Just because something does something good doesn’t mean it’s immune to criticism.

Ah fair enough

First of all, I didn’t censor it, that’s a quote from the Bluesky post.

But also, why is everybody so offended by censored words here? I don’t get it.

Yeah maybe. But whether it’s intentional or not, I would not want to use /e/os.

But also, from the linked thread:

Murena is a for-profit company owned by shareholders including Gaël Duval. /e/ has a non-profit organization which is also led by Gaël Duval. /e/ includes paid services from Murena. /e/ very clearly exists to build products for Murena to sell in order to enrich the shareholders.

Despite being done for profit, /e/ receives millions of euros in funding from the EU on an ongoing basis. /e/ and Murena use extraordinarily inaccurate marketing to not only promote their products/services but also to mislead people about GrapheneOS and scare them away from it.

From @grapheneos.org

I am skeptical how worthwile it is to use /e/os over OEM Android at this point

Who? Gaël Duval or GrapheneOS?

Recently, France’s national law enforcement began fearmongering about GrapheneOS and smearing it with inaccurate claims. France’s corporate and state media heavily participated. Many articles and also radio/television coverage misrepresented GrapheneOS as being for criminals.

From @grapheneos.org

Another quote from the thread

Their marketing heavily focuses on avoiding Google and gives the impression they believe privacy means avoiding one company. Meanwhile, they add a bunch of Google services not present in the Android Open Source Project and give extensive privileged access to Google apps/services.

From @grapheneos.org