Unnecessary and deeply concerning bow to the new “king”

Update: position got backed up by an official Proton post on Mastodon, it’s an official Proton statement now. https://mastodon.social/@protonprivacy/113833073219145503

Update 2, plot-twist: they removed this response from Mastodon - seems they realize it exploded into their face!

  • sudneo@lemm.ee
    2·
    9 hours ago

    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.

    • Doomsider@lemmy.world
      3·
      2 hours ago

      Not all of us are young people who have no recollection of the history of the Republican party. Pretending that there has been some dramatic shift in the last few years is simply false.

      Even more false is stating that Republicans are the party of the common man or that they will be the ones to regulate big tech to fix the issues we are facing.

      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.

      • sudneo@lemm.ee
        1·
        17 minutes ago

        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.