I’m having a lot of trouble parsing any of this.

In what sense does the election being over render it not a matter of picking? Slater’s selection is a nomination, you could select one person at the expense of another, to better or worse ends, so in any ordinary english language sense, there is indeed a pick.

By contrast, Lori Chavez-DeRemer was selected for labor secretary, which has been celebrated by people who are normally Trump critics. Because there are such things as better or worse picks.

With regards of antitrust and big tech, Trump can do nothing, worse or better.

Again: what? Trump gets to appoint the DoJ’s Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Associate Attorney General, Solicitor General, 93 DoJ Attorneys, heads of a bunch of individual departments in the DoJ which each have hundreds of staff, and will likely appoint hundreds of new judges. Not only can Trump do something, his actions will be the single most dominating force determining the trajectory of anti-trust environment.

What’s more, as a commenter above noted, Lina Kahn is a perfect example of how influential these appointments can be, as we’ve seen some of the most ambitious anti-trust action in decades.

If “big tech is not restrained” it’s going to be the same or worse, so why we wouldn’t be happy at least if that happens?

They’re probably not even right, in the first instance, that big tech will be better restrained. The elephant in the room rendering this whole line of thinking preposterous, is Lina Khan’s extremely aggressive record on this won’t be matched even by a “good” Trump appointee, and in fact has been vehemently opposed by R’s through her whole tenure.

I didn’t read a celebration of Trump as a win for human rights tout court, which could have prompted this response

Right, but that’s the point. Nobody would credit Trump as a champion of human rights, which reveals why it’s so short-sighted to uphold him or R’s as leading lights on a topic such as privacy, which falls under the umbrella of a subject matter that we’re all agreeing he doesn’t care about.

It’s precisely because of the absence of consistent commitments on every other front that also belongs in the same category, that of human rights writ large, that it’s silly to celebrate the one exception to an otherwise negative record. And it’s hard to take statements seriously that treat that totality as if it embodies a pure commitment to virtues of an ideal, free and open internet.

Right, I follow your take here as the one that makes the most sense. This makes a lot more sense as the tech companies attempting to head off a potentially adversarial relationship.

Woah… an actually rock-solid account of problems with Proton! Nicely done.

This contrasts with the incoherent conspiracy theory spaghetti that has sometimes been trotted out to make the case against them.

People don’t accidentally get on a board. The whole idea is that you actively search for and interview and even recruit people who best embody the values of your project. Then you get nominated and often voted.

It’s so all over the map, what does or doesn’t count as toughness. That criteria rewrites itself in real time like the plot of a dream.

Avoiding or ignoring questions I would have thought is weakness. Letting covid sweep the country. Falling behind China and India with a weaker labor force. Being ready to surrender to Russia. Being unable to confront the truth that you lost an election.

Any number of mixed and matched definitions could include or exclude those from operative definitions of toughness/weakness without and make just as much sense. It’s all just working backwards from tribalism.

It was intended to kind of be my new primary universe for personal communications, leaving behind Google for work/biz.

But… maybe the water is warmer at Tutanota?

Also the obviously reactionary and self-interested history of right wing reaction to FAANG, which largely has been fueled by a backlash to restraints on misinformation, and is riddled with special case exceptions (e.g. Palestine).

By my lights your response is quite effective, and while I appreciate the modesty I think it’s appropriate to bring it over here:

Unfortunately, there’s a line beyond which it’s not okay to view a political party through one issue, and IMO the Republicans have crossed that line.

Privacy is a human rights issue. Republicans have signaled very strongly that they’re going to violate more human rights. It’s a net loss for privacy if that happens, even if big tech is a bit more restrained.

I’m sorry @protonprivacy, you’ve failed this test IMO. It would be one thing to say that given that the Republicans are in power, that Gail Slater is a good pick, but that’s not the stance you took.

WELP

Idk why but I love this post haha