this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2026
593 points (97.6% liked)

Privacy

9386 readers
90 users here now

A community for Lemmy users interested in privacy

Rules:

  1. Be civil
  2. No spam posting
  3. Keep posts on-topic
  4. No trolling

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 3 points 6 days ago

Just like every other FOSS ROM.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 3 points 6 days ago

Asbestos free!

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 56 points 1 week ago (2 children)
[–] cenariodantesco@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago

hey font off, font you ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ

[–] not_IO@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 week ago

lol i corrected it

[–] Mynameisallen@lemmy.zip 55 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I would argue that everyone deserves privacy and freedom

[–] lechekaflan@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Some people don't realize they actually need those, as in some countries the concept of privacy is seen as a suggestion by even millions of people, and those people literally from which techbros like Zuck -- whose insistence people stop being anonymous -- farm their millions.

[–] okamiueru@lemmy.world 47 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's also what Linux should be doing in general,. It's not even the US. It's a fucking state in the US that is doing something stupid on behalf of Meta.

Any Linux distro should just put the onus on the CA legislature. Have a TOS that specifies that it does not comply with CA law, and as such isn't legal there. No need for any implementation change. Businesses in CA can take it upon themselves to comply by maintaining a fork that adds any sort of BS. But, more than likely, the dimwits who didn't know better and listened to Meta, might be surprised to find jusy how much everything runs on Linux (except a tiny number of user facing devices).

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Many distros are run by large companies that don't care. RedHat, Canonical, etc.

[–] qaeta@lemmy.ca 3 points 6 days ago

Run by, or are downstream of ones run by.

[–] bonenode@piefed.social 47 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I do wonder if Motorola will back them on this.

[–] Mnmalst@piefed.social 27 points 1 week ago

I had the same thought. I could imagine a situation where Motorola is afraid about bad PR and them quitting their deal over it. Depending how far this goes.

[–] TheLastOfHisName@piefed.social 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I think it would behoove Motorola to make their bootloader unlockable (sorry, is that a hardware thing?), and let the consumer have the option to put whatever OS on it they wish.

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Firmware. It's up to the OEM to enable it.

[–] bold_omi@lemmy.today 43 points 1 week ago

No, we absolutely deserve it because privacy is a fundamental right.

[–] pHr34kY@lemmy.world 24 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Motorola will probably want to ship a compliant* device in those regions.

"So be it" may mean you'll just buy the device with stock AOSP, and a warranty condition that allows flashing GrapheneOS. Hell, you'd slip a piece of paper in the box with flashing instructions.

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 day ago

i feel like there has to be a way to have a system option that automatically installs graphene

That's likely exactly what it means.

[–] cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Looks like the normal font to me. ;)

But anyway, they're still only gonna run on Pixel phones (and Motorola soon, apparently).

It's one thing to say "my custom firmware does X, Y, Z," but if you can't install it on any Android phone... I think it's time we stop treating Android like some kind of bastion of freedom or privacy. Android maintainers and custom firmware developers have talked about a unified base for over a decade and it still hasn't happened yet. If you buy a phone in certain regions (like the US, China, and other limited countries) you can't just install whatever you want. The goal has always been to make phones more like computers, where you can "just install Linux" if you don't like Windows. (Well, not the iPhone, that's always been locked down.) But it's never been true of Android.

The goal is open hardware you can install anything on. Even a modified version of iOS, if someone's got the balls to host it. Kind of like a hackintosh, but a phone version. Like if you had a PC that had similar specs to an Intel Mac, you could run Mac OS on it (as long as that version of Mac OS supported the Mac you were similar to) fairly easily. We need that for phones. Maybe someday.

[–] Mynameisallen@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 week ago

I mean this is a beautiful dream but currently just a dream

[–] daychilde@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

That's just typecasting.

[–] Arghblarg@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 week ago

I hope it gets popular enough that the devs being squeezed by the latest Android stupidity will just move to a different install model tailored to GrapheneOS.

[–] Electricd@lemmybefree.net 4 points 1 week ago

Eh, we got Daniel Mickay and we deserve better than his shitty personality, but I’m glad he’s working on this, he’s good from a technical POV

[–] ivanafterall@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

I totally deserve it.

[–] Willoughby@piefed.world 2 points 1 week ago

Google: that,... isn't up to you

[–] 13igTyme@piefed.social 1 points 1 week ago

That just means no or a very big pain in the ass yes, depending on what country you're in.

[–] anticurrent@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It wont last long unless they move to somewhere like the south pole, surveillance and authoritarianism is becoming normalized everywhere in the world

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 1 points 6 days ago

That's not how Foss works