@Logical_Error @cas Kiwi Farms became involved because Rossmann has strong support there and actively uses the site with an identity verified account. He made this content using their tactics and approach which caters to them. In it, he's leaking a private chat where he's clearly trolling and feigning ignorance while live streaming it and then doing a monologue lying about all of it. He leaks that the person he's targeting is autistic, leaks other personal info and posted private emails too.

@Logical_Error @cas He had made numerous public attacks in our chat rooms, his live streams and his videos prior to that video. His narrative that it had to do with him posting a comment on a video is nonsense. The video he's supporting very clearly extraordinarily fabricated harassment content, and that's from the person who orchestrated their community harassing us to the point of trying to kill the lead developer of GrapheneOS at the time. That was not Kiwi Farms, it was a small YouTuber.

@Logical_Error @cas After engaging in months of bullying and supporting another person orchestrating harassment towards the lead developer of GrapheneOS, Louis trolled them about the situation in a direct message while live streaming it. Nearly everything he claims is this video is a fabrication or misrepresentation. You should rewatch it and pay close attention to what he's claiming. He didn't even actually stop using it, his subscribers figured out was his daily driver for almost a year after.

@fun @domi @elly @mei Greg KH is the main one maintaining the kernel.org LTS branches and also the Android GKI LTS branches based on those which have additional backported features and the driver ABI stability approach we don't think makes much sense. Pixels use the same latest kernel source tree to build the drivers and update them together anyway. They split it with ABI stability so vendors can update kernel image / base modules separately but no OEM is actually doing that as far as we know.

@fun @domi @elly @mei For the devices we're working on with our OEM partner, we plan to move to new LTS branches similar to Pixels but perhaps faster than they do.

Android officially supports 6.12 for devices launched with or upgraded to Android 16 but Pixels are cautious due to how many regressions there are in new kernel versions. Pixel 10 launched at the end of 2025 using 6.6 and that indicates they're going to move older devices to 6.6 soon. It's essentially mandatory to move yearly now.

@fun @domi @elly @mei The issue is that Linux 5.4 is end-of-life since December 3rd:

https://lwn.net/Articles/1049060/

Fairphone 4 (the previous device) and Pixel 6 both launched in October 2021, the Fairphone 4 with the 4.19 LTS branch and Pixel 6 with 5.10. Pixel 6 and 7 later moved from 5.10 to 6.1 while the Pixel 8 moved from 5.15 to 6.1. They'll likely move to 6.6 soon. Android usually uses 1 LTS branch ahead for microdroid and other virtual machines which is moving from 6.6 to 6.12 right now.

@fun @domi @elly @mei Fairphone 5 doesn't have the updates and hardware-based security features we require so we can't use it. They use the end-of-life Linux 5.4 kernel branch and weren't providing LTS updates prior to end of life. It's missing a hardware memory tagging, pointer authentication and branch target identification at the CPU level and a bunch of other things. It has no secure element. The updates for firmware/drivers are problematic too, not just the Linux kernel branch they use.

@fun @domi @elly @mei We're partnered with a major Android OEM and they're actively working on supporting GrapheneOS for devices in 2027 by meeting all of our update and security requirements. They weren't able to do it for the upcoming devices because Qualcomm didn't get hardware memory tagging working properly on every variant of their latest SoC generation that's in the process of launching. The upper level cache had to be changed to support MTE and they didn't do it for each SoC variant yet.

@fun @domi @elly @mei It ended up here and opening it on this end caused a full screen error message from the client side part of Mastodon:

https://berkeley.edu.pl/notice/B29MlpoSL4In1bdCq0

@fun @domi @elly @mei We replied to this thread because the original post made inaccurate claims about AOSP and projects based on it including GrapheneOS. We then saw many more attacks on GrapheneOS claiming it's non-viable, a dead end, not doing any valuable work, etc. so we replied to a few of those. Since people felt like attacking our team to promote another project, we brought up an unresolved situation which is not just about several threads on Twitter in 2023 but more recent things too.

@fun @domi @elly @mei @ariadne Fedora addressed bullying/libel we reported by having 2 people remove posts. GNOME simply ignored our reports.

Here's Mozilla:

> The actions that are alleged to have violated the CPG are:
>
> Disruptive behaviour: calling that people “allow nazis to contribute to your project”
>
> Personal attacks: accusing other people of swatting you and other engineers.

Those "other people" weren't their project members, just to clarify.

> should be addressed to the police

@fun @domi @elly @mei @ariadne We removed some of our posts here to talk about it privately instead which we are doing and if you stop making accusations towards us then we'll stop posting about it here. We're entirely capable of finding and posting an archive of the deleted posts on Twitter if people are denying it happened, but as far as we know the person who did it is not denying that it happened. As a general rule we're not going to report a project itself due to bad experiences with it.

@fun @domi @elly @mei

> I am also not aware of any team member actively raiding GrapheneOS chats.

We said the postmarketOS has done that not the postmarketOS team.

> If you have proof it would be nice to link to them

We do have it.

> so far it's mostly been "trust me bro"

Multiple people on the postmarketOS team have seen what one of them posted on Twitter along with many others. There's no point claiming that it never happened.

We're talking to @ariadne about it now rather than here.

@elly @domi Claiming our team and community are toxic is DARVO attacks. Your community is raiding our rooms, engaging in endless personal attacks and libelous fabricated stories but somehow it's our community not doing those things towards you folks which is the toxic one. How is that meant to work? These false claims go right along with the claims that our founder is insane, delusional, etc. and are pervasive in the postmarketOS community and elsewhere. Our community isn't doing that, yours is.

@elly @domi

> stay away from GrapheneOS's toxic community

> never been to your chats, so I won't comment whether that's true or not

It's the postmarketOS community and many other parts of the open source community which are toxic. It's their project members and community members heavily participating in bullying and harassment not only towards our founder and team but also our community. Our community chat rooms are heavily targeted with endless raids including from YOUR toxic community.

@elly @domi Users in the US don't have a tap-to-pay option on GrapheneOS itself. Users in the UK and EU have multiple options available for it including at least in the EU multiple which work without Google Play.

There's a large open source app ecosystem which works without Google Play and many mainstream apps too. It's still a large app ecosystem.

There's hardware-based virtualization now for non-native apps now which is their focus for it while our focus will be using it for native apps too.

@elly @domi

> why notifications and other features weren't working

Notifications work fine without sandboxed Google Play in many apps supporting using their own push or UnifiedPush including multiple email apps, messaging apps (Signal/Molly, Element / Element X for Matrix, WhatsApp, Conversations for XMPP and others) and many others.

Tap-to-pay also does work fine on GrapheneOS even though Google Pay bans it. There are other implementations including ones working without Google Play.

@elly @domi We've posted accurate information about postmarketOS and also accurate information about what people there have done towards us. We haven't engaged in any bullying or harassment. Our community is not harassing people or raiding rooms. We're not posting videos with character assassination based around false claims. The attacks are very one sided. You somehow consider us posting our take on postmarketOS and the claims you make about GrapheneOS to be on the same level as harassment.

@elly @domi Multiple postmarketOS developers have engaged in blatant bullying and harassment towards our team. As long as they're still involved with postmarketOS and have not acknowledged that they were spreading harassment content and posting their own then that's not settled and is an active topic. There have also been recent personal attacks by several postmarketOS developers/contributors including craftyguy. This does not date back to 2023 and is not minor. We plan to make a post about it.

@elly @domi You can make whatever attacks you want on GrapheneOS. postmarketOS team members have contributed to making life miserable for two dozen people working on GrapheneOS. They haven't simply contributed to that in a small way but rather a large one by onboarding more people onto it and then never doing anything to walk it back or contain it. postmarketOS has a community that's highly hostile towards us and attacking us on numerous platforms. If it grows, so do the attacks on our project.