Copied from the reddit post:
Hi all, last night, a post from last year from my personal X account suddenly became a topic of discussion here on Reddit. I want to share a few thoughts on this to provide clarity to the community on what is Proton’s policy on politics going forward.
First, while the X post was not intended to be a political statement, I can understand how it can be interpreted as such, and it therefore should not have been made. While we will not prohibit all employees from expressing personal political opinions publicly, it is something I will personally avoid in the future. I lean left on some issues, and right on other issues, but it doesn’t serve our mission to publicly debate this. It should be obvious, but I will say that it is a false equivalence to say that agreeing with Republicans on one specific issue (antitrust enforcement to protect small companies) is equal to endorsing the entire Republican party platform.
Second, officially Proton must always be politically neutral, and while we may share facts and analysis, our policy going forward will be to share no opinions of a political nature. The line between facts, analysis, and opinions can be blurry at times, but we will seek to better clarify this over time through your feedback and input.
The exception to these rules is on the topics of privacy, security, and freedom. These are necessarily political topics, where influencing public policy to defend these values, often requires engaging politically.
The operations of Proton have always reflected our neutrality. For example, recently we refused pressure to deplatform both Palestinian student groups and Zionist student groups, not because we necessarily agreed with their views, but because we believe more strongly in their right to have their own views.
It is also a legal guarantee under Swiss law, which explicitly prohibits us from assisting foreign governments or agencies, and allows us no discretion to show favoritism as Swiss law and Swiss courts have the final say.
The promise we make is that no matter your politics, you will always be welcome at Proton (subject of course to adherence to our terms and conditions). When it comes to defending your right to privacy, Proton will show no favoritism or bias, and will unconditionally defend it irrespective of the opinions you may hold.
This is because both Proton as a company, and Proton as a community, is highly diverse, with people that hold a wide range of opinions and perspectives. It’s important that we not lose sight of nuance. Agreeing/disagreeing with somebody on one point, rarely means you agree/disagree with them on every other point.
I would like to believe that as a community there is more that unites us than divides us, and that privacy and freedom are universal values that we can all agree upon. This continues to be the mission of the non-profit Proton Foundation, and we will strive to carry it out as neutrally as possible.
Going forward, I will be posting via u/andy1011000. Thank you for your feedback and inputs so far, and we look forward to continuing the conversation.
Assuming Andy Chen isn’t American, this is understandable:
“It should be obvious, but I will say that it is a false equivalence to say that agreeing with Republicans on one specific issue (antitrust enforcement to protect small companies) is equal to endorsing the entire Republican party platform.”
But it’s extremely tone deaf to Americans who live within the two party duopoly in the US, and who are sensitive to the fact that you can’t really be a compromise between the two (as politics stand, currently)
This makes sense to me from a framing perspective. As an American myself, despite my best efforts, I still fall into the same trap of sort of assuming everything is much more American centric than it actually is, including other people’s opinions on American politics from outside America.
His post does come off as wildly tone deaf, but seeing how he would have perceived it, it makes a lot of sense. He endorses policy by a party that shared his values, and then gets pushback for it from people who support his values. I’d probably be as confused as him if I was in his shoes.
So, we just believe that Proton, being buddy-buddy with Trump, isn’t going to turn around, and stab us in the backs?
Call me “skeptical”.
Maybe I missed something, but I haven’t seen anything to indicate that Andy/Proton likes Trump?
They said they agreed with one decision the republican party made, and pointed out how the democrats have been prioritising corporate interests.But what do I know, I’m not American, so I’m not incapable of understanding nuance like most Americans on the internet seem to be.
“Here at Proton, we believe that all life is sacred, thats why we gave the IP addresses of pregnant teens who are planning to get an abortion”
(even compiling the user client yourself won’t protect against IP logging, also, external emails arrive at proton servers in plain text)
Literally none of this matters and its all just noise. American politics and Americans themselves are insane.
In the first comment after the second Proton toot, some queer woman complains about something related to the killing of people that are non-binary.
!Man, I love Mastodon.!<
a post from last year from my personal X account suddenly became a topic of discussion here on Reddit.
You mean last month right.
this is the most “i think my userbase are idiots” statement anybody could make. like do you think we dont know how time works andy? fuck you
Yeah, last year, 2024. Stupid way of intentionally phrasing it.
proton is cia
proton is ciait’s modern crypto AG
we refused pressure to deplatform both Palestinian student groups and Zionist student groups
Insane equivocation. One of those is a national and ethnic group; the other is a political movement whose pet project is currently on trial for genocide… “we refused pressure to deplatform both Jewish student groups and National Socialist student groups”
“we refused pressure to deplatform both Jewish student groups and National Socialist student groups”
They are a Swiss company, yes.
Went to the replies to say this. You got here before me
I think that’s the entire point of the comment. They are impartial even to evil. They respect privacy.
Impartial to evil is… Well, just evil.
If I walk past a person beheading 3 people who have done nothing wrong, and am able to in fact stop it, and don’t… I’m just as fucking evil as the guy doing the beheading.
Indeed. When privacy gets involved it’s gets dicey and awkward.
i agree with you, but the company has now invited scrutiny openly by allowing a) andy to make this tweet (personal accout or no) and b) andy to make a follow up statement using the proton reddit account. people have a distaste now, so expect to see everything you say and do to be overanalyised.
He should not have @'d Trump. By doing this he is explicitly calling for the incoming administration’s attention and signalling he’s willing to play ball and bend the knee. Also nice try at obfuscation saying the tweet was from last year, jackass.
Additionally the company account doubled down on his messaging. I think dems suck too, but both sides are not the same. What kind of Swiss crack are they smoking to be able to pretend that the administration that created permanent tax cuts for the ultra wealthy, that I subsidize with my tax dollars, is a friend of the little guy? Or how about the administration that seated the court that bulldozed the right to privacy, while state courts pass censorship laws under the guise of child protections?
The guy is talking out both sides of his face and he’s an asshole. While I don’t think this is indicative of Proton’s services per se I am no longer a paying customer.
Yeah, I pay for Proton to try it out. I was liking it but this guy bending the knee to someone like trump is a huge red flag. I won’t be renewing my subscription!
Trouble is Andy, we now know what you privately think and all the follow up statements in the world can’t put that genie back in the bottle.
Proton is an org that exists in an industry whose customers do not trust easily. Publicly aligning with someone utterly untrustable, either as an individual or as a board, has tainted Proton and adversely affected peoples ability to trust. How can we ever know when Proton will find it acceptable again to respond positively to a Trumpian decision or how it might affect our privacy?
Literal thought policing (“what you privately think”) and quasi-religious purity logic (“has tainted Proton”). This nicely reveals the kind of busybodying inquisitorial mindset that keeps losing elections for US progressives and thus landing the rest of the world with Trump.
There’s an easy solution to the pseudo-problem you raise: judge Proton by its actions rather than the (utterly commonplace) opinions of one of its directors.
Literal thought policing (“what you privately think”)
Your private thoughts, nobody cares about. He didn’t have a “private thought” exposed, he literally posted his thought publicly.
THATs the issue, and people can choose to disassociate with you, if you publicly ruminate how you’re going to work hand-in-hand with a fascist state.
judge Proton by its actions rather than the (utterly commonplace) opinions of one of its directors.
And, this is what we are doing. A CEO speaks for the organization, and telegraphs it’s actions. And his actions are gross.
If the org wants to fix this, they need to fire him. Because otherwise, his opinion is the opinion of the organization.
I love user notes; this one has ‘fascist centrist’ attached, and lo and behold.
I was unaware this feature existed, how do you set this?
I can do it in the Boost for Lemmy app. I don’t know if you can do it via the web interface.
Hey bud, when you blurt out what you think “privately”, it’s no longer private, and people not liking what was said publicly isn’t “thought policing”.
Secondly, Protons actions include supporting this wackjob’s “private” thoughts.. Even by your asinine rubric, they’re allowed to be judged on that.
It’s not thought policing. Proton, a company all about privacy, is literally nothing without the trust of its user base. Aligning with someone who is not trustworthy by making a statement that makes no sense (literally saying Trump’s administration will be anti-big tech while it’s been gaining shit tons of support from the Tech Titans Musk, Bezos, and Zuck) completely debases that trust. Additionally it’s not thought policing because companies are not people and cannot think.
Even if it was thought policing, in line with the Social Contract of Tolerance, there is no room to tolerate, let alone vocally support, fascists.
“Thought policing” is when you coerce someone to change their thoughts against their will. It is not boycotting a service because one does not agree with the service owner’s thoughts. That is not thought policing. That is a purely voluntary transaction on both sides, and that is one’s right as a consumer of said service. He is not entitled to customers.
Literal thought policing (“what you privately think”)
Are you suggesting that a statement that he made is not what he thinks?
quasi-religious purity logic (“has tainted Proton”)
lol, sorry you’re incapable of processing descriptive language :) I’ll rephrase it to ‘has negatively affected Proton’s image in the eyes of some’.
This nicely reveals the kind of busybodying inquisitorial mindset that keeps losing elections for US progressives and thus landing the rest of the world with Trump.
Neither I, nor Proton, are American so its difficult to see how my opinion keeps landing the world with Trump.
hey i remember you from yesterday’s thread, where you called the official proton’s account doubling down “significant if true” and still haven’t changed your tune
They walked it back and apologized.
If an employee did this and there was this much backlash that said employee would be promptly fired…
In the US maybe, in the EU? Only if you want to get sued and then forced to re-hire them.
He isn’t an employee tho, he’s a member of a board of trustees of the non-profit organization who owns Proton AG. The other board members could say that he’s veering off-couse from the mission of the non-profit and remove him. (But then this move could also angers the right-wing “libertarian” tech-bro types of people that use Proton. So this political debacle was gonna fuck up the trust in Proton either way, Andy should’ve just STFU to begin with.)
I’m not sure about that. There are a lot of right wingers who also use proton (ya know, like the right wing “libertarian” tech-bro types). If they remove Andy from the board, there no doubt Proton is getting labeled as “woke”, they lose either way. Honestly, making political comments in the first place, is just a no-win scenario for a privacy-focused mission, which wasn’t even that left-right partisan to begin with. He should have just STFU, and everything would be fine.
agreeing with Republicans on one specific issue (antitrust enforcement to protect small companies)
Where is he getting this bullshit from that republicans actually want to do antitrust lol
By cherry picking a few Republican priorities designed to spite big tech and totally ignoring the big enforcement efforts that the Biden administration has pursued through the FTC and the DOJ Antitrust Division, in both tech and non-tech industries.
from https://lemmy.ca/comment/13913116
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.
At a 2024 event covering antitrust remedies, out of all the invited senators, just a single one showed up - JD Vance.
Chuck Schumer is democrat, JD Vance is republic. Would guess opinion based on personal experience with few people.
Why does his username have “88” in binary 🧐
The number 8 is lucky to Chinese people. Source: I am Chinese
Is it normal to double it up?
Yes, doubling characters or numbers is common in Chinese to insist on the item.
At weddings, you will see lots of double happiness characters for example.
“Everybody” is literally the character for people that is repeated, so “yan yan”.
Because of fucking course it does. 🤦♂️😮💨
He might be born on 1988, although I could not verify this. He started his PhD on 2009, that’d make him 21 at that time, which is not unusual
He replied to a comment on reddit that it’s his birth year.
https://old.reddit.com/r/ProtonMail/comments/1i2nz9v/on_politics_and_proton_a_message_from_andy/m7g9jo0/?context=10000
Bruh, just “Andy1988” would’ve been a better username 🤦♂️
21 is quite young for a doctorate degree. Most people only have a bachelor’s degree by 22.
Not that unusual IMO, lots of people start their PhD directly after completing their Bachelor’s. If they weren’t born born in the first half of the year then they’ll have completed their BS by 21 and start the PhD either at 21 or 22.
A PhD is a mutli-year committment, usually right about 4 years before you’re ready to argue your dissertation.
Like, a PhD program is basically 1/3 doing your research, 1/3 being a TA, and 1/3 being an RA.
They’re saying he could have started his PhD at 21, not finished it at 21. That age checks out if he was born in 1988.
88 was my favorite number for a long time until I found out that Nazis were using it. Bummer. I’m weirdly still sad about it.
I can’t even tell you why it was my favorite number. I think as a kid, I always heard people pick 7 and I just wanted to be different so I leaned into 8s. Idk.
Now, I struggles because I like 8s but I don’t want to be a Nazi. F’ing Nazis ruin everything.
Guess I could just like 8 or 888, haha.
I’m still confused how he could have been dumb enough to think, let alone imply, let alone say out loud, that Republicans want to reign in big tech, when they so transparently want to capture it and make it an even worse version of itself. It’s not that everything they do is a cynical power grab, it’s that everything they do is a blatant cynical power grab, and being in the privacy business without having a perfectly clear understanding of that feels equivalent to not knowing what a VPN is.
His statement here is great, and I support it whole-heartedly and unabashedly. It just feels almost…I don’t know, unrelated somehow? Even though ostensibly it isn’t.
I’m personally satisfied with the statement, position and reflection on the issue.
It was a fuck-up to publicly respond to donaldtrump in what could be seen as an endorsement. This was acknowledged and remedied.
The no politics stance is probably unavoidable, as mentioned but they should never focus on political parties, but on defending the values, this is what is clarified and that’s best. We should accept to support a bill strengthening privacy even if it may come from a political party we generally do not support. Denying our support to such a bill would not strengthen the core value we defend. And as individuals we may still criticize all other activities of such a political party if we disagree with others of their activities.
As a community, I hope we can come together, and resist the temptation of purity tests, and acknowledge that we are all fighting for the same cause, no matter our perspective on other issues. We need the support of everyone.
We should accept to support a bill strengthening privacy even if it may come from a political party we generally do not support.
Nobody on the left, afaik, rejects bills out of hand, purely because of which party promulgates it… The problem is, while the American Reich talks a lot about worker’s issues, the bills they propose are just oligarch hand outs, cloaked in socialist or populist ideas. ie, The PATRIOT Act was the least patriotic bill ever put forth, but NOBODY was allowed to be unPATRIOTic and vote against it. The left, opposed it. Same with the 1993 Crime Bill, put forth by Dems… Can’t be “anti-crime” now can we?
we are all fighting for the same cause
Catering to the “Libertarian” neo-Nazi crowd so they buy your product vs wanting to defend minorities against these sort of people is not the same cause
You’re confusing proton with our stance as a community which cares about privacy.
As a community the question is, will we shun anyone who cares about furthering our rights to privacy, because they have other stances on other issues?
Doing so is only isolating us and prevents us from making our issues heard and gathering more support across the political spectrum.
You can fight alongside someone you don’t agree with on other topics. It is not an endorsement for all they stand for.
will we shun anyone who cares about furthering our rights to privacy, because they have other stances on other issues?
The Reich Wing doesn’t want to further your rights to privacy. Their “other stances” are that some humans are sub-human, and deserve to be extinct.
So, yes, you shun the people who think some humans are sub-human.
Perhaps I need to review my thoughts and either see how I really feel about this topic or find another way to express them.
Either way, you are making a compelling argument and I am not in disagreement.
I don’t value privacy for the sake of privacy, I value it because it’s useful for defending against capitalists and fascists who want an unequal society that commits genocides and incarcerates people for immutable characteristics. Fascists don’t value privacy for the sake of privacy either, for them it’s a tool to further their goals of creating the worst society possible. It comes down to a left vs right issue, I picked one side, and Proton picked to promote the other.
His main point is outright wrong though. Republicans are not better at anti-trust, they’re the big money. Thinking Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos will protect small tech companies is laughable.
This comment is not the original. He changed it.
They seem to be two separate things. One is a comment, the other is a post.
Either way, if he believes this:
Until corporate Dems are thrown out, the reality is that Republicans remain more likely to tackle Big Tech abuses.
he’s fucking dumb as a hammer
He’s not wrong. There’s a reason all tech billionaires switched to the Republican party when it became clear their dem donations wouldn’t help them any more.
When’s the last time the gop did something to prevent an abuse of any kind?
When was the last time the Dems did?
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau?
This article goes into some details that I’ll just recklessly post a big section of here:
Then, after he won the election, Biden committed to the cause like no other president had in modern times. He appointed one of the movement’s brightest and most aggressive reformers, Lina Khan, to run the FTC, as well as other fierce critics of corporate concentration in key posts, including Jonathan Kanter, who took over the antitrust division of the DOJ, and Tim Wu, who became a key economic adviser inside the White House. Six months after taking office, Biden issued a whole-of-government executive order that called on 17 different government agencies to take 72 actions to foster competition and protect consumers against monopolies. As a result, agencies like the FTC, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the Food and Drug Administration have cracked down on public scourges like price gouging, noncompete contracts, and banking-related junk fees, and created new rules to make consolidated industries like the hearing aid market more competitive.
Under Kanter and Khan, the DOJ and FTC have also filed far more ambitious antitrust investigations than any administration in decades. Last summer, an investigation into several food production conglomerates over wage suppression and collusion resulted in an $85 million settlement, one of several successful DOJ investigations into no-poach and wage-fixing schemes across the economy. In December, the FTC successfully blocked the medical data firm IQVIA’s attempt to monopolize the business of advertising to doctors through the purchase of an ad tech company called DeepIntent. And in January, a judge sided with the DOJ in its suit against a JetBlue-Spirit merger, the first successful prosecution of an airline merger in 40 years.
The effect of a more aggressive posture from regulators goes beyond favorable court rulings: Under the threat of litigation, Amazon, Lockheed Martin, Berkshire Hathaway, and the chipmaker Nvidia were some of the companies to back off multibillion-dollar acquisitions of smaller firms. Biden’s regulators filed a record 50 antitrust enforcement actions last year, and mergers dropped to a 10-year low.
These actions don’t get media attention because the media treats the government like some reality TV bullshit
Yeah because Trump will run it like musk runs Twitter. Bezos lost a huge contract last time he refused to bend the knee to Trump.
Yep, I especially appreciate the lack of apologies. An easy cop out would be to say he’s sorry but what would he be sorry for when he didn’t say anything wrong? This is a great response, and the only possible one. And still people will call it damage control.
Full context here for everyone.
Personally, that answer does not seem nearly enough and I believe he should step down if he truly cared about the Proton project as a whole.
Stepping down would be a step in the right direction.
👆
