@nprofile1q... @nprofile1q... Volla has created a highly anti-competitive alternative to the Play Integrity API which they're pushing for European banking and government apps to adopt. They want to seize control over which hardware and OSes are allowed by EU banking and governments apps. Their system will permit their own products and those of other companies working with them while banning GrapheneOS and most other operating systems and alternative hardware options.

https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/116200110686604617

@nprofile1q... @nprofile1q... Volla inaccurately markets their insecure hardware with poor updates as being highly private and secure. They've repeatedly misled people about GrapheneOS despite pretending to be friendly towards us and asking us to support their devices. That even includes their employees making sockpuppet accounts to mislead people about GrapheneOS which is very clearly proven here:

https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/116251325625494349

A company stooping to this level to harm an open source project is very sad.

@nprofile1q... @nprofile1q... Those are an enormous sacrifice for privacy, security, usability and functionality. There's nowhere close to the same level of app ecosystem. They don't provide proper support from the beginning let alone doing it for longer. They're not nearly as privacy friendly and don't have anywhere close to a comparable privacy-focused open source app ecosystem. Moving to far less private/secure desktop software is the opposite direction from GrapheneOS improving privacy/security.

@nprofile1q... @nprofile1q... We already have a website including an FAQ. It's strange you're talking about it as if we don't. If people already aren't reading thbe content on our site, how is adding far more of it going to help?

@nprofile1q... @nprofile1q... It causes substantial harm through spreading harmful misconceptions and misunderstandings. Anyone who supports GrapheneOS should refrain from inaccurately referring to it as a ROM.

@nprofile1q... @nprofile1q... This misinformation isn't being created in good faith and isn't a misunderstanding on their part which needs to be addressed with documentation. We can't reach most of the people they've misled. They're not going to read our website content and are mostly going to remain misinformed. What we can do is deter these groups from continuing to mislead people about GrapheneOS which has repeatedly worked and cut down on the ongoing attacks. Multiple organizations largely stopped.

@nprofile1q... @nprofile1q... The widespread misinformation and misconceptions haven't occurred naturally but rather through concerted efforts to mislead people about GrapheneOS. This specific example has been primarily driven by several organizations trying to promote their products through misleading people into believing GrapheneOS isn't what they want when it clearly is. Spreading and legitimizing their attacks would be the opposite of helpful and isn't how we're approaching handling it.

@nprofile1q... @nprofile1q... Our content repeatedly states GrapheneOS is a privacy project and heavily covers our privacy features. That includes the content on our website, our long form posts on our forum and elsewhere along with shorter form posts. There's nowhere that we've presented it with the strange claim that it's somehow a security project rather than a privacy project. We work on security to protect privacy and it makes little sense to claim we're working on security rather than privacy.

@nprofile1q... @nprofile1q... There are an essentially unlimited number of inaccurate claims and outright fabrications people come up with to attack GrapheneOS. They quickly move on to others. There's very little point in collecting attacks on the project and propagating them on their behalf. It isn't going to help with resolving the problem, which is that there are concerted efforts to to mislead people about GrapheneOS. We already have a website and other posts providing accurate information on it.

@nprofile1q... @nprofile1q... It's incorrect terminology and shouldn't be used to refer to GrapheneOS. It propagates misconceptions and misunderstandings. It's an operating systems, not read-only memory firmware.

GrapheneOS is not solely a replacement for a stock OS on a device can be the stock OS itself. It isn't inherently an aftermarket OS.

This has nothing to do with x86 vs. ARM and that doesn't match the way you're using the term in this thread or elsewhere regardless.

@nprofile1q... As another example, consider a camera app with filters which uploads every picture and video to their servers to do the processing on their cloud vs. one which does everything locally and doesn't send user data anywhere but includes a crash reporting system and basic analytics to know how much features get used. The one with the crash reporting system and analytics will be classified as having 2 'trackers' vs. the very privacy invasive one sending off your sensitive data with 0.

@nprofile1q... As an example, a bank's services are privacy invasive because they track all of your payments and everything else they can see. They often provide a lot of the data to third parties including selling it. Whether or not their app uses client side analytics and telemetry connecting to a few domains dedicated to that which are considered trackers doesn't matter much. It's the difference between extremely privacy invasive vs. surface level things which tend to not matter much.