How dare they. We should also demand that they bring back support for i386 and SUN-4.

You are wrong and incapable of admitting it. Downvoting your comment is an efficient way of signaling that.

Also look at animal agriculture which we also do not need

I can eat steak. I cannot eat AI.

They didn’t. They are active in Mastodon.

Is this article AI generated? It seems to wander and repeat itself instead of being well-structured like a standard three-part article (background, analysis, conclusion).

It very much is. The same user has also been systematically sharing content from this blog across half a dozen communities.

I wouldn’t be surprised if this was a bot.

Again, yeah, they will obey Swiss law, exactly what it says in their marketing material. Shocker.

I’m curious to know if you really believe that there are companies out there that would break the law in order to protect their users, and if so, which ones.

Oh no, Proton PR is pro Bernie Sanders?

You can’t say Proton is legally mandated to violate privacy while pushing a Proton-backed page that says

I can absolutely say that. Because as much as a trumper you think the CEO is, Proton wouldn’t collaborate with the DOJ under such scenario unless they wanted to be screwed in the courts of the country they operate from. But if they receive a lawful requirement that, under Swiss law, needs to be fulfilled, then they must.

You believe that Switzerland is some sort of haven where international law doesn’t apply. That’s not true. You believe that Swiss law only applies in one direction, i.e. individual privacy protection, but not in any other, i.e. lawful data sharing requests from law enforcement. Then the issue is what you chose to believe. Here’s the thing: any company offering a service must comply with the laws of the country they are based on. And if you think that there are commercial mail providers that would rather cease operations before handing data to law enforcement, oh boy do I have news for you.

At the time it was true, corporate dems were way more likely to be in bed with big tech. That’s just a fact.

The “it doesn’t matter” part of the blog post is also dangerously inaccurate, implying any privacy violation in Switzerland is illegal while, in reality, Swiss authorities have gotten Proton to disclose user data several times in high-profile incidents. Here’s the biggest one in my mind. And another and another.

Ah, I remember you now. You’re the guy who thinks that privacy equals absolute immunity from court orders! That’s never the case and will never be.

I suppose we read different things, because what they said is that republicans aren’t “friendly with big tech” and that’s a good thing. There are other blog posts where they explain their position in detail, like https://proton.me/blog/trump-control-nsa-privacy

I’m familiar with this link though.

Yours doesn’t load for me.

You may be familiar, but you refuse to argue on its merits and sources, of which there are plenty.

And by the way, if we were to talk astroturfing, there are a handful of accounts in this community that consistently post negative comments about Proton. I’m not saying this is an orchestrated attack against them, but it’s really damn suspicious that in every topic tangential to privacy or VPNs, there’s always someone mentioning how awful Proton is.

The CEO didn’t support Trump: https://medium.com/@ovenplayer/does-proton-really-support-trump-a-deeper-analysis-and-surprising-findings-aed4fee4305e

No, I want marketplaces to operate in good faith and following the law. Don’t think that’s so much to ask.

But you seem to think you should or could force companies to be that public entity. That’s not only not realistic and not how the world has ever worked under capitalism, but it’s just simply a bad idea.

I disagree. There are plenty of success stories of companies being forced by governments to act in the best interest of consumers, from adopting USB-C to removing lead from gasoline.

Look at the USPS for why you should not have a private entity perform a public service.

You are conflating very different things here, I’m afraid.

That’s insanity. Under those terms, most suppliers would be at the whims of platform owners.

Microsoft asking Valve for a 50% cut? Sure. Google delisting a website because the owner criticized their CEO? Absolutely. Amazon telling you to sell at a loss or not sell at all? Why not.

Do you really think that Amazon should be allowed to set prices outside their marketplace? That’s wild.

And in my opinion it should be illegal. What do you think?

Such a weird stream of comments to be read on Lemmy.

Regardless of what you folks think about Valve, does anyone believe that a marketplace should have this kind of leverage over their suppliers? For instance, should Amazon be permitted to force manufacturers to set the price of a product outside of their marketplace? Should Apple be allowed to force app developers to price match the Google store?