Antsyboi

Not terribly active, you can probably find me in GrapheneOS replies.

Last Notes

2026-01-16 16:29:26 UTC

- reply

The GrapheneOS project is solely focused on security and so their device selection doesn't take that into account, the security of the device is the only thing that counts into their considerations and Fairphones have really bad security so far and do not meet GrapheneOS' minimum security standards by a longshot. Hopefully their security changes soon though as I would love to daily drive one.

2025-12-23 07:09:45 UTC

@npub1kwa…e0nj Do you think there is real value in "privacy" cell providers like Cape or Louis Rossman's? Would either of these actually give notable privacy benefits to users or is it all just privacy washing? Cape atleast claims to have their own routing infrastructure or whatever, which does seem like it could be a good privacy add, but does this actually mean anything against governments or mass surveillance companies like Palantir (who Cape's CEO is a former longtime exec of)?

2025-03-04 19:57:29 UTC

- reply

There are only very few companies that can support phones for as long as GrapheneOS wants (atleast 5 years for phones) while also maintaining the strict security standards they ask for. Only big manufacturers like Google or Samsung would be capable of making a phone to meet their standards and getting a good connection with them good enough to make dedicated grapheneOS phones or even offer it as an option for pre-existing phones would be a huge hurdle.

2025-03-04 19:54:24 UTC

- reply

From what I understand (so this may not be 100% correct) but fostering a complete relationship with an OEM would be hard and getting one that could produce a product that meets GrapheneOS's standards. Nothing uses less secure Qualcomm chips which don't meet the minimum spec for new support for a phone for GrapheneOS. (https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices)
They also previously used Mediatek chips which are notorious for their security problems.

2024-11-07 21:49:28 UTC

- reply

I understand that you were not referring to Techlore in the posts above but what I meant by bringing them up is that all of the info that people commonly cite against you comes from Techlore and other things referencing Techlore.

2024-11-07 21:42:16 UTC

- reply

can only ever be shown the harassment angle. Even if some people were to read your solid evidence and still not believe you, that will still only be the minority of people. As if you publicize the info that you says proves their campaigns false, then people will have another option other than just going with what Techlore and other people are saying.
-- Written from my GrapheneOS phone

2024-11-07 21:41:47 UTC

- reply

the average person can only see the things from the harassment campaign, therefore only hurting you guys more. I am an avid grapheneOS supporter and recommended grapheneOS to people I know all the time but if they were to look into GrapheneOS on YouTube or just by looking it up, all they'll find is things that you say are part of a targetted harassment campaign. So even if the average person is a good critical thinker and can properly ingest all of the info, ...

2024-11-07 21:40:48 UTC

- reply

I think still providing a detailed account and rebuttal to everything would still be much better than approaching it because without that all the average person can find is just things like Techlore's video going over things from their perspective, and you consider them to be part of the targetted harassment campaign too. But the thing is that without providing a rebuttal other than mentioning harassment campaigns every now and then on mastodon, it means that ...

2024-11-07 20:11:38 UTC

- reply

What things have they said that have harmed the project? And how did that cause millions of dollars in damages?