1170
Proton CEO embraces Trump for "standing up for the little guys" (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by to c/privacy@lemmy.ml
587 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Unnecessary and deeply concerning bow to the new "king"

Update: position got backed up by an official Proton post on Mastodon, it's an official Proton statement now. https://mastodon.social/@protonprivacy/113833073219145503

Update 2, plot-twist: they removed this response from Mastodon - seems they realize it exploded into their face!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (9 children)

It's not a matter of pretending. The fact that there has been a shift is his/their point. If there is a shift it's implicit that before the shift the situation was different, hence the absurdity of "consider the last 50 years". You want to contest the fact that there is been a shift, that's great. But trying to debate the whole argument with "look at the last 50 years" doesn't touch their argument at all.

Also, in the context of his tweet "the little guy" are small businesses, not the common men. He clarified this point in a reddit comment somewhere, where he mentions small businesses vs big tech. You can go check it out.

Edit: see https://www.reddit.com/r/ProtonMail/comments/1i2nz9v/on_politics_and_proton_a_message_from_andy/m7hfhdh/

Pretending you can critique an argument without the knowledge of the past and an unwillingness to discuss the details is something else. Truly some peanut gallery level of nonsense.

I am not sure what obsession you have with "pretending", but I was not pretending anything. Arguments can be debated in the method or in the merit. In your case the method seemed to be wrong to me and I stated that. Logically was just inconsequential. This is something that doesn't depend on the validity of the argument or on my position, it's just a methodological observation.

You might be right as far as I am concerned, but your argument was absurd nevertheless.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (8 children)

    I have already said there was no shift. I will pretend you can follow along. The conservatives have threatened to take away Section 230.

    https://www.techdirt.com/2024/11/27/brendan-carr-makes-it-clear-that-hes-eager-to-be-americas-top-censor/

    This is because they want social media to stop fact checking and moderating their users so they can spread misinformation aka lies. They don't want a level playing field. They want to spread misinformation and then control the truth.

    So saying they are going to regulate big tech is really just code for threatening them into allowing them to openly lie to people. This is fucking ridiculous.

    As typical, conservatives always lean into the small business mantra. That Republicans really care about small business owners whatever the fuck that means. While you won't discuss the details you are ready to throw some classic Republican propaganda at everyone.

    https://www.americanprogress.org/article/big-lie-conservative-policies-good-small-business/

    Small business ownership has shrunk dramatically in the last 20 years (oops brought up history) and will continue as the too big to fail billionaires and their megacorps suck up all the capital. You would think that a supposed billionaire who only puts his wealthy friends into power would be a red flag for small business or the little guy.

    Not for Sudneo though, he thinks billionaires care about him. He probably thinks Muskrat is worried about his well being and free speech rights. Yeah there is a lot of pretending going on for sure.

    I also find it bizarre to say the Democrats need to get rid of their "corporate" support. Apparently they are Dinos because every Democrat must be a left wing liberal socialist. Funny that the Republicans don't need to do this though. Apparently there are no big corporate Republicans, thank God.

    Politics don't exist just in the moment and I find it disturbing you don't care about history. Perhaps it is a defense mechanism as the Republican party has been on the same trajectory since Reagan. I guess if I was a conservative trying to rewrite reality I would try to discredit or ignore history as well.

    Perhaps this is all driven by the thought that this administration is different. I don't mean to make fun of people but God damn you would have to be a dumb motherfucker to expect anything different in this administration from last time. Stocks up, regulations down, massive fuckups, and politicize everything. I mean if your kink is being governed by clowns maybe it would be great. https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/democrats/2024/10/the-u-s-economy-performs-better-under-democratic-presidents

    The truth is a hard pill to swallow I guess and you can see why the Republicans have committed to a war on truth. They simply cannot exist without their lies and the gullible people who believe them.

    This of course is exacerbated by the truly awful people we have allowed to control the next administration. I am no fan of Democratic people but the garbage that is the apparatus of our AOTUS is without parallel. I mean you basically have to be a rapist to get a spot in his cabinet.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (7 children)

    Ahaha you still didn't get it. I don't care if there was a shift or not. That was their argument, not mine. However, whether the shift was there or not, IT IS IMPLICIT in an argument that mentions a shift that before the shift this didn't apply. Therefore it's simply useless to counter THAT argument with "you missed the last 50 years". I didn't throw any propaganda. I didn't even make an argument. You are just trying to pidgeonhole me into a stereotypical position to attack me, because apparently you can't understand what a methodological remark is.

    I will skip over the next paragraphs where you talk about " regulating tech" but you talk about free speech and fake news (that has NOTHING to do with antitrust and monopolies). I do that because I agree, but it's a completely separate conversation, that has no relationship with the context of Andy's tweet or our discussion.

    really just code for threatening them into allowing them to openly lie to people

    You are saying this as if this didn't regularly happen for years though...

    Not for Sudneo though, he thinks billionaires care about him.

    I am a communist lol. I would like to see Musk 3 meters under the soil. Please stop making shit up to attack people.

    Politics don't exist just in the moment and I find it disturbing you don't care about history

    See the beginning of this comment. It's not about not caring, is that what you think is an argument against THEIR position is actually PART of their argument already. Again, a LOGICAL issue. I don't care about discussing if dem or rep are pro big or small businesses and in which measure, for me American politics is small flavours of right wing, and I have the fortune of not having to vote there.

    Perhaps this is all driven by the thought that this administration is different.

    Yet another fallacy. have you even read the tweet? Like I do agree with you, but holy shit at the end of a 200 characters sentence the guy said that the antitrust against Google or something was started during the Trump administration. So no, it's not about being different, I guess, it's about continuing with what the guy (him, not me) says it's a trend. You disagree and that's great, go debate him on why it won't happen.

    Personally, and THIS is my opinion as an outsider, I think this administration is awful and it's going to fuck up so many things. That said, I will be pleasantly surprised if it will work on breaking some monopolies, even if for all the wrong reasons.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (6 children)

    Oh I get it, you just like to keep saying that it's is not your argument and then you talk about semantics. I will just skip this because you have already said it and it is boring.

    I like that you start referencing history yourself though, I appreciate the nod even if it is unintentional.

    You remind me of all those sycophants for Drump who are always saying he didn't mean that or he clarified himself later on. The kind of capitalist bootlicker that pretends to be a communist because it's edgy. Hey whatever floats your boat I guess.

    I think his original statement stands just fine on its own and I think I have made it clear why it is so distasteful.

    As someone who was seriously considering signing up for their service seeing them suck up to the right wing is very worrying. I have already left every other social media platform because of their toxic behavior.

    At any rate it appears we agree on everything except your obsession with semantics. Stay shifty!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (5 children)

    I like that you start referencing history yourself tho

    Please, please tell me you are not referring to highlighting what the guy wrote.

    To be honest I don't care what I remind you off. You hallucinate worse than chatGPT, and you seem to have really hard time reading what other people write, both me and Andy Yen.

    You are one of the many people whose heart is in the right place, but for some reason feel the need to make stuff up to make their argument more compelling. It's not an "obsession for semantics", it's an allergy for bullshit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (4 children)

    First and foremost from the start you literally made no sense. That shift nonsense is like an asspie's fever dream. It may be that you are ESL, or just lack a general grasp on conversation.

    Conversations are dynamic and constantly change. The entire time you were stuck at the begining unable to move on or offer actual real opinions. You feigned it is not my argument, but the reality is you just have nothing.

    Speaking of Chatgpt perhaps you should use it to help with your responses. Reword everything of course. I would much rather talk with a language model than someone who wants to attempt to argue semantics.

    You are one of those people who have nothing to say. An apologist without an opinion who just latches onto whatever comes along. But I think your heart is in the right place. Like I said, I think we probably agree on everything.

    Everything except this dumb motherfucker trying to pretend that it is opposite day. God damn the sides have flipped nonsense and now the Republicans are going after big business has to be one of the stupidest takes I have ever heard.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (3 children)

    unable to move on or offer actual real opinions

    You are so wise. It only you simply acknowledged the first point without moving the goalpost and adding random stuff everytime.

    I have never been interested in discussing opinions with you, I wanted to point out that your line of reasoning made no sense. However, you couldn't critically reflect on your fallacy and you tried making stuff up to drag me into a conversation.

    attempt to argue semantics

    I didn't attempt, I did. And I didn't argue semantics, I argue logic.

    Anyway, thanks. Cya

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    Like I said it is a conversation. It is dynamic and it changes. I explained you have nothing, no need to climb on your high horse and ride off all pissy.

    You see you were just wrong from the beginning. I still chose to share my opinions and time with you regardless of your lack of reciprocation.

    I do appreciate you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    A conversation you never decided to engage, only to derail because apparently for you it must be really hard to say that you didn't read the post completely, or that you missed something. You did clear mistakes (factual, logical, not opinions) in such a brief conversation, but somehow you are acting all wise "conversations change". Sure they do, when you want to change topic because saying " yep, in retrospective it was stupid mentioning the last 50 years and I didn't consider how much the argument I wanted to debate relies on a supposed change that I disagree happened". This is pretty much all there was to say. I did for you, so now I can go live in peace.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    Yes I was stupid to bring up the fact you would have to ignore that for the last fifty years the Republican party has been on the same trajectory. This is in reference to the Southern Strategy and it is the driving force behind their party to this day.

    This fucking tard burger says there has been a change in the last ten. That the sides have flipped and now Republicans represent the little guy.

    What I said was an obviously sarcastic comment because this foreigner has no fucking clue about what is going on politically in the US.

    As I already said. In order to believe what Andy and company have said you would have to ignore the last 50 years of the Republican party and also be lobotomized.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent