zlacker

>>madars+(OP)
Does anybody else here see as problematic that this OS supports mostly Pixel, a Google phone?

Over and again people on HN make the following argument: "Google is a company that makes most of its revenue from ads and surveillance. Therefore, you should always assume that Google is spying on you". But somehow when it comes to Pixel people give it a pass?

Prediction: If Pixel isn't already hardwired to phone home and report on your activities, it will slowly become so over time, as Google realizes its interest. You know, as it happened with Android, Chrome, and everything else that Google touches.

>>torium+Q11
This is just conspiratorial fearmongering based on vibes. If pixels somehow phoned home on a hardware level, do you think we wouldn't be able to tell? Do you think we wouldn't see it in our network logs? GrapheneOS supports pixels because they are currently the only devices that fulfill their list of requirements, like an actually usable secure element, hardware memory tagging, etc. They have said and continue to reiterate that they would support other devices that fulfill their requirements and seem to be currently looking into working with OEMs to move away from pixels in the long term. Just saying "you claim to degoogle phones yet the phone you use is a GOOGLE pixel, suspicious" is baseless nonsense.

>>_vere+231
+1. It is kinda sad that folks seem to have lost critical thinking or even just some plain perspective on things.

They hear their favorite influencer spout something, and they parrot it everywhere. Google bad, hurr durr.

>>bitpus+R31
See the response at >>44686895 .