grapheneos
In past conflicts surrounding GrapheneOS I've generally avoided drawing conclusions about who's at fault (despite being asked to!) because of not having the details of the situation, and not wanting to jump to conclusions.
But let's just say that the GrapheneOS folks are very quickly changing my mind about that, and not in a good way, by continuing to post endless aggressive accusations of "attacks" and "falsehoods", often multiple of them in quick succession, without any sort of concrete detail, or seemingly even responding to people trying to start a conversation.
Like, this is throwing up *so many* red flags for me it's not even funny.
re: grapheneos
@joepie91 From what I can tell, one of the issues GrapheneOS has is that the author of the blog post misquotes them. The author summarizes what they think GrapheneOS developers are saying and putting it in quotes as if it's verbatim of what GrapheneOS devs have said.
Regardless of whether the author's summarizing quotes are accurate, it seems disingenuous to present them as verbatim of GrapheneOS.
But I agree with the general point the author of the referenced post is making, that GrapheneOS is putting licensing ahead of accessibility. In my opinion, whether to include GPLv3-licensed software shouldn't be a barrier to accessibility.
re: grapheneos
@hyperreal That could be a legitimate criticism on the writing, but certainly not something that warrants several angry tirades that then use this as an excuse to dismiss the original criticisms and pause work on accessibility entirely, not in the least because the author of the post is reliant on such accessibility mechanisms and therefore already structurally disadvantaged. It's kind of absurd to expect/demand perfect writing under those circumstances.
Which is why I don't trust GrapheneOS in this exchange, in the slightest.
re: grapheneos
@joepie91 Ah, I didn't see the angry tirades and sweeping dismissals of the criticism. I saw one reply from GrapheneOS that says they were falsely accused of cruelty.
The angry tirades and sweeping dismissals are terrible public relations, especially when it concerns systemically disadvantaged groups. They were wrong to make work on accessibility conditional on being criticized -- they should be intrinsically-motivated to work on it.
re: grapheneos
@joepie91 Agreed.