critical thinking, and encourages it. But that is often used as an excuse to handwave attacks. There is a very big difference between criticism/critical thinking and attacking them.

Note that there are more individuals in the project than Micay. Multiple people handle multiple responsibilities, its not one person.

Louis Rossmann caused a lot of harm to GOS and blasted them publicly for trying to raise issues privately. That is disgusting behaviour. He then lied to his own viewers about no longer using GrapheneOS, lied about fears of a targeted update despite that not being possible, among a lot of other things. Note he also has an identity verified kiwifarms account.

GOS only defends themselves from attacks. Its not that they are misinterpreting what is an attack, there are really just that many attacks. It leaves little room for much else than defense. Nobody should have to deal with the inhumane level of attacks.

You always trust the developers of software. The only way to stop that is to not use the software.

Destroying the signing keys in the midst of a hostile takeover is the responsible thing to do. Its for the safety of their users. Thats a commendable trait to have.

That is what CopperheadOS, and now GrapheneOS, provides. Its a level of "battle tested" that most OS and app devs never have the opportunity to have. Deleting the signing keys during a hostile takeover attempt rather than submitting to pressure or greed is an amazing quality that is rare to find.

Thats a characteristic all modern OSs and modern apps have. You need to trust the key holders, always. Some people make their own builds for this reason. Depends on the threat model.

Micay owns the whole project. Ownership of the project was not exchanged or divided, part of the explicit terms of the agreement were that Micay would hold the keys and ownership of the project just as they always have.

More like the coordinates of a home were burned to protect its occupants. It was a practical choice, not an ideological one.

Deleting the signing keys for the sake of protecting ones users is the mature and responsible thing to do.

It wasnt intelligence agency compromise, it was a business partner compromise, who intended to violate the privacy and security of their users. Nothing about this is done out of spite. Im not sure where youre getting that from. You just seem to be attacking peoples character for making the right choice given the circumstances.