A subset were also upset with the nature of the endorsement.
And then you could also discuss whether a CEO of a company has to consider what they say, regardless if they're using an official account or not. This is more of a gray area, and has people divided.
I'm personally of the opinion that, as a CEO, you're always representing your company when speaking to the public to some extent.
Andy, or someone else, posted what can be read as an endorsement[1].
> Until corporate Dems are thrown out, the reality is that Republicans remain more likely to tackle Big Tech abuses.
Putting aside that this was a divisive statement, the problem emerged when this was posted by the official company account.
For the duration of time that this was the official response, it's not unreasonable for the public to assume that Andy, or someone else, endorsed a political party using the official company account.
This is the core of what caused the incident to escalate.
It was later retracted, and followed up with a statement[2] on the incident.
[2]: https://www.reddit.com/r/ProtonMail/comments/1i2nz9v/on_poli...
By contrast, Democrats nominated her to be commissioner, officially it was Biden who did so but Elizabeth Warren, another Democrat, is the one who really pushed for it.
Words don't mean shit compared to action.
With your kind of reasoning its pretty obvious why America is currently driving itself off a cliff.
The statement maybe retracted but the message and statement and ideology remain. I cannot trust your organization based on your CEO.
The irony is the collection of big-tech that showed up for and financially supported Trump. This has a great profound outlook on real antitrust action towards those individuals and their organizations. Actions are more verbose than words but often ignored.
I've subscribed to Proton for several years, and I now deeply regret my decision. Regardless of any explanations about the removal of the statement or internal miscommunication, the damage is already done.
And to consider all of it you unfortunately have to have been red-pilled in the past.
If you can consider it, than everything above is like 1% as bad as silence during the prior administration.
Edit: I get it, you're arguing for your favorite political party. Not interested.
Of course not, but there's a difference between disagreeing with which is the best recipe for a cheesecake, the best castle in France, or whether or not it's acceptable to invade your neighbouring countries, if the government should be following the law/constitution, or basic biology, etc.
Some opinions one disagrees with are very worth to be up in arms. I'd even say that people have a civic duty of being up in arms against certain egregious topics. Say if a politician says that they want to allow for 9 year olds to be married to adults; or a rich guy backing multiple politicians all over the world Sieg Heils on national television; or a politician that just got elected is asking for money for favours from companies; or there's talk of "other"ing significant swathes of the population.
It reminds me of this sketch: https://youtu.be/zvgZtdmyKlI
You sound like an ideological extremist to make such a big deal out of that. I think you are the one who has a defective thought process.
This is the post. Just expressing a normal political opinion. https://x.com/andyyen/status/1864436449942110660
Well, I wouldn't go that far. But out of curiosity, which two do you think it doesn't check?
> Well, I wouldn't go that far.
Which others do you feel are not applicable? I have concrete examples for all of the others.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-01-28/trump-fir...
So we're pretty quickly heading toward #10 being checked off as well.
Regarding the last item, VP Trump said some weird things about President Musk helping with voting machines (during his speeches at the inauguration, or maybe in the days after -- I can't keep track anymore). To be clear, I don't think that rises to the level of "fraudulent elections." But it is something that I think is worth investigating further, if we as a nation care about free and fair elections anymore.
5. Rampant sexism. Sure, he's sexist, and he says sexist things. The person responsible for keeping all the people around him pulling in the same direction is a woman, though. So are some of his cabinet nominees. So while he's in this direction, I don't think he's there yet.
6. Controlled mass media. Again, he's trying (the lawsuit against the pollster in Iowa is a really bad sign), but he's not there yet, not by a long shot. He arguably is trying for this one, more than the previous two.
7. Obsession with national security. Do you really think most Americans are living in fear of "them out there"? I don't. Migrants who are here, maybe. Crime, maybe. National security? Not really, no. (Unless you lump immigration with national security, which I suppose is defensible.)
12. Obsession with crime and punishment. The police haven't been given virtually unlimited power... at least not yet.
Look, I won't deny that he's trending in the wrong direction on many of these. It's worrying. (The ones I'm not arguing are even more worrying.) But I don't think he's as close as you're making it sound.
Sexism: Seriously? Not even going to comment on this one. If you don't see it, nothing will make you change your mind.
Controlled mass media: Facebook, Twitter, Whatsapp, Instagram, and TikTok are now all now definitively controlled by party loyalists. This is where most of the non-seniors in the country get their news these days.
Obsession with national security: immigration should absolutely be part of this and it's one of the defining topics of the administration thus far.
Obsession with crime and punishment: Trump has himself repeatedly stated that he is the "LAW AND ORDER" candidate (oftentimes via tweet, in all caps). This would be funny given his conviction on 34 felony counts, but I don't really consider anything about the administration to be funny anymore. Also, "The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism": Republicans do this all the time, especially if it involves white officers and Black victims. "Blue lives matter", etc.
This is kindergarten level of political analysis
Your comment on sexism made me laugh out loud
Everyone is fascist now. Meaningless buzzword.
You are a simpleton if you believe Democrats are pure innocent angels. That is idiotic.
The Proton CEO was not endorsing anything harmful. It was the exact opposite of that. Something wrong with your reading comprehension.
Not whataboutism.
You completely missed the point. It’s about the idiotic interpretation of the Proton CEO’s tweet. Kindergarten level of understanding of politics based on ultra dumbed down MSM propaganda for brain rotted individuals. He got attacked for nothing by shit for brains Redditors.
Why is a privacy focused company from Switzerland kissing the ring? It’s a relevant question given the business they are in.