- cross-posted to:
- privacy
- cross-posted to:
- privacy
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!
To me this is complete nonsense.
It’s absolutely possible to disagree with 99% of what a government does and still agree on a 1%, by coincidence or something. This doesn’t mean “sitting at the table” in any way, which I think would be an overall endorsement. If that 1% would be use to fully endorse the government then it would implicitly mean the support (or at least passivity) towards the rest 99%. This is not the case.
Let’s talk hypotheticals for a moment: let’s sat Trump will actually do something and break up tech monopolies, google for example, or decrease their power and create a fairer market. In this case, saying “good policy” would make you a Nazi? For me, this is simply absurd, and it is very very similar to what is happening.
When you’re praising republicans as being the party of the little guy, that’s more than agreeing with 1% of the stuff that they’re doing.
Same discussion as per the other thread. We clearly disagree on what is the scope of that “praise”. As such, we will never agree.
Ok, maybe he wasn’t praising republicans as a whole, but he did praise trump for picking a big tech lobbyist in a job in which he claims to want the opposite. “Great pick!” is a praise, you can’t deny that, can you?
“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.”
That’s their official account complaining about the guy’s daughters being lobbyists, not even him directly. Why is the appointment of Gail Slater, who worked the internet association (big tech lobbyists) and fox corporation, a great pick?
Yes, he did praise the specific pick. You are calling her a big tech lobbyist but -from what I understood- he praised picking her because she previously was involved in antitrust cases against VISA, google and Apple.
I don’t know nearly enough about her to debate her history or actions, just repeating what I read.
Well, I guess we’ll see. Maybe she’ll do good as he claims