A wise man once told me, don’t mess with politics.
The moment you show stance (which usually isn’t beneficial), you cut off options from yourself and endanger customer relationship.
Proton should just do business as usual, without that single post things would probably be just fine.
I think that’s a different thing. That is a political stance but it’s not picking sides. People who want to organise Nazi rallys and people who need to communicate without getting attacked by Nazis both have reasons to use encrypted email. When you pick one over the other, you’ve cut the size of your userbase.
That’s not the point. A neutral stance VPN has all the anti-Nazis as customers, and all the Nazis. I would prefer anti-Nazi as well but I get that that a neutral stance means they can have more customers, something they need for economy of scale.
If they had stated their anti-trump stance then the freeze peach lemmy instances would probably have all their Nazis cancelling their proton subscriptions.
Honestly I hope all the cancellations on our side aren’t balanced by a bunch of Nazis signing up after seeing the comments.
I don’t think I quite get what the benefit is to them of supporting Trump’s pick. What was it he was hoping to gain, not from the pick but from his comment?
What benefit do all those who have kissed trump’s ring thus far get? All I know is that I’m not about to trust my privacy to someone with 88 in their username. I only signed up for proton last month because of trump. I’ll be leaving for another service for the same reason.
The reality is that being “anti-Nazi” is also a neutral stand. This is in the terms of service of Proton:
Unauthorized activities include, but are not limited to:
[…] 4. Harassing, abusing, insulting, harming, defaming, slandering, disparaging, intimidating or discriminating against someone based on gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, race, age, nationality or disability;
I don’t think Proton is ok with Nazis, but I feel people wanted them to be also “anti-Trump”, even if Trump does something to benefit privacy (which, as you hinted, is a neutral action that also benefits anti-Nazis).
That was probably their thought too. However, they have misjudged the Lemmy (and I think reddit) population on this, and I would argue that worse than the initial comment is the absolute lack of recognition (in follow up comments) that what they said could be taken as an endorsement of a government that is trying to actively harm a significant portion of the US Proton users.
I think he actually acknowledged that fact in later comments.
Anyway, this is a far smaller sin than all the stuff people are creatively accusing him of.
Apparently now he is a Nazi, and I think this case was the last nail in the coffin for me to think that political discourse can exist.
If it helps, most people don’t follow politics at all. And their votes are based on very little knowledge of what they are voting for.
I’m still a believer that if you put people in a room together instead of online, you’d get both sides of the aisle agreeing on 95% of things, once each side had a chance to explain their viewpoint (and made sure google was available to settle most disputes).
A wise man once told me, don’t mess with politics. The moment you show stance (which usually isn’t beneficial), you cut off options from yourself and endanger customer relationship.
Proton should just do business as usual, without that single post things would probably be just fine.
The fight for privacy and digital freedom is inherently political.
Removed by mod
I think that’s a different thing. That is a political stance but it’s not picking sides. People who want to organise Nazi rallys and people who need to communicate without getting attacked by Nazis both have reasons to use encrypted email. When you pick one over the other, you’ve cut the size of your userbase.
I would be perfectly happy with a VPN that was openly anti-nazi.
That’s not the point. A neutral stance VPN has all the anti-Nazis as customers, and all the Nazis. I would prefer anti-Nazi as well but I get that that a neutral stance means they can have more customers, something they need for economy of scale.
If they had stated their anti-trump stance then the freeze peach lemmy instances would probably have all their Nazis cancelling their proton subscriptions.
Honestly I hope all the cancellations on our side aren’t balanced by a bunch of Nazis signing up after seeing the comments.
He’s trying to have it both ways though. He wants to support trump and then be like “nooooo! What are you talking about? We’re neutral!”
Yeah, with the same Swiss neutrality that doesn’t care whose teeth the gold came from.
I don’t think I quite get what the benefit is to them of supporting Trump’s pick. What was it he was hoping to gain, not from the pick but from his comment?
What benefit do all those who have kissed trump’s ring thus far get? All I know is that I’m not about to trust my privacy to someone with 88 in their username. I only signed up for proton last month because of trump. I’ll be leaving for another service for the same reason.
He explains the 88 here-
https://www.reddit.com/r/ProtonMail/comments/1i2nz9v/comment/m7nr5ym/
The reality is that being “anti-Nazi” is also a neutral stand. This is in the terms of service of Proton:
I don’t think Proton is ok with Nazis, but I feel people wanted them to be also “anti-Trump”, even if Trump does something to benefit privacy (which, as you hinted, is a neutral action that also benefits anti-Nazis).
Removed by mod
That was probably their thought too. However, they have misjudged the Lemmy (and I think reddit) population on this, and I would argue that worse than the initial comment is the absolute lack of recognition (in follow up comments) that what they said could be taken as an endorsement of a government that is trying to actively harm a significant portion of the US Proton users.
I think he actually acknowledged that fact in later comments. Anyway, this is a far smaller sin than all the stuff people are creatively accusing him of.
Apparently now he is a Nazi, and I think this case was the last nail in the coffin for me to think that political discourse can exist.
If it helps, most people don’t follow politics at all. And their votes are based on very little knowledge of what they are voting for.
I’m still a believer that if you put people in a room together instead of online, you’d get both sides of the aisle agreeing on 95% of things, once each side had a chance to explain their viewpoint (and made sure google was available to settle most disputes).