964
Flirting with Trump is flirting with Nazism - Response to Andy Yen (CEO of Proton AG) on Reddit 📢📢📢 (lemmy.ml)
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by to c/privacy@lemmy.ml
311 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

https://www.reddit.com/r/ProtonMail/comments/1i2ff6q/call_for_andy_yen_to_resign/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 22 points 2 years ago (1 child)

If all he said was literally "i approve of this pick for this position" you'd be correct.

What actually happened was he approved of the pick and also claimed the republicans are now actually the party that stands for the "little guy".

Then followed up with a non apology that claimed what he said was not intended to be a "political statement".

by all means, argue that you think there's a fuss over nothing, but if you leave important context out seemingly because it doesn't suit your narrative it weakens your argument substantially.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

    I know what happened, I followed quite thoroughly.

    He thinks that republicans are now the ones with a higher chance to push antitrust cases against big tech (I.e., work for the little guy - EDIT: source). He thinks this based on the last few years and a few things that happened. He likes the nomination from Trump. How is this a full support to Trump? How believing that republicans will do better - in this area - equals being a Nazi?

    Of course I believe that there is a fuss over nothing. The above statement has been inflated and I have already read "he applauded to Trump antitrans policies", " posted Nazi symbols" and other complete fantasies.

    Many people, who are on the internet on a perpetual witch hunt decided to interpret a clearly specific tweet (about antitrust and big tech) as a global political statement, and read that "little guy" as "common man" or - I have read it here on Lemmy - "working class". Basically everyone tried to propose ideas about why that post was so awful, rather than first trying to understand what the hell he meant. I will agree the first tweet is ambiguous, but that's because it's a 200 characters tweet, he then explained his position quite clearly, and the summary above is what he actually meant.

    This "context" added doesn't move my post a centimeter IMO.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [+] 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago

    He praised one thing, and motivated that praise. It's 100% possible to disagree, but I don't find it concerning at all. I find it reasonable, because proton can better protect the privacy of users if more people can choose freely privacy oriented tools (like proton). Hence, if Trump does or says something that can help moving in that direction, it can be labeled as a good thing. Not every sentence is a collective or global assessment of all things considered.

    When Trump wants to break up big tech it's because he wants to eliminate the competition to his concentration of power.

    • this is something US citizens should concern themselves
    • it is only tangentially irrelevant
    • if by breaking up monopolies people will be able to choose more privacy-preserving services, what you think is Trump's goal will fail anyway. More privacy and less data is also a way to limit the amount of demographic targeting he uses so well in his campaigns.

    So I am good with him doing the right thing for the wrong reason, and I wish him a swift failure afterwards.

    doesn't understand this or doesn't care is deeply concerning

    Have you considered that he might not agree with what is just your opinion? Obviously you are free to draw any conclusion you want and not use them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    See, now that's a more thorough explanation of your position.

    I disagree with pretty much all of your assertions (though the witch hunt stuff can be true sometimes) , but at least i know I'm disagreeing with an opinion formed using the whole of the information provided.

    This “context” added doesn’t move my post a centimeter IMO.

    It shows you read the initial information in it's entirety and still came to the conclusion you did.

    That removes the possibility of responses such as "Did you even read the initial tweet?".

    Well... it should remove that possibility, in practice it just means you can safely ignore those responses because clearly the people making those responses haven't read your response in it's entirety.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent