Proton CEO embraces Trump for "standing up for the little guys"
Proton CEO embraces Trump for "standing up for the little guys"
Unnecessary and deeply concerning bow to the new "king"
You're viewing a single thread.
The official @[email protected] account replied and doubled down
[email protected] - @jonah
Corporate capture of Dems is real. In 2022, we campaigned extensively in the US for anti-trust legislation.
Two bills were ready, with bipartisan support. Chuck Schumer (who coincidently has two daughters working as big tech lobbyists) refused to bring the bills for a vote.
At a 2024 event covering antitrust remedies, out of all the invited senators, just a single one showed up - JD Vance.
1/2
[email protected] - @jonah By working on the front lines of many policy issues, we have seen the shift between Dems and Republicans over the past decade first hand.
Dems had a choice between the progressive wing (Bernie Sanders, etc), versus corporate Dems, but in the end money won and constituents lost.
Until corporate Dems are thrown out, the reality is that Republicans remain more likely to tackle Big Tech abuses.
2/2
(Less importantly, my response)
Aaaaaaaand it's deleted.
Insane that an official company account posted this.
Seems like they have deleted it now. Link is dead. Has there been any further comment?
This is a lot worse look than Andy saying something on Twitter. It's one thing for a board member to express an opinion as an individual, it's another to have an explicit corporate position... I don't even think the usual big tech suspects are this stupid to publicly support an administration like this.
So sounds like their main concern is addressing the abuses of the FAANG monopolies, and only a Republican has talked to them about it.
I guess that is understandable in that very narrow lens, but it's a bit laughable considering how all the big tech companies are also cozying up to the Trump administration. All this has done for me is make me wary of anything Proton does now.
Actually I disagree on the latest part. I actually questioned, why google and Facebook had to go kiss the ring and pay some bucks to Trump, and didn't have to do that before? This for me is a sign of a disalignment between big tech and the administration.
That said, it's very much possible (I would say likely) trump won't do shit and he just happens to have the "correct" position on this particular issue because it can be used to attack the Californian elite (I.e. dem elite). But it's a matter of fact that it's auspicable he will follow up with action on his words on this, even if for the wrong reasons.
Its more that trump is very transactional. He couldnt give to shit if corpations are fleecing people so as long he gets a peice. Its like businesses paying the mafia for "protection".
Nobody had to go kiss the ring they payed for his campaign because THEY WANTED to please him. Edit: Typo
Yeah but why they wanted to please him? What's the benefit for them? Why they wouldn't want to please previous administrations? The other user mentioned that Trump is very transactional, and that sounds quite right too.
Either way, look at Facebook, literally went through a shitstorm to align, that is a sign of weakness in my opinion.
What’s the benefit for them?
Not being targeted by a President.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/29/business/ceos-trump-revenge-nightcap/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/05/politics/trump-prosecute-political-opponents/index.html
Why they wouldn’t want to please previous administrations?
Those administrations weren't targeting them.
I think it's always about the money, plain and simple. If there is a threat to their gravy train, they will bend over backwards to keep it going. Otherwise, they don't care about you.
OK, but then that was exactly my point. Antitrust is one way to target those companies, hence they had to suck up. Therefore them paying (peanuts in the grand scheme of things) could be seen as the exact opposite of "they are all in the same team".
Right, I follow your take here as the one that makes the most sense. This makes a lot more sense as the tech companies attempting to head off a potentially adversarial relationship.
That's some interesting perspective, I hadn't thought of it that way. With Trump it's really hard to know what is coming until it happens, but it's nice that some people see a silver lining.
Also the obviously reactionary and self-interested history of right wing reaction to FAANG, which largely has been fueled by a backlash to restraints on misinformation, and is riddled with special case exceptions (e.g. Palestine).
These fuckers act like they've never heard of Lina Khan. Let's see if Republicans try to replace her with someone with a stronger track record. Or, if they're so serious about tech competition maybe they'll get on board with net neutrality.
And look, I actually like Gail Slater (the Trump nominee that kicked off this thread). She's got some bona fides, and I welcome Republicans taking antitrust more seriously, and rolling back the damage done by Robert Bork and his adherents (including and probably most significantly Ronald Reagan).
But to pretend that Democrats are less serious about antitrust than Republicans ignores the huge moves that the Biden administration have made in this area, including outside of big tech.
So we can say that Bork borked things up?
That is amazing. TIL!
By my lights your response is quite effective, and while I appreciate the modesty I think it's appropriate to bring it over here:
Unfortunately, there's a line beyond which it's not okay to view a political party through one issue, and IMO the Republicans have crossed that line.
Privacy is a human rights issue. Republicans have signaled very strongly that they're going to violate more human rights. It's a net loss for privacy if that happens, even if big tech is a bit more restrained.
I'm sorry @protonprivacy, you've failed this test IMO. It would be one thing to say that given that the Republicans are in power, that Gail Slater is a good pick, but that's not the stance you took.
The election already happened. Therefore it's not a matter of picking. With regards of antitrust and big tech, Trump can do nothing, worse or better. In case of "better" there are indirect privacy wins. Everything else is completely unrelated, it's not like the Trump administration will break up a monopoly every 3 other human rights he violates.
So what does it mean
Privacy is a human rights issue. Republicans have signaled very strongly that they're going to violate more human rights. It's a net loss for privacy if that happens, even if big tech is a bit more restrained.
If "big tech is not restrained" it's going to be the same or worse, so why we wouldn't be happy at least if that happens? I didn't read a celebration of Trump as a win for human rights tout court, which could have prompted this response (I.e., hey, might be a win for privacy, but it's a loss for x, y, z).
Fuck, they are dumb and bad businessmen. What's the reason still to chose their product over Tuta, Posteo, Mullvad? They have lost their unique selling point as at least pretending being a neutral instance providing private services. Plain stupidity.
Their unique selling point is having a suite of integrated privacy products under a single moderately-priced subscription.
That is somet nieve horseshit. Goddammit I don't want to switch email providers again!
N.B. I originally went looking for a reason that maybe it was okay that Andy Yen was giving the thumbs up to Gail Slater. I thought this was an unfair internet pile-on. I think now it's a fair internet pile-on.
EVERYONE! GET IN HERE!