fluidStateDrive🔻

Nothing more radicalizing than being attacked endlessly for not wanting children to die

@WatarmelonTrade @FeeZ678097 @GrapheneOS but the current security already doesn't reduce the attack surface, according to yourself. If they supported other devices, you'd keep believing GOS does not reduce attack surface, more so than before. So why use GOS at all? Why demand broader device support? You want lineageos

@fluidStateDrive @FeeZ678097 @GrapheneOS who's the self important nerd? they wouldn't lose much security it's not zero sum

It's truly wild how the person who says "hey all this hardware is backdoored your security is theater we need better security" gets called a shill is this a psyop

@WatarmelonTrade @FeeZ678097 @GrapheneOS Imagine if they also started supporting random devices because some self-important nerd demanded so on X, the everything app. It would be even less perfect.

@FeeZ678097 @fluidStateDrive A binary re is factually not an audit. Audits confirm what is, and is NOT present. RE cannot confirm the absence of something. This is why I have such a problem with @grapheneOS and their supporters. You can never just admit "Okay, it's imperfect." It's always an excuse.

Socialism: learning about material conditions from the masses in real time Liberalism: believing burger eagle slop metrics invented by Jeffrey Epstein’s best friends

Every single Canadian politician except for 15 liberals the NDP and the Greens voted against stopping shipping weapons to Israel a few weeks ago

@WatarmelonTrade @FeeZ678097 My pleasure. Thank you for playing along.

@fluidStateDrive @FeeZ678097 My points haven't been disproven. Thank you for your consent, did you really think that would stop me?

@WatarmelonTrade @FeeZ678097 "Your attack surface is not significantly reduced with GOS" This is not true. I've already covered exploit protection. Simply disabling the USB-PD protocol reduces attack surface. Stock can't do that. You will once again lie and say your points haven't been disproven. Go 👇

@fluidStateDrive @FeeZ678097 Because they lie. They claim they're audited. How? Because they're open source. That's not an audit. They claim they audited the drivers. How? Proprietary blobs. Your attack surface is not significantly reduced with GOS They are frequent liars

@WatarmelonTrade @FeeZ678097 no model has 0 attack surface yet you bark at GOS for being subjected to this simple fact as users all we can do is reduce the exposed surface to reduce chances of being compromised everyone already understands this, you believe they don't because of some superiority complex

@FeeZ678097 @fluidStateDrive I CAN IT IS BETTER FOR YOU TO ASSUME "THIS HARDWARE IS MODERATELY BETTER BUT STILL NOT SECURE AT ALL" THAN TO LIE TO YOURSELF AND SAY "GRAPHENE OS IS SECURE" BECAUSE IT IS NOT AND CANNOT BE SECURE BY ANY VERIFIABLE STANDARD

@WatarmelonTrade @FeeZ678097 and don't tell me an OS can work without proprietary blobs, that's beneath the point. Smartphone hardware doesn't allow this currently. No project has the capital needed to mass-produce open hardware devices. You have no solutions to provide.

@WatarmelonTrade @FeeZ678097 oh so you do understand why the blobs are needed. but because they are needed, you pose that GOS isn't secure, meaning that no OS can be secure. if a correct alternative doesn't exist according to yourself, what's do you want? GOS to abandon the project? How is this better?

@WatarmelonTrade @FeeZ678097 memory tagging, added permission controls, hardened malloc, extended address space, all contribute to avoiding a wide class of common vulnerabilities. You seem to think preventing the police from accessing devices isn't great. This perhaps partly clarifies what your motives are.

@FeeZ678097 @fluidStateDrive Matter of fact, the ONLY thing GOS really solves is police getting ahold of your phone and only in one specific way wow what a project 🙄🙄

@WatarmelonTrade @FeeZ678097 Drivers aren't auditable, compared to what other OS that has fully open-source drivers? You want GOS to reverse engineer the drivers of not only Pixel hardware, but also other devices. This is not realistic. If you think it is, get to work. BowtieOS coming soon with no blobs?

@FeeZ678097 @fluidStateDrive Don't need a citation. Blobs not auditable, therefore must be assumed exploited by default. This is security 101. >Drivers aren't auditable GOS admitted this themselves when they said they don't have the source code, only blobs. GOS doesn't solve any serious concerns.

@WatarmelonTrade So now GOS is unsecure? So this isn't about broad support, the goalpost has moved. write a blog post with all your claims and evidence so people can actually parse your argument and be able to respond to it. Otherwise it's hard to understand what your actual issue is.

@fluidStateDrive my analysis was that the hardware is pozzed, the "security" isn't the solution it's presented as, the modems are exploited, the drivers aren't auditable (graphene lied about this), lawfare still possible y did u ignore all that

@WatarmelonTrade A shill would provide a well-developed narrative that amounts to more than "you can't ungoogle a device manufactured by google duh" I believe you, you're not a shill. You're having autistic tunnel vision while genuinely believing you cannot be wrong. It's fine.

@fluidStateDrive Correcting the record isn't sabotage. you haven't proven 1 thing I've said wrong. I'm too dangerously autistic to get hired to shill I wish I could though I'd love to get paid for this

@WatarmelonTrade Just people (or groups of people?) actively attempting to sabotage community security projects. Most people don't engage in these types of activities and want to collaborate on making libre projects safer, so it's actually pretty rare I have to call people that.

@fluidStateDrive Do you call everyone who you disagree with (and can't prove wrong) bad actors or just me

@WatarmelonTrade I'm going to do the same thing I always do when I encounter bad actors like scammers on the internet. Move on and attempt to warn others when I encounter them in the wild. Anyway it's not like you guys have much motion. Your narrative doesn't have much truth to stand on.

@fluidStateDrive nah, gotta spread the truth I am right their security isn't much (I deny it again what r u gonna do?)

@WatarmelonTrade I doubt you're doing this for funsies. Why would someone be so adamant a project they have no relationship with should drop its philosophy and provide an version without exploit protection? There aren't many reasons. What is your true goal?

@WatarmelonTrade You could just not use GrapheneOS and let other users enjoy exploit protection Instead, you are crashing out because actual users don't agree with your ambitions of sabotaging GrapheneOS' security (which you will obviously deny again) for your own personal feelings and tastes.

“we’re not angry enough” is off. it’s more that we aren’t organized enough. what is anger with nowhere to go? nothing to do? we won’t spontaneously combust our way out of what’s to come. what’s already here. take the fact of yesterday on the chin. build today, for tomorrow.