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.
Is he really using u/andy1011000? And he just started now? That's binary for andy88, and isn't 88 a well-known neo-Nazi dogwhistle as idiot code for "heil Hitler"?
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.
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"
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.
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?
To be honest, many of not most CEOs probably privately think that way because it's advantageous to their business. It's a product of how the government is owned by the corporations. We all hate it but it's simply The current state of affairs. It's literally his job not to let it out into public that he feels that way.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
The communication that kicked off this whole thing was saying something positive about Trump and something negative about Democrats in direct comparison, on an issue that the Democrats are actually way better on.
It's not just saying something positive about a political official or party. It's actively saying "this party is better than that party." And he was wrong on the merits of the statement.
And then amplifying the message using an official account is where it went off the rails. CEOs are allowed to have opinions as individuals. But when the official account backs up the CEO, then we can rightly be skeptical that the platform itself will be administered in a fair way.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
IDC as long as they are not bending their knees to European countries that the EU hasn't yet kicked out. But mainly I don't care because I'm not American.
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 lean left on some issues, and right on other issues
Holy shit I feel so STUPID for giving $30 a month for this clown. I am so pissed, I hate myself for allowing myself to migrate my stuff all over thinking it would be fine. I am so fucking pissed right now.
Whole cognitive dissonance thing is stronger in American than Russia at this point Putin's won.
Can't even like a single policy idea that's good and talk about it being good.
I'm confused why this is even a big deal and I fucking hate trump.
I think half the morons on the Internet forget the way to manipulate trump is to praise him and then you can convince him to do good or bad. Or whatever. Hes worse than Joe Rogan. He just parrots the last person who stroked his ego.
Almost without fail, every service that touches creeptocurrencies goes into a decline.
Don't expect Proton to make virtuous ethical choices anytime soon, especially now that Trump joined the cult. Once the greed bug has bitten, making a profit supersedes delivering a good product as the primary objective.
Crypto Cult Science
"Money corrupts; bitcoin corrupts absolutely. Disregarding all of bitcoin's shortcomings, a financial instrument that brings out the worst in people—greed—won't change the world for the better." —https://www.arscyni.cc/file/crypto_cult_science.html
I mean, I’m all for crypto, but proton posting about holding BTC is cringe
I don’t agree with your first sentence though. There is some logic to using crypto, but solely using it as « haha numbers go up, profit, profit! » is stupid
There is some logic to using crypto, but solely using it as « haha numbers go up, profit, profit! » is stupid
I heavily agree with this. I see too much blanket anti-crypto sentiment regardless of the possible use case.
When I pay for my VPN, paying in XMR means they can't tie my real-world name and address from my card to my account. That's objectively beneficial compared to my VPN knowing my exact name and address in conjunction with my browsing activity.
If I want to donate to a creative in a different country but they can't use traditional banking rails that connect to my country, how else do I send them money online?
Sure, there's a ton of issues with crypto not just in practice, but even in concept, but as you said, there is some logic to using crypto.