Comment by phasephantasm
4 days ago
It appears pretty clear that you are active there too to both inform yourself of your "sworn enemy" (to orchestrate your own attacks) and to denounce the existence of a clearly benign effort, what you just did. Because if it weren't benign, then could you ever point to evidence, for a start? Maybe comments that resort to the same rethoric techniques as yours instead of bringing correct information, and politely so.
It greatly discredits what you say about us, the GrapheneOS community, when not only all you have are ad hominem reactions (against the entirety of the community it seems, as well as against the developers[0]) but you are guilty yourself[0] of what you accuse your enemy of, persecution / harassment.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47217356
What further evidence is necessary after your own Discord screenshot in your comment I'm replying to? It is quite bizarre how this platform allows this to go on.
I fail to see how my being in the Graphene discord discredits anything I've said. I use the project, so I remain in the Discord to keep up with updates.
You'll notice that I always say I use the project, I think it's excellent usability-wise and I appreciate the technical work you have done. And that, in spite of that, while you are not my "sworn enemy" I still find your behavior pathetic and off-putting.
I'm all but certain the only reason you often get so many throwaway accounts that attempt to troll the official community platforms is because of how often the core contributors take the bait and 'crash out', as the kids would say.
And the reason why there's more and more real accounts on HN (and elsewhere) that now criticize the behavior of the core contributors (and sycophants) is because it's very off-putting to observe the behavior in real time. Each time you behave this way, when every single critical comment in an HN thread has been flagged due to being posted in the Graphene discord and having a legion of sycophants downvote it, there will be more and more people with raised eyebrows.
Louis Rossman comes to mind, someone who could have been a great ally to the project yet got burned by this "persecution complex" behavior for no real reason.
In that very comment you link to, every single reply of anyone even lightly criticizing the project has been flagged. That's not natural for HN, almost all discussions generally go both ways on here (for any given topic, some criticism, some appreciation) and it's clear the discussion has been brigaded.
You claim HN is suppressing your voice and it's being unfair in platforming "libel and harassment" against you, yet you'll notice none of your replies are ever flagged or silently removed by moderators. HN is simply a neutral platform, you are going to get both criticism and support unless it is explicitly suppressed by the moderators. Yet you keep throwing hissy fits when they doesn't automatically censor any dissenting opinions about you on the platform on your behalf.
Hello,
There is a significant difference between coordinating community members to brigade and notifying community members about threads which contain factual inaccuracies about the projects technical work or history.
As an open-source project and a non-profit foundation, there is not a PR team or firm. It is perfectly normal to have an opt-in notification role for community members who wish to help clarify technical misconceptions in public discussions. It is a transparent and not uncommon practice.
HN has built-in protections against external voting and flagging. Comments that end up being flagged are rarely (if ever) substantive criticisms related to the OS or foundation. In nearly every case they are comments serving to derail technical discussions into personal attacks, armchair psychology, or unsubstantiated accusations against contributors and community members (like repeatedly calling community members "sycophants" and "pathetic").
Constructive technical criticism of the project happens every day, and is welcomed without issues. Expecting those discussions to remain focused on technical aspects and factual realities rather than personal hostility isn't "crashing out".
> There is a significant difference between coordinating community members to brigade and notifying community members about threads which contain factual inaccuracies about the projects technical work or history.
There is no functional difference when the obvious end-result is sending a horde of external people to influence voting in the thread, the definition of brigading.
> As an open-source project and a non-profit foundation, there is not a PR team or firm. It is perfectly normal to have an opt-in notification role for community members who wish to help clarify technical misconceptions in public discussions. It is a transparent and not uncommon practice.
This is absolutely not a common practice. Point to other notable FOSS projects that act in this manner, I've legitimately never seen it from other projects.
> HN has built-in protections against external voting and flagging. Comments that end up being flagged are rarely (if ever) substantive criticisms related to the OS or foundation. In nearly every case they are comments serving to derail technical discussions into personal attacks, armchair psychology, or unsubstantiated accusations against contributors and community members
The behavior of the core maintainers and broader community is still intrinsically tied to the technical aspects of the project, and the discussion at large. When there are threads about OpenAI (and other commercial AI providers) and the U.S., do people stop at discussing solely technical aspects of both, or do they understandably bring up relevant social and communal points as well?
A security project demands particularly high trust, which is where my concern stems. I would love to use GOS without worry, my hope is that the project can course-correct and eventually put this behavior behind them.
> (like repeatedly calling community members "sycophants" and "pathetic").
The community does in fact have some sycophants. I never asserted that every single member is one, or that they are the majority of the community (as they are not). And I called the behavior pathetic, not the member. Your framing of these comments is disengenious.
> Constructive technical criticism of the project happens every day, and is welcomed without issues. Expecting those discussions to remain focused on technical aspects and factual realities rather than personal hostility isn't "crashing out".
Firstly, the "crashing out" was in the context of random trolls messing with core contributors in official communication channels and successfully getting a rise out of them (IE "don't feed the trolls and they'll go away"), though I do infact argue expecting people to solely focus on technical aspects of an inherently multi-faceted project to be unreasonable, for reasons stated above.