GrapheneOS: Another contributor attacked & banned by Daniel Micay
Daniel Micay banned me from GrapheneOS. Why? It was for the silliest reason...
Why was I banned from GrapheneOS? That’s a good question.
| Why I was banned from GrapheneOS by Daniel Micay) |
I can't believe I just wasted time reading this.
Tldr: GOS accused OP of trying to create public drama and instead of taking multiple opportunities to deescalate, OP kept pushing and got banned.
So, if GOS was wrong about OP wanting to create public drama, then why have they made this post?
I'm not saying GOS didn't overreact but that whole conversation was at the level of 13 year olds. Surely, OP, you can do better?
Specifically:
If all you wanted was to share the information with CalyxOS, wouldn't the logical option have been to copy the relevant text from @jertek's comment (which you had already recovered), and quote it in a comment on your CalyxOS feature request? You could have linked to @jertek there and continued the conversation without involving GOS.
You know GOS aren't intending to implement this feature - you were informed of that on the GOS discussion forum before opening the ticket. (I just searched the forum for this topic because I was so sure I must be missing context but no, not really.) So when they deleted the request, why not let it go? I just don't get why it mattered so desperately that they deleted your feature request, and why you couldn't clarify that anywhere except on a clone of their repo. I really, genuinely don't.
Yeah strcat has been an ass since the Copperhead days. He's set back Linux security at least a decade by pissing off Spender of GRsecurity to the point of making him remove the public patches (not that I think Spender was right to do that, but I understand why it happened after what Mackay did).
The dude is toxic.
Didn't he leave the project though?
They did not leave the project. They are still a developer, a director of the GrapheneOS foundation, and someone shaping the direction and quality of the operating system. They did step down in their role as lead developer though, which was taken over by another person, who is also a director. They also lowered their public social media presence on their personal accounts, in order to avoid harassment and attacks.
Why is it even possible to remove public patches that are already used?
That information you posted about Spender and GRsecurity is false. That isn't why the patches were removed. The project is in good standing and contact with Spender.
Also, your comment about crashing and burning the Copperhead project is blatantly false as well. The other business partner attempted a hostile takeover that was rebuffed.
This blog post that they have posted across the fediverse, and multiple other platforms is a near complete fabrication of the timeline and what actually occurred. Anyone who has gone to GitHub to look at it has found that maltfield's claims are baseless and they are acting inappropriate childish and unacceptable manner.
You are just saying things without a shred of proof and no one is asking for any. So here I am: Please provide proof of all of these claims.
While the authors intentions are a bit iffy (the whole thing happened over a year ago), the fact that two new fresh accounts that speak just like Daniel apperead in the comments speak the loudest.
Daniel, if you are reading this, comparing Graphene features to Lineage is not targeted harassment, nor is creating feature requests that can be closed and explained politely. When browsing the GrapheneOS forum the weirdest thing is seeing misunderstanding people being threatened with bans instead of helped with explanations. Usually with forums I just assume a 12-year-old is behind the keyboard, but unfortunately that's not the case with Graphene.
𝐒𝐨𝐜𝐤·𝐩𝐮𝐩·𝐩𝐞𝐭
/ˈ𝘴ɑː𝘬 ˌ𝘱ʌ𝘱.ɪ.𝘵𝘳𝘪/
(n.) An online identity created, and used, for purposes of deception. A sockpuppet purports to be an independent party that supports, approves of, or agrees with some agent (a person, organization, agency, or state), but is in fact created and controlled by that agent, and has no independent existence. Common uses of sockpuppets include plausibly deniable hacking or information operations, provocation, and astroturfing (creation of the illusion of grassroots support).
Legit 2 digit IQ, Tranquil is not a sock puppet. I've seen him in GrapheneOS chat rooms occasionally over the span of a few years during the time I've occasionally looked through them. From what I've seen he's very active & is constantly helping people out.
I'm a real person and long-time community member. I'm not an account created by Daniel. You can go to the GrapheneOS Discord and search for from: tranquil_cassowary and see that I have posts going way back in time, on Matrix I used to go by stackedbedrock@arcticfoxes.net and now also go by tranquil_cassowary@arcticfoxes.net. My style of writing is also not the same at all, as is my level of English. It's probably easier for you though to assume that everyone who disagrees with you is one person, so that only one person would be disagreeing with you.
I don't know if you or the other account is Daniel or not. You do have to have a few screws loose to be constantly looking for posts that are negative towards your project and create accounts (or multiple) to defend it ASAP. However doing it to someone elses project you would have to be in a nuthouse, so I usually assume the more intelligent option.
Hello everyone, I want to preface this by disclosing that I am part of the GrapheneOS team. My account is not freshly created by the way, since that seems to be such a hot topic here. We asked our community for help with dealing with this mess since the self proclaimed open-source "enthusiast", who is supposedly so eager to help, has gone out of his way to spread this literally all over the internet in order to harm an...open-source project. Here on Lemmy, Mastodon, Reddit, LinkedIn...even Facebook and elsewhere. That's where the "suspicious" new accounts come from. That said, yes you can go ahead and verify they are in fact members of the community. And you can verify mine too if you wish, on the GrapheneOS forum, our reddit, discord, matrix, github. I don't know what else I could tell you on this front honestly.
Now this person filed a duplicate feature request on the issue tracker regarding 3-button navigation. We closed it and provided an explanation on why it’s not wanted, primarily because 3-button navigation is really just a legacy mode and only kept around for compatibility reasons. Any feature that aims to provide a quicker way to force kill apps should be done in a way that’s not specific to it, but can be applied to all navigation modes. I hope this makes sense until here.
About a year later some people picked up on this feature request and started discussing it further. We have a rule where if you want to express your support for something you should react to it with a thumbs up emoji. That’s because each mention and reply sends an e-mail notification to multiple developers. We opted to delete the issue in order to stop the noise. In hindsight yeah that was a mistake, since apparently there are individuals around who are just waiting for an opportunity to act in bad faith as seen here.
This person kept insisting on it and continued to file more issues regarding this matter, even going as far as cloning our repository and continuing the spam there. We repeatedly asked them to stop and take it to dms instead but they didn't do either of these things. Now what they did do is dig this up over a year after our last interaction with them and make a mountain out of a molehill.
There you go, that's the gist of it.
seeing how the GrapheneOS team bans people without any given reason, goes out of their way to point out how they're the only good OS choice and literally anything else one might consider is insecure garbage (it really feels like mentioning Graphene and any other custom ROM on Mastodon in one post summons them with a 10-post thread pointing out why the two aren't in the same league and shouldn't be compared to each other, ever), and then paints themselves as the victim who is constantly harrassed by the competition without ever showing much evidence, I probably wouldn't be very comfortable running their product, even if it was available for my device.
It's a good product but yes, the team is ridiculous. Either because they do this incessantly or never stop the people doing it.
How hard is it to just let your product speak for itself? I wouldn't trust the team because they insist on making an echo chamber and mountains out of molehills. It simply reads as a team that isn't stable.
It's a team of around 10 full time developers and also other project members with moderation responsibilities. Some of them sadly have to deal with adressing harassment on a daily basis yes. But what is the alterantive? Just letting yourself be harassed? Would you also reply like this to a person getting bullied? "Just ingore the bullies, don't defend yourself against them and let your personality speak for yourself!" That's not fair. GrapheneOS has every right to defend themselves.
This is a huge mischaracterization of what the project account does across socials. They are on the receiving end of misinformation like that being spread in this blog post, designed to stir up drama and provoke harassment towards the project. Anyone who has looked at the actual evidence (not the blog post), has found the claims in the blog post to be baseless.
People ask genuine questions about the differences between Android forks and the project account is available to provide factual information on those differences...and you're mad about it?
I honestly don't think it's false. I've seen people be on the receiving end of graphene developers propensity to claim their solution is the best and most secure ROM out there. GrapheneOS users are just as inclined to make those claims unsolicited, and that in threads that just mention custom ROMs and aren't talking about security or anything close to it.
The devs and community need to take a chill pill or go into therapy, because it seems like they all went through some traumatic event(s) and GrapheneOS or ROMs in general are their trigger.
I'd be much more willing to use the ROM and donate if the community weren't as intense and it also ran on devices other than Google's. Right now, both points drove me away from GrapheneOS and I actively discourage those around me to use or install it. If the devs and community were less intense and open to civil, friendly discussion + compromise, things would be different. Not everybody out there is a threat and has to be treated as such.
Most people get banned for a clearly stated reason and many people who post harassment material in the community even get given second chances if it becomes clear they just do this because they are misinformed instead of being malicious.
GrapheneOS does not make many posts on their social media timelines about other projects which other people think are competing in the same space as GrapheneOS. Most of their posts referring to other projects are in reply of posts from other people that tagged (@'ed) GrapheneOS in their post. GrapheneOS replies to these people to inform them. Like many companies and oranganisation do, it's okay to point out how your project differs from others.
Many projects that claim or think to compete with GrapheneOS make many claims regarding the security and privacy they would offer even if their appraoch actually is detrimental to security and privacy compared to the upstream projects (AOSP) they are based on. This mismarketing is a big problem, it makes sense that GrapheneOS points this out if people are tagging them in social media post while putting them in the same category as those other OSes.
You are also reverting the situation. The other projects started personal attacks and harassment first. GrapheneOS just replies to it. Defending yourself from harassment and bullying is not bullying. Don't blame the victim. Don't rever the roles.
The Hard Parts of Open Source. TL;DW - it's people.
