What is the point of the video besides The Hated One needing drama money? The CopperheadOS lawsuit is a lot of he said, she said. We have no way to verify most of it, as usual with Micay with drama.
And about the Henry & Louis Rossmann part of the video, Iâm sorry dude but Micay isnât a child. He started the drama for no reason. Micay attacked Henry & Louis Rossmannâs livelihood. Of course they would defend themselves itâs a bit of a no-shit moment. I donât get why The Hated One is trying to make it a GrapheneOS issue when it clearly isnât.
His shtick appears to be this: be as contrarian as possible, say wild shit, get criticism, and live up to the name as one who is standing up the âthe manâ.
But for folks in the know, know his views are overly dramatized and doesnât mean as much as he claims it out to be but people gobble up his content feeding to what he is trying to do.
I donât agree with this. Micay telling louis to remove the comment was over the line. However, just because the developers is socially inept, you shouldnât criticize the project. Graphene is a good service that people are getting for free. Just because your feelings are hurt, doesnât mean you will go badmouthing such a great project. Henry acted like a child who had a fight with someone and came online just to complain about it. So stupid.
As for the Hated one. I appreciate the guy. He is at least not taking the hefty sponsorships from proton and then recommending proton.
All things secured used to be one of the channels I trusted but these days, the guy is singing praises of proton and then just adding âI have a link in the description. Use it to get 70% offâ at the end of his videos. Build a userbase then exploit them for cash. I stopped watching that channel.
Same with Techlore. They are taking sponsorships from proton and then they recommend proton products over others. Even if proton is good, it still gives me bad vibes.
How did Louis criticize GrapheneOS again? Please enlighten me. To my knowledge, he never did.
As for Henryâs (pre-Micay drama) criticism of GrapheneOS was very slow app spawn time, and GrapheneOS was inconvenient because there was no way to get Google push notifications, aka no way to install MicroG. If I remember correctly. Everything else after that is just classic Micay drama.
As an old GrapheneOS user, I can tell you it was true GrapheneOS was extremely slow at that time, and we can thanks Henry for GrapheneOS fixing it. And sandboxed Google didnât exist.
I had to look the guy up, I have no idea who he is.
No one disagree with this.
Leaving a comment that says, "This is informative and unfortunateâ under a one-hour-long hit piece against GrapheneOS and Daniel Micay is all the proof that one needs to see where Louis was standing in this.
I donât think you watched Louis Rossmannâs response video. That comment was about Micay not GrapheneOS.
Edit: welcome back btw 
Yeah he does have some good info but I feel like these days he spends a bit too much time doing clickbaity videos and whining about how his views have taken a dive, while glazing himself for not taking sponsorships
This was before I came in the privacy community, so no idea what the exact point was, but I heard that one of the main points from multiple parties were that most people, who do not verify the integrity of each update and the source code of each update and GOS itself, would need to trust Daniel Micay to not become malicious and push evil code into it.
And then the argument was that if you look at how he acts if you really can trust him.
This would mean that a product is objectively in all points better and proton get instead recommended.
Is this the case, and could you prove it?
I am not saying Micayâs reaction is justified, but you are missing some important information. Rossman is involved with the Calyx institute, and there have been countless conflicts between Calyx and Graphene in the past:
- Members of CalyxOS worked with/for CopperheadOS (after Micay left)
- GOS constantly pointed out weaknesses of CalyxOS (especially because CalyxOS claimed to be âhardenedâ)
- Members of the Calyx community harrassed the GOS team
I donât know many details about this drama, but the whole topic is more complex in the background than just the one comment on a YouTube video.
Finally someone said it. Proton started off with a VPN product and considering how predatory the VPN industry is with sponsors the moment they started doing this I was getting weary. Most sponsored products are straight up trash and when they are good products them being sponsored leaves more of a bad taste in my mouth further disincentivizing me to try out something good.
I wonât deny Techlore is a good gateway into privacy and appreciate his contribution to the discourse and even value some of the nuances he brings such as like we should be focusing more on tools than operating systems but his participation in this means I cannot watch his content anymore. With that being said the privacy space has been getting infiltrated by sloptubers for a while now. I wonât go as far as to say anybody participating in this is evil this is just the unfortunate consequences of capitalism.
However, the way I consume content is I donât want my intelligence to be insulted and influencer marketing is kind of the exact opposite of that. I understand this helps spread the message of privacy further but I ask at what cost?
Those of us who were initially here for a more grassroots community oriented, sort of stick it to the man aspects of privacy will be heavily disappointed. Also, Techloreâs delisting then re-listing of GrapheneOS without any sort of formal explanation raises questions. He avoided even mentioning the operating system by name for years which I think is totally fine his channel his prerogative, but then he cannot act like he has some level of objectivity.
As for Louis Rossmann while I do think his concerns with Micay are a valid points his video on âdeleting GrapheneOSâ when many of his audience was put on to GrapheneOS because of him is irresponsible. Letâs be so real here for a second nobody is avoiding Linux because of their disagreements with Linus Torvalds, if we were going to be operating purely based on controversy then we have more reason to avoid the big tech as a whole since many of these CEOs are straight up manipulative assh*les. Silicon valley isnât exactly filled with saints.
At least with FOSS somebody can fork it if they really have a problem with it. On top of this there seems to be signs that he is still using GrapheneOS even after that video so even though I respect his work I question his actual motive here.
As for The Hated One using sensationalist and clickbait titles. Im not a fan of that either but at least he has some integrity that is severely lacking throughout content creators as a whole he listened to his audience and didnât cave to the sponsorganda
The point you make is based on how you feel about things and not facts or knowledge.
Why is marketing insulting your intelligence?
The only way people can make videos and have a house under their head is if you watch ads or pay. For every single Video you consume.
This will not work. It might work for some channels like TheHatedOne, but if every Channel would do so, it would not work, because we normally consume so many different videos, blogs and article that even a small sum of one euro a month would get huge fast.
And not everyone can or wants to pay for that.
For example myself if I would give every creator I watch only on YouTube on a regular basis, one euro a month that would add up to 92âŹ.
The other way is that content creators are getting into groups and have one channel. Like big media outlets do it. You have the BBC, The Guardian or whatever which you pay and then different journalists how work for them and getting paid.
That is an actually good question I have too. What are the objectively and evidence based negative impacts that already happen?
Reminds me of all the failed MCNs (Multi Channel Networks) on YouTube over the years. 
You are completely correct in that regard. But I think anecdotal experience can still be just as valid as verifiable evidence. Literally everybody involved in this situation is acting based on personal sentiment to some degree. I have a more radical stance that many of these people who are in the privacy space are anti-ads, but make an exception for sponsorships I see that as innately contradictory. In all honesty, this is two sides of the same coin. Not everybodyâs going to share my sentiment, but I know many people in this space do so I think itâs important to acknowledge. I think healthy skepticism is important. Iâm not claiming any sort of objectivity here in fact I still use Proton products despite my concerns but sponsorships is usually one of the first signs of enshittification.
Influencer marketing takes advantage of a parasocial relationship and often times does not incentivize the consumer to make educated decisions. It also means psychologically the creator may be more likely to recommend the sponsored product over a more suitable alternative since they are being financially compensated. Which I find morally gray. While yes people themselves should do their best to be informed while making purchasing decisions this is also taking advantage of your audienceâs trust. I understand that this is a compromise. People have to do to put bread on the table and so thatâs why I said I donât think somebodyâs evil for participating in this but I have every right to prioritize my time and to say screw off to any creator that does this. I donât owe any loyalty to any creator, I would rather opt out as a whole. Direct patronage is the only method I deem reasonable without compromising integrity. During these trying economic times that may not be feasible for many people so if you are willing to put with your ears through spiritual psychosis in order to support your favorite content creator then by all means go ahead
Everyone hates this guy.
THO: Wait, say that againâŚ
Summary
Paragraphs please. Guidelines - Privacy Guides Community
Thanks for letting me know I had no idea of this rule hopefully the way I formatted this is slight better
THO is a rage baiting bad-faith actor. He has a history of factually challenged arguments and slander against members of the privacy community.
His content isnât worth the click nor is discussing his content worth the pixels.
I meant something completely different. I should have expressed myself a bit better, thatâs on me.
What I mean is that you have the feeling you do not know if this is true or not, and you also did not observers any negative effect.
You just feel it.
That is a pretty good point.
Let me know if Iâm misinterpreting anything that youâre saying here you are not specifying what youâre replying to so I have to make an inference.
If this is in regards with my stance on Proton sponsoring than objectivity is not the only metric when somebody is making a purchasing decision if that was the case, then peoples workflow would look a lot more homogenous on here. People often purchase based on emotion first and then rationalize later. Even your desire for objectivity in this debate is rooted in some emotion. So me getting off vibe about the practices of a company is a valid part of the equation and alongside research of course. For a normal person who does not have the same stance as I do I will concur that leaning them towards the Proton ecosystem is objectively better than Google. And them being a non-profit helps but it isnât a silverbullet.
Yes, in technicality not all sponsored products are bad (Privacy.com is a good example) but the fact that I can name more crap products from sponsorships combined with Protonâs behavior has been reminiscent of corporate big tech behavior in a lot of ways raises concerns. I notice a negative affect on myself that I end up being drained and clicking off the video more often than not and having boundaries is enough reason. I dont want to be sold to when I am simply trying to seek information and even for people who may push through the video they either fast forward past the ad-read or tune it out.