[microtonal]

Can we please not resort to personal attacks? For the record, I am not deeply invested in the project, nor in any way related to the project.

As for the rest of your comment, thank you for giving your point of view. Although I don't agree, I appreciate that you took the time to explain how you came to your position.

Cheers.

[izacus]

Why are you complaining about personal attacks when you began with an attack on a person by misinterpreting what they said and accusing them of things they didn't claim?

[microtonal]

The grandparent assumed and stated things about me that are not true. I have quoted things that the CEO of the given company actually said and I think a lot of people will come to the same conclusion. If he repeatedly brings up pedophiles in the same context as security hardening, then it at the very least it is very suggestive. Why mention pedophiles at all?

Everybody needs a security-hardened phone. Apple has been hardening iPhone for almost 20 years. Google has hardened Pixel from the start. This isn't specifically about GrapheneOS. Everybody should be worried, this is the kind of narrative is what drives Chat Control, etc. Security hardening (in reality) protects us against malicious apps, attackers, (to some extend) against privacy-invading apps, etc.

So, I ask you: what is the point of raising pedophiles in more than one interview when talking about security hardening?

By the way, I don't expect an answer. It's a rhetorical question. This discussion has been beaten to death. I think at this point we have to agree to disagree.