@npub1kwar...e0nj @npub1tur2...2l9h can you elaborate on what kind of false narratives I've pushed?
That AOSP is already being dismantled? That was widely reported on tech outlets and I've been naive to share it without verifying myself. That's been amended.
Everything else in the original post was quite factual.
I mentioned a few names as possible alternatives, well aware of the tradeoffs, and well aware that GrapheneOS currently provides the best deal (and even saying that explicitly).
And I said that in the long term I'd rather have a 100% FOSS solution both on the hardware and software side.
Oh, and that relying on Google's goodwill is a liability (but that applies also to LineageOS and /e/, not only to you).
Does anything in these statements justify 30 messages shouting "misinformation"?
If you're triggered by anything that can be perceived as bad PR because you've been harassed in the past then I'm very sorry. But be aware that not everyone who brings up legitimate questions and opinions is in bad faith, and not everyone is aware of how entities who operate in this space may stab each other's backs.
Lastly, I stand by my stance that using Linux-based systems doesn't mean being subject to Google's whims. For a simple reason. Google may be a major contributor to the kernel and the ecosystem around it, but it's not the only one. And it's not the one who has the last say (even if it's definitely a big stakeholder). Linus first and the Linux Foundation as a whole second have the last say. It's not perfect, but it's a different case from a private company technically accountable only to its management and its shareholders which has already been going on an erratic path for a while. That's what I mean as liability. And that's why I insist on a solution in the long term that doesn't rely on Google's (as in "entirely developed within Google as a business entity") hardware and software.
