He made a statement praising trump for his security pick. To me he was just pandering to trump so they aren’t on trumps radar about encrypted software.
They couldn’t give less of a shit about Trump or his radar - they’re based in Switzerland.
He literally only said that someone who is famous for being anti big-tech, and pro consumer is a good pick, because Proton are anti big-tech, and pro consumer.
How this grew to all this nonsense people write these days is a fucking mystery to me…
Read it before, seem normal. It mentions info about who contacts the user, and elsewhere something about IP and logs. But if there business operating model is true they have no keys they can decrypt with. If they do them proton is no different tjam google
Even if his cabinet pick is anti big-tech and pro consumer, the administration couldn’t be further from that (super buds with Palantir and their fix for health care is… A trump website)
The comment was made in a year before Trump 2.0, at which point they weren’t best buds with big tech, quite the opposite, because Trump was at the tail end of throwing a hissy fit against big tech.
How do you mean? How is starting a bunch of anti-trust and pro-consumer “hardly a point for anti big-tech”?
The facts are these: Republicans, under Trump, started these processes. Democrats mostly opposed them, because they were defaulting to “Trump = bad”.
The apolitical stance of Proton means that they don’t do that defaulting. If Republicans do something good for privacy, anonymity (lol), or consumers, Proton will approve. If Dems do the same - proton will approve. If Greens (or whatever the pseudo “third party” calls itself) does it - Proton will approve.
That’s all there is to it.
But we now live in times where people assume approving of “something XYZ did”, automatically means “approving of XYZ”, which is stupid, reductive, and destructive.
For example, it leads otherwise sensible people to boycott an excellent product, just because its CEO said “the appointment of someone famously anti big-tech to a high anti-trust position in the DOJ is a good thing”.
He made a statement praising trump for his security pick. To me he was just pandering to trump so they aren’t on trumps radar about encrypted software.
They couldn’t give less of a shit about Trump or his radar - they’re based in Switzerland.
He literally only said that someone who is famous for being anti big-tech, and pro consumer is a good pick, because Proton are anti big-tech, and pro consumer.
How this grew to all this nonsense people write these days is a fucking mystery to me…
If they want to business in the USA hey have to pander to the panzshitter
First of all, that doesn’t matter to us, from the EU.
Secondly, read this.
Read it before, seem normal. It mentions info about who contacts the user, and elsewhere something about IP and logs. But if there business operating model is true they have no keys they can decrypt with. If they do them proton is no different tjam google
Even if his cabinet pick is anti big-tech and pro consumer, the administration couldn’t be further from that (super buds with Palantir and their fix for health care is… A trump website)
The comment was made in a year before Trump 2.0, at which point they weren’t best buds with big tech, quite the opposite, because Trump was at the tail end of throwing a hissy fit against big tech.
Oh I do recall him mucking about with Google and Apple and Meta, but with how fickle that man is, that’s hardly a point for anti big-tech
How do you mean? How is starting a bunch of anti-trust and pro-consumer “hardly a point for anti big-tech”?
The facts are these: Republicans, under Trump, started these processes. Democrats mostly opposed them, because they were defaulting to “Trump = bad”.
The apolitical stance of Proton means that they don’t do that defaulting. If Republicans do something good for privacy, anonymity (lol), or consumers, Proton will approve. If Dems do the same - proton will approve. If Greens (or whatever the pseudo “third party” calls itself) does it - Proton will approve.
That’s all there is to it.
But we now live in times where people assume approving of “something XYZ did”, automatically means “approving of XYZ”, which is stupid, reductive, and destructive.
For example, it leads otherwise sensible people to boycott an excellent product, just because its CEO said “the appointment of someone famously anti big-tech to a high anti-trust position in the DOJ is a good thing”.