I think it’s a good special case thing but I don’t think you’re intended to host tons of stuff there as a primary account

I think the only thing you can trust is software architecture - things like E2E encryption, zero knowledge architecture, auditable code etc.

First, while the X post was not intended to be a political statement

Not intended to be a political statement? Even setting aside agreement vs disagreement, how is this (below) not a political statement?

10 years ago Republicans were the party of big business and Dems stood for the little guys, but today the tables have completely turned.

Again, regardless of whether you agree or disagree it’s like a textbook example of a political statement.

Well, like anything, it depends on context. In this context, it’s not crazy to be on high alert for weird politicized signals.

However, I think you made a pretty good point about its meaning in Taiwan given that this fellow is apparently from there, combined with it being his year of birth. So, context decides and in this case at least it seems pretty ordinary.

Again, no! The post was emphatically not just a remark on the nomination being good (why tf do people keep saying that).

Their comment was an overall assessment of R’s vs D’s and their respective records on regulating the tech sector in general. It rubbed people the wrong way because it’s an obviously crazy revisionist history from someone we all expected would know better.

Hooo boy, lots to unpack here. The screenshots were screenshots of the post. I’m confused why you would think looking at the screenshots of text somehow amounts to not reading them? In fact, good thing we have those screenshots because the post itself got deleted. Link to screenshot here and also the doubling down screenshots for those who need it.

Also, are you kidding me? It abso-fudging-lutely was a pretty categorical endorsement of R’s over Dems, at least on the issue of anti-trust in the tech sector. They specifically made a point about how this whole thing amounted to evidence that R’s writ large were more trustworthy than D’s.

Just a bizarre take all around, especially when tut-tutting about other people supposedly not reading it.

Exactly this. It’s not necessarily that he’s like a better enforcer, but he’s just a different type of enforcer that plays by different rules, which is to say compromised ethics, transactional exchanges, and so on. Tech companies absolutely had a difficult time under Biden, but the way they played that game was with legal filings, with negotiations where they attempt to offer something they hope will improve the perception of competitive balance.

It’s just a difference in channeling these things through rule of law on the one hand and through transactional exchanges and gestures of fealty on the other.

And I think if you think the Trump style reflects a more effective approach to handling antitrust, it’s kind of telling on yourself in terms of being able to comprehend the value of one type of transaction, but not the other.

I’m having a lot of trouble parsing any of this.

In what sense does the election being over render it not a matter of picking? Slater’s selection is a nomination, you could select one person at the expense of another, to better or worse ends, so in any ordinary english language sense, there is indeed a pick.

By contrast, Lori Chavez-DeRemer was selected for labor secretary, which has been celebrated by people who are normally Trump critics. Because there are such things as better or worse picks.

With regards of antitrust and big tech, Trump can do nothing, worse or better.

Again: what? Trump gets to appoint the DoJ’s Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Associate Attorney General, Solicitor General, 93 DoJ Attorneys, heads of a bunch of individual departments in the DoJ which each have hundreds of staff, and will likely appoint hundreds of new judges. Not only can Trump do something, his actions will be the single most dominating force determining the trajectory of anti-trust environment.

What’s more, as a commenter above noted, Lina Kahn is a perfect example of how influential these appointments can be, as we’ve seen some of the most ambitious anti-trust action in decades.

If “big tech is not restrained” it’s going to be the same or worse, so why we wouldn’t be happy at least if that happens?

They’re probably not even right, in the first instance, that big tech will be better restrained. The elephant in the room rendering this whole line of thinking preposterous, is Lina Khan’s extremely aggressive record on this won’t be matched even by a “good” Trump appointee, and in fact has been vehemently opposed by R’s through her whole tenure.

I didn’t read a celebration of Trump as a win for human rights tout court, which could have prompted this response

Right, but that’s the point. Nobody would credit Trump as a champion of human rights, which reveals why it’s so short-sighted to uphold him or R’s as leading lights on a topic such as privacy, which falls under the umbrella of a subject matter that we’re all agreeing he doesn’t care about.

It’s precisely because of the absence of consistent commitments on every other front that also belongs in the same category, that of human rights writ large, that it’s silly to celebrate the one exception to an otherwise negative record. And it’s hard to take statements seriously that treat that totality as if it embodies a pure commitment to virtues of an ideal, free and open internet.

Right, I follow your take here as the one that makes the most sense. This makes a lot more sense as the tech companies attempting to head off a potentially adversarial relationship.

Woah… an actually rock-solid account of problems with Proton! Nicely done.

This contrasts with the incoherent conspiracy theory spaghetti that has sometimes been trotted out to make the case against them.

People don’t accidentally get on a board. The whole idea is that you actively search for and interview and even recruit people who best embody the values of your project. Then you get nominated and often voted.

It’s so all over the map, what does or doesn’t count as toughness. That criteria rewrites itself in real time like the plot of a dream.

Avoiding or ignoring questions I would have thought is weakness. Letting covid sweep the country. Falling behind China and India with a weaker labor force. Being ready to surrender to Russia. Being unable to confront the truth that you lost an election.

Any number of mixed and matched definitions could include or exclude those from operative definitions of toughness/weakness without and make just as much sense. It’s all just working backwards from tribalism.

It was intended to kind of be my new primary universe for personal communications, leaving behind Google for work/biz.

But… maybe the water is warmer at Tutanota?

Also the obviously reactionary and self-interested history of right wing reaction to FAANG, which largely has been fueled by a backlash to restraints on misinformation, and is riddled with special case exceptions (e.g. Palestine).

By my lights your response is quite effective, and while I appreciate the modesty I think it’s appropriate to bring it over here:

Unfortunately, there’s a line beyond which it’s not okay to view a political party through one issue, and IMO the Republicans have crossed that line.

Privacy is a human rights issue. Republicans have signaled very strongly that they’re going to violate more human rights. It’s a net loss for privacy if that happens, even if big tech is a bit more restrained.

I’m sorry @protonprivacy, you’ve failed this test IMO. It would be one thing to say that given that the Republicans are in power, that Gail Slater is a good pick, but that’s not the stance you took.

WELP

Idk why but I love this post haha

On re-reading that other guys comments, they just make no sense. You are right to draw your distinction, because this thread is being strangely vague on details and trying to encourage conspiratorial thinking without specifics.

That said, I think the core concern can be rephrased in a way that gets at the essence, and to me there’s still a live issue that’s not relieved simply by noting that this requires probable cause.

What’s necessary to establish probable cause in the United States has been dramatically watered down to the point that it’s a real time, discretionary judgment of a police officer, so in that respect it is not particularly reassuring. It can be challenged after the fact in court, but it’s nevertheless dramatically watered down as a protection. And secondly, I don’t think any of this hinges on probable cause to begin with, because this is about the slow creep normalization of surveillance which involves changes to what’s encompassed within probable cause itself. The fact that probable cause now encompasses this new capability to compel biometric login is chilling even when you account for probable cause.

And moreover, I think there’s a bigger thematic point here about a slow encroach of surveillance in special cases that eventually become ubiquitous (the manhunt for the midtown shooter revealed that practically anyone in NYC is likely to have their face scanned, and it was a slow-creep process that got to that point), or allow the mixing and matching of capabilities in ways that clearly seem to violate privacy.

Another related point, or perhaps different way of saying the same thing above, is that this should be understood as an escalation due to the precedent setting nature of it, which sets the stage for considering new contexts where, by analogy to this one, compelled biometric login can be regarded as precedented and extensions of the power are considered acceptable. Whatever the next context is where compelled biometric login is considered, it will at that point no longer be a new idea without precedent.

Wonder why you are getting downvoted as this is a perfectly legitimate point. Are they just not in Europe or something?

Or who knows, they really could be in the Vativan, stranger things have happened. But I don’t know why they would mention those circumstances without qualification that they are special circumstances. Kind of burying the lede there.

Yeesh friend, kinda jumped down OP’s throat here, no? Seems pretty uncharitable to go from their posted meme to “this cartoonish fantasy world of yours”, and then take that even further.

Uhm, are we looking at the same comic? Because it most definitely is making an assessment of the impact of the shooter’s actions. What’s the thing being impacted? I would say world. Charitable interpretation seems to me to point in the opposite direction of what you’re saying.