Proton will no longer post on Mastodon
-
There is nothing to debate because my summary and all your replies just reinforce my opinion of you. This is just my critical opinion though and it is not meant as an attack, but a wake up call. I appreciate the time and effort you put into this even if it is misplaced at best
We all know problems exist. We all know speech has consequences. A leader, particularly in business, has a special fiduciary responsibility to their business. If they choose to expose themselves as politically ignorant and supporting positions that are indefensible the consequences is they will lose business. This is all I am pointing out.
You conflate two things here which are a person's right to speak their mind and their responsibility to bigger issues. I get you want to hear their opinions and then play devil's advocate about them because that is just what you do.
You are clearly technically minded but you are also clearly not politically minded. Much like our errant CEO and reminiscent of when a US congressman tries to grasp web technology. They say a lot of ignorant things about tech just like Andy says ignorant things about politics.
Clearly you feel a kinship with this man because you are also heavily invested in the tech world. You defend him because you also admire him. No amount of debate or hand waving will change this immutable fact.
If they choose to expose themselves as politically ignorant and supporting positions that are indefensible the consequences is they will lose business. This is all I am pointing out.
Very easy to understand. But why should we (the customers, citizens, etc.) care? My interest is to have that knowledge, it's the shareholder interest to have the business succeeding, and they take care of that. So why from your words you seem to imply that it's "better" if they keep their mouth shut (and therefore protect the businesses)?
I get you want to hear their opinions and then play devil’s advocate about them because that is just what you do.
Unnecessary ad-hominem, which is also easily proved wrong. I hear the opinions of Musk, of Bezos (but also of Zuckerberg, of the Nvidia guy, of Altman and many others) and I am happy because with that information I can (and do) distance myself from their companies. In this case, I feel differently and therefore I take another decision.
I like to think that I can critically evaluate situations, but if the conclusion I end up with is different from yours it doesn't mean that mine is wrong by definition.You are clearly technically minded but you are also clearly not politically minded.
You are clearly wrong about this. I have nothing to prove obviously, but you can easily also see that by just browsing through other posts on my blog, for example this.
I will even go a step further and say that the purism and localism (as defined in this book) that emerges from your words is something I explicitly want to distance myself from, because it has proved to be a complete failure in terms of political battles.I am referring at things like:
It is clear no matter what corner of the Internet we run to as long as it is into the open arm of corporations it is a mistake.
Clearly you feel a kinship with this man because you are also heavily invested in the tech world. You defend him because you also admire him.
I don't. I actually can't care less about him, and I barely know anything about him. My involvement is very limited to this case, and that is because wanting to understand inevitably forced me to learn certain things and inform myself.
Please don't assume other people's positions. -
due to limited resources
Either:
- We have lost our password
- Our C and V keys are broken and we can not copy paste our social media messages anymore
It might be the Control key which broke.
-
If they choose to expose themselves as politically ignorant and supporting positions that are indefensible the consequences is they will lose business. This is all I am pointing out.
Very easy to understand. But why should we (the customers, citizens, etc.) care? My interest is to have that knowledge, it's the shareholder interest to have the business succeeding, and they take care of that. So why from your words you seem to imply that it's "better" if they keep their mouth shut (and therefore protect the businesses)?
I get you want to hear their opinions and then play devil’s advocate about them because that is just what you do.
Unnecessary ad-hominem, which is also easily proved wrong. I hear the opinions of Musk, of Bezos (but also of Zuckerberg, of the Nvidia guy, of Altman and many others) and I am happy because with that information I can (and do) distance myself from their companies. In this case, I feel differently and therefore I take another decision.
I like to think that I can critically evaluate situations, but if the conclusion I end up with is different from yours it doesn't mean that mine is wrong by definition.You are clearly technically minded but you are also clearly not politically minded.
You are clearly wrong about this. I have nothing to prove obviously, but you can easily also see that by just browsing through other posts on my blog, for example this.
I will even go a step further and say that the purism and localism (as defined in this book) that emerges from your words is something I explicitly want to distance myself from, because it has proved to be a complete failure in terms of political battles.I am referring at things like:
It is clear no matter what corner of the Internet we run to as long as it is into the open arm of corporations it is a mistake.
Clearly you feel a kinship with this man because you are also heavily invested in the tech world. You defend him because you also admire him.
I don't. I actually can't care less about him, and I barely know anything about him. My involvement is very limited to this case, and that is because wanting to understand inevitably forced me to learn certain things and inform myself.
Please don't assume other people's positions.You can only see better from your point of view that you want more knowledge. Keeping their mouth shut is what leaders do everyday to protect their business, their profits, their coworkers, etc.
I suppose you have to be a knowledgeable leader to understand this. We often thrust people into leadership positions and we end up with people like Andy as a result.
I don't pretend to the arbitrator of what is right or wrong, but I have learned a lot in my lifetime and calling a spade a spade is something I believe is important. You take all this so personally and thus show a certain level of immaturity as you probably feel I display as well.
Your proof of your political commentary only supports my assertion that you are very technically minded. Your critique of cloud computing shows your technical understanding is profound, but does little to forward a feeling that you are politically minded. You state yourself you are just learning about this which is very clear.
-
You can only see better from your point of view that you want more knowledge. Keeping their mouth shut is what leaders do everyday to protect their business, their profits, their coworkers, etc.
I suppose you have to be a knowledgeable leader to understand this. We often thrust people into leadership positions and we end up with people like Andy as a result.
I don't pretend to the arbitrator of what is right or wrong, but I have learned a lot in my lifetime and calling a spade a spade is something I believe is important. You take all this so personally and thus show a certain level of immaturity as you probably feel I display as well.
Your proof of your political commentary only supports my assertion that you are very technically minded. Your critique of cloud computing shows your technical understanding is profound, but does little to forward a feeling that you are politically minded. You state yourself you are just learning about this which is very clear.
I start to perceive a pinch of bad faith, and an excessive amount of paternalism. Your arguments are mostly ad hominem, so far you didn't produce much coherent criticism of ideas.
Anyway, you seem to have missed the point that understanding that "leaders" (BTW, you seem to use this term seriously like if we were on LinkedIn) keep their mouth shut is different from understanding my (ours) role into this dynamic.
I don't need any proof, that was just an example, from a very limited sample of my life which is this alias and that blog. I have nothing to prove or anything to defend from baseless accusations of a random internet person with lacking knowledge (about myself, which I hope you will agree).
You state yourself you are just learning about this which is very clear.
Here is the bad faith I was talking about. A sentence which clearly is out of context used for a very patronizing ad hominem.
-
I start to perceive a pinch of bad faith, and an excessive amount of paternalism. Your arguments are mostly ad hominem, so far you didn't produce much coherent criticism of ideas.
Anyway, you seem to have missed the point that understanding that "leaders" (BTW, you seem to use this term seriously like if we were on LinkedIn) keep their mouth shut is different from understanding my (ours) role into this dynamic.
I don't need any proof, that was just an example, from a very limited sample of my life which is this alias and that blog. I have nothing to prove or anything to defend from baseless accusations of a random internet person with lacking knowledge (about myself, which I hope you will agree).
You state yourself you are just learning about this which is very clear.
Here is the bad faith I was talking about. A sentence which clearly is out of context used for a very patronizing ad hominem.
Please don't lecture me about bad faith as you engage in bad faith. I will restate my premise that you came across as an apologist. This was a objectively true from my viewpoint as well as your perhaps inadvertent devil's advocacy (I am being generous here because maybe you have never thought about your behavior in this regard).
He was simply wrong for this statement. It was a half baked political opinion that did more harm than good. This is from the standpoint of an actual leader who has started businesses from the ground up.
You are just learning, and pointing out your own words is not bad faith. Your emotions get the better of you and it becomes about your ego at this point. You lack of self reflection in this matter is unbecoming.
-
That's not what privacy means. Mastodon is incredibly transparent that everything you do publicly is public - the threat model is very clear here.
Also you can't compare public tool used for tool interactions to a suite of private tools that is Proton or any other service.
Finally if all of the data is available public for anyone to access this means it's not exclusive to bad actors like ad machines, government spies etc.
Exactly. The Fediverse is transparent to all the bad actors and they don’t even have to pay for access.
-
Please don't lecture me about bad faith as you engage in bad faith. I will restate my premise that you came across as an apologist. This was a objectively true from my viewpoint as well as your perhaps inadvertent devil's advocacy (I am being generous here because maybe you have never thought about your behavior in this regard).
He was simply wrong for this statement. It was a half baked political opinion that did more harm than good. This is from the standpoint of an actual leader who has started businesses from the ground up.
You are just learning, and pointing out your own words is not bad faith. Your emotions get the better of you and it becomes about your ego at this point. You lack of self reflection in this matter is unbecoming.
I specifically quoted the part that I considered bad faith. I am OK with you thinking I am an apologist. I don't consider it bad faith (although I consider it wrong). What was bad faith was purposefully misinterpreting a sentence that was in a clear context so that you could use it for that patronizing statement.
This was a objectively true from my viewpoint
Nothing to say, it just sounds ironic to me. Again, I have no problem with your subjective judgment.
He was simply wrong for this statement.
And I respect your opinion.
that did more harm than good.
Now we ended up in an argument that has to do with result? I have never said that it was a good move. That it benefit the company or anything like that. What argument are you trying to challenge? I am judging the action based on my own morality, not based on whether it benefit him or his company.
You are just learning, and pointing out your own words is not bad faith
Strike two. Go re-read the sentence. I said that I didn't know anything about him before this debacle and that I ended up learning about him whole informing myself about it. For your convenience I will quote my own words:
I actually can't care less about him, and I barely know anything about him. My involvement is very limited to this case, and that is because wanting to understand inevitably forced me to learn certain things and inform myself.
This behavior (patronizing, intentionally misunderstanding other person sentences) for me is clearly a demonstration of bad faith. As usual, your accusation of bad faith did not specify any reason or quoted any part and i challenge you to do that.
Not that it matters to you, but next similar behavior and I will block you and move on.
-
I was subconciously always thinking "man, imagine if Proton screws up some day and all the people who switched to it have to switch away, that would suck" but didn't think it would actually happen, but man, with enshitification, it's actually possible lmao
Nothing will meaningfully improve until the rich fear for their lives
-
I specifically quoted the part that I considered bad faith. I am OK with you thinking I am an apologist. I don't consider it bad faith (although I consider it wrong). What was bad faith was purposefully misinterpreting a sentence that was in a clear context so that you could use it for that patronizing statement.
This was a objectively true from my viewpoint
Nothing to say, it just sounds ironic to me. Again, I have no problem with your subjective judgment.
He was simply wrong for this statement.
And I respect your opinion.
that did more harm than good.
Now we ended up in an argument that has to do with result? I have never said that it was a good move. That it benefit the company or anything like that. What argument are you trying to challenge? I am judging the action based on my own morality, not based on whether it benefit him or his company.
You are just learning, and pointing out your own words is not bad faith
Strike two. Go re-read the sentence. I said that I didn't know anything about him before this debacle and that I ended up learning about him whole informing myself about it. For your convenience I will quote my own words:
I actually can't care less about him, and I barely know anything about him. My involvement is very limited to this case, and that is because wanting to understand inevitably forced me to learn certain things and inform myself.
This behavior (patronizing, intentionally misunderstanding other person sentences) for me is clearly a demonstration of bad faith. As usual, your accusation of bad faith did not specify any reason or quoted any part and i challenge you to do that.
Not that it matters to you, but next similar behavior and I will block you and move on.
I will happily block you. You are a incapable of not personalize this whole conversation and any future discussions with you will likely lead to the same outcome.
-
I will happily block you. You are a incapable of not personalize this whole conversation and any future discussions with you will likely lead to the same outcome.
That takes courage to say, after 90% of your comments have to do with (speculations on) me.
Anyway, good riddance.
-
Exactly. The Fediverse is transparent to all the bad actors and they don’t even have to pay for access.
If you post something publicly on a clearly public platform and expect people not to collect or look at your explicitly published information then that's really on you. No amount of privacy or protection can help you at this point.
-
Just FYI, I'm not a Proton supporter (I find the way overrated), nor an American citizen, nor a MAGA supporter (quite the opposite, actually). I just use common sense. If you're so stupid to believe otherwise it's exclusively your problem. Keep crying and jumping from service to service for every little shit. Have fun.
Enjoy wailing at whatever enters your imagination.
-
Moving all my shit across Outlook to Proton took forever, I swear I'll shoot a mf if I have to move email providers AGAIN
I am on the hunt for new service, proton is out for me. No trust is them nazi supporters.
-
If you post something publicly on a clearly public platform and expect people not to collect or look at your explicitly published information then that's really on you. No amount of privacy or protection can help you at this point.
I undress in my yard and my neighbors are able to look at my naked ass. How dare they!
-
Privacy isn’t particularly good in the fediverse. Any federated instance can track you as much as they want without you ever knowing or consenting.
Self hosting Lemmy is straightforward. Then subscribe to all communities and now you have a treasure trove of data to mine. If you modify the code a bit you can do more like keep deleted posts around or surveil user activities in real time.
Doubt mastodon instances are cookie tracking you across the web, or trying to capture open session on other windows. Mastodon phone apps doesn't ssk for your location neither.
-
Proton: “We’re consolidating our social media presence due to limited resources and no longer posting on Mastodon. Follow us on Reddit for the latest updates”
This is the second VPN that has gone shitty on me...
-
System shared this topic on
