I started reading the full argument, and correct me if I am wrong, but don’t they always start with a defendable idea and end up simply sounding crazy as hell when they start talking unrelated shit about other projects?
Like, look at this: https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/116200362765756182
They are literally saying that their plan is to ban GrapheneOS. That’s CRAZY, and obviously not true. It’s basically paranoid. Which I guess fits 😅
I think they see the slippery slope emerge, and they take that slope to the logical extreme. The centralized gatekeeper for attestation, play integrity, etc, the EU sees it as mitigating security risks with Google, the corporations see it as opportunity to change the centralized gatekeeper; to maximize capital. It isn’t just a (terrible) strategic move for security, it’s also a move to align capital. (also imagine the meta data network you could create with the attestation, another data point for surveillance. think Chat Control) I see GrapheneOS prioritize security; not capital. The people/groups/companies they are often at odds with prioritize the mechanisms of capital (or surveillance capitalism) over security.
We can join our own private clubs. Like GrapheneOS club. Members only software for devs, experimental work, academia, and tinkering in the club makerspace.