• 1 Post
  • 308 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 1st, 2023

help-circle

  • ysjet@lemmy.worldtoPrivacy@lemmy.mlRecommended me a good private email provider
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    Unfortunately, several of the author’s conclusions are drawn from either errors or outright lies, or simply things being swept aside. Several of Andy’s later posts are ignored, as is the amount he doubled down. Him using the official proton accounts to call his statements the official proton stance is waved away. It basically only examines the cleaned up, shiny final version of events proton would like you to pretend happened after they deleted everything, instead of what actually happened. Worse, it pretends that was the only chain of events that happened. It’s straight up gaslighting.

    It’s a very, very biased article that doesn’t even attempt to do any kind of deep analysis and just tries to justify its stance by cherry picking, instead of actually looking at the facts and coming to a conclusion from there.


  • Are you kidding me right now? You call a fascist takeover a bit of “dissent” that we need to “relax a little” about?

    You think the CEO of a privacy company coming out in support of a dictator who wants to erode rights and abolish privacy laws, and believes in jailing dissenters, to not have gone rogue?

    We literally have American citizens being sent to an offshore military concentration camp so their lawful rights can be waived, and you think that’s okay?!


  • ysjet@lemmy.worldtolinuxmemes@lemmy.worldWhats his problem?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    4 days ago

    A massive, massive astroturfing campaign Epic Games paid for in hopes of tarnishing Valve and Gabe Newell’s reputation to try and bolster their failure of a shop ecosystem.

    Unfortunately, it worked, because there are people on the net who don’t remember the and days before steam, or even the initial versions of steam that people had Actual problems with, and not just made up ones.


  • ysjet@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzErasure
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    … See, now I’m just starting to think this whole thing is simply made up.

    I work in academia. A DEI committee is a specific thing that has specific duties, and they wouldnt even be involved in this sort of thing. No one is being hired, no one is lacking an accomodation or opportunity, no one is being excluded. "DEI Committee"is certainly a big Republican Boogeyman dogwhistle though. So I think I’m just done here.


  • ysjet@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzErasure
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    Where does rape apology come into it?

    And that’s not a problem with DEI, that’s a problem with academic politics, which is what it sounds to me like you got slapped with, in the best case.

    In the future, in academics you have to remember that the squeaky wheel does NOT get the grease, it’s considered a problem, annoying, distracting, and it gets removed so it goes away. You have to work bottom-up, not top-down. Top down is only an option when youre good friends with someone above them, or several someone on the same rung as them.

    tl;dr: DEI sn’t the problem, the problem is a toxic workplace. DEI or no DEI, toxic employees will find SOME kind of structure to exert their will. Throwing away good structures because bad people abuse them is active harm.


  • ysjet@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzErasure
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 days ago

    I cannot, as you clearly aren’t telling the whole story. All I can tell is that you’re telling a very biased story, and you’re blaming DEI for… squints hiring women? Hiring feminists? It’s hard to tell who exactly you’re blaming for fucking your advisor and not getting abackslap and cigar.

    Which is… Well, right up the alley of someone wanting rid of DEI I guess.







  • They can actually do a significant amount, like force a recorded vote. That means that everyone has to stand by and admit, on the record, what they’re voting for, which becomes voting fodder later. It also significantly slows down the passage of bad bills and allows them to potentially be tied up.

    They can also make frequent quorum calls, which also allow things to be tied up. Remember, these people are not working 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year- if you stall things enough they fall off the agenda entirely and suddenly republicans have to start prioritizing what shit they’re trying to ram down our throats.

    Additionally they can not do repugnant shit like agree to a unanimous consent time agreement, which speeds republicans atrocities through the senate- which Democrats literally just now did to fast track Gabbard through confirmation as the Director of National Intelligence.

    The minority party can ABSOLUTELY gum things up- there’s all KINDS of dilatory motions the minority party can do, but right now democrats seem wholly uninterested in actually being an opposition party. In fact, top Democrats are actually mad that progressives are calling for them to be an opposition group in a meeting on tuesday!




  • Fact check time!

    He praised trump for appointing someone into a role who is a big tech sceptic.

    Actually, no. See, she spent some time doing that, then left the FTC in 2014 to join the Internet Association, which is a big tech lobby group involving Google/Amazon/Facebook/eBay/etc. She was the vice-president, then later General Consel. While she was there, she helped spearhead the opposition to a California data privacy bill that would have required internet service providers to gasp obtain customer permission to collect and sell their browsing history. So basically, if you cherry pick her early career, sure, she’s skeptical of big tech… but if you actually look closer she pivoted later in life to become a big tech advocate/lobbyist that is strictly against privacy.

    However the issue is he then went on to make a broad generalisation about the republicans being the party of fhe people and the democrats being by the party of big business. Someone from proton doubled down on the assertion on social media.

    Several people from proton doubled down on that (blatantly and hilariously) false assertion on social media, several times, over several days, at one point even stating that it was Proton’s official stance. (That message was later deleted, and they tried to pretend it never happened, until proof was given. The pretending was then also deleted.

    That has caused offence in a era when US politics is extremely polarised and divided. The attitude is “if you’re for the other team, you’re the enemy”. But also people are angry at the company having an apparently right wing political stance.

    That’s a very passive voice you have going on there. You could write for US major media with that kind of skill.

    The fact is, right now we have a political party that is illegally rummaging through our personal information using unelected goons who literally stormed federal buildings and guerilla-installed unsecured personal servers to siphon off the data. If you think that shouldn’t ‘polarize’ people, especially when the point of gathering that information is to send innocent people to actual literal Guantanamo Bay, you’ve outed yourself. A right wing political stance in the US is, right now, a stance of being against privacy, against rights, and against due process. None of which are things the CEO of a privacy company should be.

    Personally I think this is overblown. I think its reasonable to be happy if someone anti big tech is appointed, but the broad sweeping comments about the parties was ill judged. However they have backed away from this position and made clear that proton in politically neutral.

    This is a VERY generous interpretation, followed immediately by blatant lies. They never backed away from this position- they doubled down on it over and over again, trying to justify themselves in front of waves of evidence otherwise. When the evidence grew too great, they simply stopped making statements and tried to pretend it didn’t exist and never happened.

    As for the absolutely absurd lie that proton is politically neutral, privacy is never politically neutral. Frankly, trying to pretend it’s politically neutral is a giant red flag. While it SHOULD be politically neutral, it is not. A privacy-focused company should very much be in favor of political advancements towards privacy and personal freedoms, which IS a stance.

    I see this as bad PR and on the spectrum of someone saying something stupid on twitter and then regretting it, but some people are treating it as an existenial threat for proton and a huge red flag.

    If 9 Republicans are at a table talking, and Andy Yen sits down at the table to chat with them, how many Republicans are at the table?