AmbitiousProcess

Which privacy first smartphones would people recommend for US users

If you want to run GrapheneOS, then you can only use a Google Pixel.

If you want to run Calyx, you can use any phone on the CalyxOS "Devices" list, which includes Pixels, Fairphone, and some Motorola phones too.

I personally recommend Pixels because they tend to get the fastest and longest-lasting OEM-provided security patches (e.g. the Pixel 8 and later get 7 years of updates from when they were released) and Android releases, and they actually have a pretty decent selection of self-repair kits available for if you need to do a repair yourself, or if you want a repair technician to not have to go through a complicated ordering process for spare parts.

how does it work putting it on a network?

Make sure to buy one that's not locked to a carrier, otherwise you'll be unable to install the custom OS in the first place, since the bootloader will be locked. You can still set it up with any carrier you want once it's unlocked. (this essentially means you need to buy the phone directly from the manufacturer. Don't buy through your phone plan, or through a trade-in/upgrade with your carrier)

Your carrier, once you request it, will either mail you a physical SIM card you can put in your phone, or a digital eSIM you can activate immediately. I prefer eSIMs for convenience, but it's entirely up to you. (you can check out this list of pros and cons if you're interested. They're mostly negligible.)

Do they go on the regular networks like at&t, sprint, Verizon etc?

Yes.

Now, if you're going to install a custom OS, definitely make sure you watch a couple videos and read the official guide for the OS you choose on how to install it. You definitely want to make sure you don't screw it up.

For example, if you're installing GrapheneOS, you might want to use a chromium-based browser (chrome, ungoogled chromium, brave, etc) over something like Firefox, because it sometimes has issues installing via the WebUSB installer, while having no issues with chromium based browsers.

These little details are something you'll want to pick up from those resources so you can actually feel confident when you flash the OS to your phone, and make sure you do it correctly. Plus, you get the upside of knowing more about how exactly the OS protects you compared to stock android.

I personally recommend GrapheneOS if you're good with using a Pixel, since it seems to have some of the strongest security guarantees on top of its methodology around privacy. (Google has very strong hardware security measures that other phones don't always have, which GrapheneOS takes full advantage of)

I don't understand why anyone uses any of their platforms.

The answer to this question about almost any shitty platform is almost always the network effect.

Leaving Meta's platforms means leaving where most of your friends and family spend their time digitally, which makes it harder to connect with the people you know. No one can collectively agree on an alternative platform to all simultaneously move to, so in most cases, leaving Meta practically means cutting yourself off from your entire social graph.

Agreed. 404Media has been extremely good at covering anything from random niche communities to major data leaks. The only thing stopping me from becoming a paying member of their work is the (in my opinion, high) $100/yr price tag.

I'd also recommend following independent journalists like Ken Klippenstein. He does good work, and frequently releases documents that the rest of the media refuses to publish more than snippets of.

This seems like it could be a viable replacement for many plastics, but it isn't the silver bullet I feel that the article is acting as if it is.

From the linked article in the post:

the new material is as strong as petroleum-based plastics but breaks down into its original components when exposed to salt.

Those components can then be further processed by naturally occurring bacteria, thereby avoiding generating microplastics

The plastic is non-toxic, non-flammable, and does not emit carbon dioxide, he added.

This is great. Good stuff. Wonderful.

From another article (this shows that this isn't as recent, too. This news was from many months ago)

the team was able to generate plastics that had varying hardnesses and tensile strengths, all comparable or better than conventional plastics.

Plastics like these can be used in 3D printing as well as medical or health-related applications.

Wide applications and uses, much better than a lot of other proposed solutions. Still good so far.

After dissolving the initial new plastic in salt water, they were able to recover 91% of the hexametaphosphate and 82% of the guanidinium as powders, indicating that recycling is easy and efficient.

Easy to recycle and reclaim material from. Great! Not perfect, but still pretty damn good.

In soil, sheets of the new plastic degraded completely over the course of 10 days, supplying the soil with phosphorous and nitrogen similar to a fertilizer.

You could compost these in your backyard. Who needs the local recycling pickup for plastics when you can just chuck it in a bin in the back? Still looking good.

using polysaccharides that form cross-linked salt bridges with guanidinium monomers.

Polysaccharides are literally carbohydrates found in food.

This is really good. Commonly found compound, easy to actually re-integrate back into the environment. But now the problems start. They don't specify much about the guanidinium monomers in their research in terms of which specific ones are used, so it's hard to say the exact implications, but...

...they appear to often be toxic, sometimes especially to marine life, soil quality, and plant growth, and have been used in medicine with mixed results as to their effectiveness and safety.

I'm a bit disappointed they didn't talk about this more in the articles, to be honest. It seems this would definitely be better than traditional plastic in terms of its ecological effects, but still much worse than not dumping it in the ocean at all. In my opinion, in practice it looks like this would simply make the recycling process much more efficient (as mentioned before, a 91% and 82% recovery rate for plastics is much better than the current average of less than 10%) while reducing the overall harm from plastic being dumped in the ocean, even if it's still not good enough to eliminate the harm altogether.