• slug@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    48 minutes ago

    agreeing with Republicans on one specific issue (antitrust enforcement to protect small companies)

    Where is he getting this bullshit from that republicans actually want to do antitrust lol

    • piyuv@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      43 minutes ago

      He might be born on 1988, although I could not verify this. He started his PhD on 2009, that’d make him 21 at that time, which is not unusual

  • Leraje@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Trouble is Andy, we now know what you privately think and all the follow up statements in the world can’t put that genie back in the bottle.

    Proton is an org that exists in an industry whose customers do not trust easily. Publicly aligning with someone utterly untrustable, either as an individual or as a board, has tainted Proton and adversely affected peoples ability to trust. How can we ever know when Proton will find it acceptable again to respond positively to a Trumpian decision or how it might affect our privacy?

    • JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Literal thought policing (“what you privately think”) and quasi-religious purity logic (“has tainted Proton”). This nicely reveals the kind of busybodying inquisitorial mindset that keeps losing elections for US progressives and thus landing the rest of the world with Trump.

      There’s an easy solution to the pseudo-problem you raise: judge Proton by its actions rather than the (utterly commonplace) opinions of one of its directors.

      • BmeBenji@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        45 minutes ago

        It’s not thought policing. Proton, a company all about privacy, is literally nothing without the trust of its user base. Aligning with someone who is not trustworthy by making a statement that makes no sense (literally saying Trump’s administration will be anti-big tech while it’s been gaining shit tons of support from the Tech Titans Musk, Bezos, and Zuck) completely debases that trust. Additionally it’s not thought policing because companies are not people and cannot think.

        Even if it was thought policing, in line with the Social Contract of Tolerance, there is no room to tolerate, let alone vocally support, fascists.

      • TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        55 minutes ago

        “Thought policing” is when you coerce someone to change their thoughts against their will. It is not boycotting a service because one does not agree with the service owner’s thoughts. That is not thought policing. That is a purely voluntary transaction on both sides, and that is one’s right as a consumer of said service. He is not entitled to customers.

      • Leraje@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 hour ago

        Literal thought policing (“what you privately think”)

        Are you suggesting that a statement that he made is not what he thinks?

        quasi-religious purity logic (“has tainted Proton”)

        lol, sorry you’re incapable of processing descriptive language :) I’ll rephrase it to ‘has negatively affected Proton’s image in the eyes of some’.

        This nicely reveals the kind of busybodying inquisitorial mindset that keeps losing elections for US progressives and thus landing the rest of the world with Trump.

        Neither I, nor Proton, are American so its difficult to see how my opinion keeps landing the world with Trump.

  • Aedis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 hours ago

    The lines between fact (…) and opinion can be blurry at times

    Are they though?

  • The Hobbyist@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    4 hours ago

    I’m personally satisfied with the statement, position and reflection on the issue.

    It was a fuck-up to publicly respond to donaldtrump in what could be seen as an endorsement. This was acknowledged and remedied.

    The no politics stance is probably unavoidable, as mentioned but they should never focus on political parties, but on defending the values, this is what is clarified and that’s best. We should accept to support a bill strengthening privacy even if it may come from a political party we generally do not support. Denying our support to such a bill would not strengthen the core value we defend. And as individuals we may still criticize all other activities of such a political party if we disagree with others of their activities.

    As a community, I hope we can come together, and resist the temptation of purity tests, and acknowledge that we are all fighting for the same cause, no matter our perspective on other issues. We need the support of everyone.

    • piyuv@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      42 minutes ago

      His main point is outright wrong though. Republicans are not better at anti-trust, they’re the big money. Thinking Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos will protect small tech companies is laughable.

        • tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Either way, if he believes this:

          Until corporate Dems are thrown out, the reality is that Republicans remain more likely to tackle Big Tech abuses.

          he’s fucking dumb as a hammer

    • Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Yep, I especially appreciate the lack of apologies. An easy cop out would be to say he’s sorry but what would he be sorry for when he didn’t say anything wrong? This is a great response, and the only possible one. And still people will call it damage control.

  • TCB13@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    3 hours ago

    It’s funny how people completely lost their minds when they could see a potential connection between what he said and some political side while those same people are perfectly fine with ignoring what’s really wrong with Proton and its marketing - even though it all goes against their core beliefs of “privacy” “security” “open-source” etc.