sudneo @ sudneo @lemm.ee

🇮🇹 🇪🇪 🖥

---

Read more

Posts

0

Comments

569

Joined

1 yr. ago

So, to get this straight, for you it's impossible to recognize that a pick for a position is a good pick in the Trump government, by definition, without consideration of the actual pick?

To me this is religion, not politics or ideology (which I both consider very good things). To be even more clear, I consider Andy's position completely rational and legitimate in this case. I believe it's absolutely legitimate to be happy Trump picked someone good for a position and at the same time not support the rest 98%. At most, the interesting debate is why that pick is not good, which is 100% opinable and worthy of a discussion.

But saying that any statement, in any context, whatever narrow and specific equal full support is completely insane to me.

A conversation you never decided to engage, only to derail because apparently for you it must be really hard to say that you didn't read the post completely, or that you missed something. You did clear mistakes (factual, logical, not opinions) in such a brief conversation, but somehow you are acting all wise "conversations change". Sure they do, when you want to change topic because saying " yep, in retrospective it was stupid mentioning the last 50 years and I didn't consider how much the argument I wanted to debate relies on a supposed change that I disagree happened". This is pretty much all there was to say. I did for you, so now I can go live in peace.

unable to move on or offer actual real opinions

You are so wise. It only you simply acknowledged the first point without moving the goalpost and adding random stuff everytime.

I have never been interested in discussing opinions with you, I wanted to point out that your line of reasoning made no sense. However, you couldn't critically reflect on your fallacy and you tried making stuff up to drag me into a conversation.

attempt to argue semantics

I didn't attempt, I did. And I didn't argue semantics, I argue logic.

Anyway, thanks. Cya

I like that you start referencing history yourself tho

Please, please tell me you are not referring to highlighting what the guy wrote.

To be honest I don't care what I remind you off. You hallucinate worse than chatGPT, and you seem to have really hard time reading what other people write, both me and Andy Yen.

You are one of the many people whose heart is in the right place, but for some reason feel the need to make stuff up to make their argument more compelling. It's not an "obsession for semantics", it's an allergy for bullshit.

How do you think a company should pay for your free tear service? If you give your marginal market signal that you are not available to pay for services, companies will use business models that don't rely on that.

Also it's self-absolution to say that even companies you pay snoop on you. There are many serious companies that offer great services for a price and respect your privacy, because it's their interest to do so. Proton, kagi but even Garmin for example.

even then I avoid subs and prefer one-time payments instead

I understand, but this simply doesn't make sense for services that have running costs forever. A pay-as-you-go model or subscription makes more sense here.

In general

that signals that if you want to get my money, you have to do lots more than simply have a mouth to run

It doesn't. It only signals you are not available to pay their current price for that service. For most companies the only option is to get the money from someone else, for example selling your data.

As a user who cares about privacy, we should incentivise healthy business models that allow us to pay with out money and not with our data. Stopping to do this in principle ("I avoid paying for a service if I can") because the CEO expresses an opinion you disagree with seems just fishing for a justification. Of course your money are yours and you do what you want, but don't be surprised when there are no good privacy respecting services to choose from.

Unfortunately that was misinterpreted. If you go back to the original tweet in question, it is clear from the context that that [little guy, n.d.r] is about "little tech" vs "big tech".

From one of Andy's comments on Reddit.

So the target of that sentence is not "the working class", and the conversation is way more specific about tech/monopolies.

Do you realize that this means supporting an ad-driven business model (in general, for proton your ability to use the services for free is thanks to paying users), which in turns is what incentives data collection and privacy violations, right?

Also mail has a slightly higher moving cost than other services, where "changing" is usually three clicks to cancel the subscription and be done with it.

So my take is that (if you can afford it) paying for services incentivises healthy business models for services, that helps develop tools that don't harm users (to serve advertisers). The alternative is worse than paying money to a company with a guy who expressed an opinion we disagree with IMHO, but you do you.

No.

All that happened is that the official social media account on mastodon and reddit reposted what was Andy's reply as an official message. It was some internal fuck up apparently, and that's why they deleted it.

Even in the worst case scenario, the board has nothing to do with it, because this would be the Proton company, not the nonprofit (which controls the company).

Please, don't make stuff up...

Ahaha you still didn't get it. I don't care if there was a shift or not. That was their argument, not mine. However, whether the shift was there or not, IT IS IMPLICIT in an argument that mentions a shift that before the shift this didn't apply. Therefore it's simply useless to counter THAT argument with "you missed the last 50 years". I didn't throw any propaganda. I didn't even make an argument. You are just trying to pidgeonhole me into a stereotypical position to attack me, because apparently you can't understand what a methodological remark is.

I will skip over the next paragraphs where you talk about " regulating tech" but you talk about free speech and fake news (that has NOTHING to do with antitrust and monopolies). I do that because I agree, but it's a completely separate conversation, that has no relationship with the context of Andy's tweet or our discussion.

really just code for threatening them into allowing them to openly lie to people

You are saying this as if this didn't regularly happen for years though...

Not for Sudneo though, he thinks billionaires care about him.

I am a communist lol. I would like to see Musk 3 meters under the soil. Please stop making shit up to attack people.

Politics don't exist just in the moment and I find it disturbing you don't care about history

See the beginning of this comment. It's not about not caring, is that what you think is an argument against THEIR position is actually PART of their argument already. Again, a LOGICAL issue. I don't care about discussing if dem or rep are pro big or small businesses and in which measure, for me American politics is small flavours of right wing, and I have the fortune of not having to vote there.

Perhaps this is all driven by the thought that this administration is different.

Yet another fallacy. have you even read the tweet? Like I do agree with you, but holy shit at the end of a 200 characters sentence the guy said that the antitrust against Google or something was started during the Trump administration. So no, it's not about being different, I guess, it's about continuing with what the guy (him, not me) says it's a trend. You disagree and that's great, go debate him on why it won't happen.

Personally, and THIS is my opinion as an outsider, I think this administration is awful and it's going to fuck up so many things. That said, I will be pleasantly surprised if it will work on breaking some monopolies, even if for all the wrong reasons.

He already clarifies that it's his personal opinion and not a company position, which has the policy to maintain political neutrality (whatever that means), which is the reason why they deleted replies from official accounts. See the reddit post he did or his comments.

On what ground anybody should demand his removal? Based on a personal opinion expressed on twitter, which is at most a naive speculation of what the Trump administration will do in the area of antitrust and big tech?

It's not a matter of pretending. The fact that there has been a shift is his/their point. If there is a shift it's implicit that before the shift the situation was different, hence the absurdity of "consider the last 50 years". You want to contest the fact that there is been a shift, that's great. But trying to debate the whole argument with "look at the last 50 years" doesn't touch their argument at all.

Also, in the context of his tweet "the little guy" are small businesses, not the common men. He clarified this point in a reddit comment somewhere, where he mentions small businesses vs big tech. You can go check it out.

Edit: see https://www.reddit.com/r/ProtonMail/comments/1i2nz9v/on_politics_and_proton_a_message_from_andy/m7hfhdh/

Pretending you can critique an argument without the knowledge of the past and an unwillingness to discuss the details is something else. Truly some peanut gallery level of nonsense.

I am not sure what obsession you have with "pretending", but I was not pretending anything. Arguments can be debated in the method or in the merit. In your case the method seemed to be wrong to me and I stated that. Logically was just inconsequential. This is something that doesn't depend on the validity of the argument or on my position, it's just a methodological observation.

You might be right as far as I am concerned, but your argument was absurd nevertheless.

Not entering in the details of the argument, but are you seriously answering an argument that includes "noticing a change in the last years" with "look at the previous 50 years"? From a purely methodological point of view seems completely illogical to do so.

The thing is, I don't really care about her, I don't know what she is going to do. My focus in this whole debacle has been mostly on making sure we are discussing about what was actually said. Anybody can have their own opinion on what she is going to do or not do, and it's totally fine to have a conversation about that and dissent. They are speculation either way and fully opinable on both side, we can only wait and judge actions anyway. However, thinking that she is going to do well is not equivalent to be a Nazi by association, supporting Trump in general or anything like that.

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.

Same discussion as per the other thread. We clearly disagree on what is the scope of that "praise". As such, we will never agree.

Because it's so obvious given the rest of the context? I don't know, but unless you want to intentionally misunderstand to critique him on things he quite clearly didn't mean, it makes no sense to assume that:

• a tech ceo
• of a company based in Switzerland
• of a company that is a direct competitor of US tech monopolies
• citing a tweet about antitrust
• who spoke before about the very same topic of antitrust and monopolies in tech

Is talking about big and small business in general in the US economy. Honestly, to me is obvious, maybe the above is not enough for you, in that case I will leave you to your opinion.

Edit: See https://www.reddit.com/r/ProtonMail/comments/1i29k9t/proton_shouldnt_use_their_official_socials_to/m7cqw5j/ where he mentions:

protecting small companies from Big Tech abuse

The context is so clearly big tech and monopolies that I feel silly even pointing it out. It's relevant in the context of the quoted tweet, it's obvious considering what proton is and does, it's consistent with opinions previously expressed by the same guy on antitrust. The little guy here is opposed to "big businesses".

Like no, this conversation is absolutely scoped to big tech/monopolies/antitrust.

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.

How is this relevant when talking about tech, and when talking about tech monopolies specifically?

They are, but US antitrust/monopolies affect the market worldwide. In https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerhuang/2022/12/27/andy-yen-ceo-of-proton-on-the-tech-giants-that-dominate-the-internet-the-webs-future-and-bitcoin/ the same guy discusses the issue in more details.