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.
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.
👆
If an employee did this and there was this much backlash that said employee would be promptly fired…
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
Why does his username have “88” in binary 🧐
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
21 is quite young for a doctorate degree. Most people only have a bachelor’s degree by 22.
Because of fucking course it does. 🤦♂️😮💨
The lines between fact (…) and opinion can be blurry at times
Are they though?
Andy Yen, perched on ivory tower: “Why yes, they are a bit blurry up here.”
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
Words are nothing, Andy should step away from proton.
are you basing this on previous words he used ?
It’s funny how people completely lost their minds when they could see a potential connection between what he said and some political side while those same people are perfectly fine with ignoring what’s really wrong with Proton and its marketing - even though it all goes against their core beliefs of “privacy” “security” “open-source” etc.
Edit to include what I didn’t have time to type:
Any e-mail service that doesn’t provide standard IMAP/SMTP directly to their servers and uses custom protocols is yet another attempt at vendor lock-in and nobody should use it.
What Proton is doing is pushing for vendor lock-in at any possible point so you’re stuck with what they deem acceptable because it’s easier for them to build a service this way and makes more sense from a business / customer retention perspective. Proton is doing to e-mail about the same that WhatsApp and Messenger did to messaging - instead of just using an open protocol like XMPP they opted for their closed thing in order to lock people into their apps. People in this community seem to be okay with this just because they sell the “privacy” cool-aid.
People complain when others use Google or Microsoft for e-mail around here, but at least in those providers you can access your e-mail through standard protocols. How ironic it is to see privacy / freedom die hard fans suddenly going for a company that is far less open than the big providers… just because of marketing. :)
Proton is just a company that wants profits and found out there was a niche of people who would buy into everything that they label as “encryption” and “privacy” no matter what the cost. They’ve learnt how to weaponize “privacy” to push more and more vendor lock-in. Not even Apple does this bullshit.
Now, I can see anyone commenting “oh but they have to it because of security” - no they don’t. That’s bullshit.
Any generic IMAP/SMPT provider + Thunderbird + PGP will provide the same level of security that Proton does - that is assuming they didn’t mess their client-side encryption/decryption or key storage in some way. PGP makes sure all your e-mail content is encrypted and that’s it, doesn’t matter if it’s done by Thunderbird and the e-mails are stored in Gmail OR if it’s done by the Proton bridge and the e-mails are on their servers, the same PGP tech the only difference is the client. So, no, there isn’t the reason to do it the way they do it besides vendor lock-in.
I understand your concerns of vendor lock-in. The fear is that it could avoid people leaving the service in the future. However, do you know that I use a generic email client that, through IMAP, contains a Proton account?
What is wrong Proton and their marketing?
Don’t feed the trolls. This is an obvious attempt to divert the conversation.
Any e-mail service that doesn’t provide standard IMAP/SMTP directly to their servers and uses custom protocols is yet another attempt at vendor lock-in and nobody should use it.
What Proton is doing is pushing for vendor lock-in at any possible point so you’re stuck with what they deem acceptable because it’s easier for them to build a service this way and makes more sense from a business / customer retention perspective. Proton is doing to e-mail about the same that WhatsApp and Messenger did to messaging - instead of just using an open protocol like XMPP they opted for their closed thing in order to lock people into their apps. People in this community seem to be okay with this just because they sell the “privacy” cool-aid.
People complain when others use Google or Microsoft for e-mail around here, but at least in those providers you can access your e-mail through standard protocols. How ironic it is to see privacy / freedom die hard fans suddenly going for a company that is far less open than the big providers… just because of marketing. :)
Proton is just a company that wants profits and found out there was a niche of people who would buy into everything that they label as “encryption” and “privacy” no matter what the cost. They’ve learnt how to weaponize “privacy” to push more and more vendor lock-in. Not even Apple does this bullshit.
Now, I can see anyone commenting “oh but they have to it because of security” - no they don’t. That’s bullshit.
Any generic IMAP/SMPT provider + Thunderbird + PGP will provide the same level of security that Proton does - that is assuming they didn’t mess their client-side encryption/decryption or key storage in some way. PGP makes sure all your e-mail content is encrypted and that’s it, doesn’t matter if it’s done by Thunderbird and the e-mails are stored in Gmail OR if it’s done by the Proton bridge and the e-mails are on their servers, the same PGP tech the only difference is the client. So, no, there isn’t the reason to do it the way they do it besides vendor lock-in.
Folks, don’t take this obvious bait.
a hobbyist after mine own heart
