Unnecessary and deeply concerning bow to the new “king”
Update: position got backed up by an official Proton post on Mastodon, it’s an official Proton statement now. https://mastodon.social/@protonprivacy/113833073219145503
Update 2, plot-twist: they removed this response from Mastodon - seems they realize it exploded into their face!
Oh, goddammit.
The writing was on the wall for proton for a while now
No it hasn’t. Back this claim up with some evidence
I wouldn’t call it “writing on the wall,” but they have done some not-so-good things over the last few years:
- Handing over data for their email services (which was legally required) (ref).
- Releasing a Bitcoin wallet. The problem for me is that Bitcoin is inherently not private.
- Lying in marketing. Proton claims “no data or speed limits” for their free VPN (ref), which is just plain wrong. If you download a few gigs, it will slow you down to a few Mbit (if I remember correctly). I even contacted their support about this, and they just said, “They are balancing the servers for the free VPN.” But then why was it fast in the beginning, and if I reconnected to the same server, would it be fast again. Just to be clear: I have no problem with the speed limit/balancing itself, just that they are lying about it.
- Proton incentivizing free email accounts to connect to a Gmail account to get 500 MB more storage. (You need to go through the “tutorial” steps to get the 500 MB extra, and one of them is to have a Google Mail account send all their emails to your new Proton inbox.)
This is why I personally decided against Proton.
What did you go with out of curiosity?
Drive - Selfhosted Nextcloud
Email - Posteo/Tuta
VPN - Cryptostorm (IVPN/Mullvad are more user friendly)
Passwords - Keepass (Sync over my Nextcloud.)
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.
These are useful data for making decisions about using their service, but not exactly indicative of support for a right wing authoritarian leader who lies more in one day than he has hairs on his entire body.
Edit: typo
They are indicative of opportunism and greed, which is exactly in line with preemptively sucking up to a future dictator.
Mostly true, that’s why I opened with “I wouldn’t call it writing on the wall.” But for me, it shows that they are not as privacy- and consumer-focused as they like to present themselves. Supporting Trump is just five steps further in this direction. (That’s just how I feel about it.)
that’s why I opened with “I wouldn’t call it writing on the wall.”
Damn; you’re right. My bad. I somehow missed your opener saying exactly the opposite of what you were saying.
Everything you said is true and verifiable, and worth considering when you decide which service to use. It’s a lot of reasons to favor the .onion/tor version of their service to limit what they have access to depending on your privacy stance.
This is interesting. I’m current using btguard, but was thinking about other vpn providers. I have a free protonmail email account and was wondering about their vpn service. Sounds like they are not so privacy oriented. And I assume NordVPN is a similar story?
Well, I’d say Proton is still better than most other options (open-source software, no ad trackers on the website and in apps). However, specifically for VPNs, I would recommend Mullvad or IVPN. If you are a bit more tech-savvy, you may also take a look at Cryptostorm. Of all three, only Mullvad is police-raid-proven to not store logs or other PII. The most important thing for me personally would be that the VPN company is not owned by a larger parent company, which in turn owns multiple different VPN providers. This alone excludes a lot of the heavily advertised providers (Private Internet Access, NordVPN, Surfshark, ExpressVPN, CyberGhost, OVPN, and probably a few more).
They’ve been cooperating with law enforcement and handing data to the cops proactively since 2021.
Pay attention.
What do you mean with “proactively”?
And then we have the communists making Lemmy. Is there any moderate developers lol. Valve is the only big company I can think of that isn’t annoying. All the faceless Linux devs are good too
Glances at the child gambling enabled by the steam marketplace, an issue being blatantly ignored by Valve leadership.
Buddy, I don’t know how to tell you this. I love Valve for all the good they do, but they got some serious skeletons, too.
Valve representatives were asked point blank if the third party gambling sites have a positive influence on their bottom line, and the dude replying sweated bullets for several seconds before nervously going “we… don’t have any data on that” while the rest stared daggers at him.
Coffeezilla has a recent video on the situation.
Very disappointing that this is the CEO and founder of Proton. I’ll be moving my stuff elsewhere and deleting my account this week.
I see a lot of good discussion here. I’ve been on proton for years now, using my own domain. While true that Andy is one of 5 board members, and it’s a nonprofit etc, these statements are raising hairs on my neck, personally.
Does anyone have a good guide on problems associated with self-hosting email?
The official @protonprivacy@mastodon.social account replied and doubled down
protonprivacy@mastodon.social - @jonah
Corporate capture of Dems is real. In 2022, we campaigned extensively in the US for anti-trust legislation.
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.
1/2
protonprivacy@mastodon.social - @jonah By working on the front lines of many policy issues, we have seen the shift between Dems and Republicans over the past decade first hand.
Dems had a choice between the progressive wing (Bernie Sanders, etc), versus corporate Dems, but in the end money won and constituents lost.
Until corporate Dems are thrown out, the reality is that Republicans remain more likely to tackle Big Tech abuses.
2/2
(Less importantly, my response)
“Until corporate Dems are thrown out, the reality is that Republicans remain more likely to tackle Big Tech abuses.”
That has to be one of the most retarded things I have ever read. You would have to ignore the last 50 years and have a lobotomy to believe that nonsense.
Not entering in the details of the argument, but are you seriously answering an argument that includes “noticing a change in the last years” with “look at the previous 50 years”? From a purely methodological point of view seems completely illogical to do so.
Not all of us are young people who have no recollection of the history of the Republican party. Pretending that there has been some dramatic shift in the last few years is simply false.
Even more false is stating that Republicans are the party of the common man or that they will be the ones to regulate big tech to fix the issues we are facing.
Pretending you can critique an argument without the knowledge of the past and an unwillingness to discuss the details is something else. Truly some peanut gallery level of nonsense.
It’s not a matter of pretending. The fact that there has been a shift is his/their point. If there is a shift it’s implicit that before the shift the situation was different, hence the absurdity of “consider the last 50 years”. You want to contest the fact that there is been a shift, that’s great. But trying to debate the whole argument with “look at the last 50 years” doesn’t touch their argument at all.
Also, in the context of his tweet “the little guy” are small businesses, not the common men. He clarified this point in a reddit comment somewhere, where he mentions small businesses vs big tech. You can go check it out.
Pretending you can critique an argument without the knowledge of the past and an unwillingness to discuss the details is something else. Truly some peanut gallery level of nonsense.
I am not sure what obsession you have with “pretending”, but I was not pretending anything. Arguments can be debated in the method or in the merit. In your case the method seemed to be wrong to me and I stated that. Logically was just inconsequential. This is something that doesn’t depend on the validity of the argument or on my position, it’s just a methodological observation.
You might be right as far as I am concerned, but your argument was absurd nevertheless.
I have already said there was no shift. I will pretend you can follow along. The conservatives have threatened to take away Section 230.
This is because they want social media to stop fact checking and moderating their users so they can spread misinformation aka lies. They don’t want a level playing field. They want to spread misinformation and then control the truth.
So saying they are going to regulate big tech is really just code for threatening them into allowing them to openly lie to people. This is fucking ridiculous.
As typical, conservatives always lean into the small business mantra. That Republicans really care about small business owners whatever the fuck that means. While you won’t discuss the details you are ready to throw some classic Republican propaganda at everyone.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/big-lie-conservative-policies-good-small-business/
Small business ownership has shrunk dramatically in the last 20 years (oops brought up history) and will continue as the too big to fail billionaires and their megacorps suck up all the capital. You would think that a supposed billionaire who only puts his wealthy friends into power would be a red flag for small business or the little guy.
Not for Sudneo though, he thinks billionaires care about him. He probably thinks Muskrat is worried about his well being and free speech rights. Yeah there is a lot of pretending going on for sure.
I also find it bizarre to say the Democrats need to get rid of their “corporate” support. Apparently they are Dinos because every Democrat must be a left wing liberal socialist. Funny that the Republicans don’t need to do this though. Apparently there are no big corporate Republicans, thank God.
Politics don’t exist just in the moment and I find it disturbing you don’t care about history. Perhaps it is a defense mechanism as the Republican party has been on the same trajectory since Reagan. I guess if I was a conservative trying to rewrite reality I would try to discredit or ignore history as well.
Perhaps this is all driven by the thought that this administration is different. I don’t mean to make fun of people but God damn you would have to be a dumb motherfucker to expect anything different in this administration from last time. Stocks up, regulations down, massive fuckups, and politicize everything. I mean if your kink is being governed by clowns maybe it would be great. https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/democrats/2024/10/the-u-s-economy-performs-better-under-democratic-presidents
The truth is a hard pill to swallow I guess and you can see why the Republicans have committed to a war on truth. They simply cannot exist without their lies and the gullible people who believe them.
This of course is exacerbated by the truly awful people we have allowed to control the next administration. I am no fan of Democratic people but the garbage that is the apparatus of our AOTUS is without parallel. I mean you basically have to be a rapist to get a spot in his cabinet.
Ahaha you still didn’t get it. I don’t care if there was a shift or not. That was their argument, not mine. However, whether the shift was there or not, IT IS IMPLICIT in an argument that mentions a shift that before the shift this didn’t apply. Therefore it’s simply useless to counter THAT argument with “you missed the last 50 years”. I didn’t throw any propaganda. I didn’t even make an argument. You are just trying to pidgeonhole me into a stereotypical position to attack me, because apparently you can’t understand what a methodological remark is.
I will skip over the next paragraphs where you talk about " regulating tech" but you talk about free speech and fake news (that has NOTHING to do with antitrust and monopolies). I do that because I agree, but it’s a completely separate conversation, that has no relationship with the context of Andy’s tweet or our discussion.
really just code for threatening them into allowing them to openly lie to people
You are saying this as if this didn’t regularly happen for years though…
Not for Sudneo though, he thinks billionaires care about him.
I am a communist lol. I would like to see Musk 3 meters under the soil. Please stop making shit up to attack people.
Politics don’t exist just in the moment and I find it disturbing you don’t care about history
See the beginning of this comment. It’s not about not caring, is that what you think is an argument against THEIR position is actually PART of their argument already. Again, a LOGICAL issue. I don’t care about discussing if dem or rep are pro big or small businesses and in which measure, for me American politics is small flavours of right wing, and I have the fortune of not having to vote there.
Perhaps this is all driven by the thought that this administration is different.
Yet another fallacy. have you even read the tweet? Like I do agree with you, but holy shit at the end of a 200 characters sentence the guy said that the antitrust against Google or something was started during the Trump administration. So no, it’s not about being different, I guess, it’s about continuing with what the guy (him, not me) says it’s a trend. You disagree and that’s great, go debate him on why it won’t happen.
Personally, and THIS is my opinion as an outsider, I think this administration is awful and it’s going to fuck up so many things. That said, I will be pleasantly surprised if it will work on breaking some monopolies, even if for all the wrong reasons.
Oh I get it, you just like to keep saying that it’s is not your argument and then you talk about semantics. I will just skip this because you have already said it and it is boring.
I like that you start referencing history yourself though, I appreciate the nod even if it is unintentional.
You remind me of all those sycophants for Drump who are always saying he didn’t mean that or he clarified himself later on. The kind of capitalist bootlicker that pretends to be a communist because it’s edgy. Hey whatever floats your boat I guess.
I think his original statement stands just fine on its own and I think I have made it clear why it is so distasteful.
As someone who was seriously considering signing up for their service seeing them suck up to the right wing is very worrying. I have already left every other social media platform because of their toxic behavior.
At any rate it appears we agree on everything except your obsession with semantics. Stay shifty!
Insane that an official company account posted this.
Seems like they have deleted it now. Link is dead. Has there been any further comment?
These fuckers act like they’ve never heard of Lina Khan. Let’s see if Republicans try to replace her with someone with a stronger track record. Or, if they’re so serious about tech competition maybe they’ll get on board with net neutrality.
And look, I actually like Gail Slater (the Trump nominee that kicked off this thread). She’s got some bona fides, and I welcome Republicans taking antitrust more seriously, and rolling back the damage done by Robert Bork and his adherents (including and probably most significantly Ronald Reagan).
But to pretend that Democrats are less serious about antitrust than Republicans ignores the huge moves that the Biden administration have made in this area, including outside of big tech.
So sounds like their main concern is addressing the abuses of the FAANG monopolies, and only a Republican has talked to them about it.
I guess that is understandable in that very narrow lens, but it’s a bit laughable considering how all the big tech companies are also cozying up to the Trump administration. All this has done for me is make me wary of anything Proton does now.
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).
Actually I disagree on the latest part. I actually questioned, why google and Facebook had to go kiss the ring and pay some bucks to Trump, and didn’t have to do that before? This for me is a sign of a disalignment between big tech and the administration.
That said, it’s very much possible (I would say likely) trump won’t do shit and he just happens to have the “correct” position on this particular issue because it can be used to attack the Californian elite (I.e. dem elite). But it’s a matter of fact that it’s auspicable he will follow up with action on his words on this, even if for the wrong reasons.
Its more that trump is very transactional. He couldnt give to shit if corpations are fleecing people so as long he gets a peice. Its like businesses paying the mafia for “protection”.
Exactly this. It’s not necessarily that he’s like a better enforcer, but he’s just a different type of enforcer that plays by different rules, which is to say compromised ethics, transactional exchanges, and so on. Tech companies absolutely had a difficult time under Biden, but the way they played that game was with legal filings, with negotiations where they attempt to offer something they hope will improve the perception of competitive balance.
It’s just a difference in channeling these things through rule of law on the one hand and through transactional exchanges and gestures of fealty on the other.
And I think if you think the Trump style reflects a more effective approach to handling antitrust, it’s kind of telling on yourself in terms of being able to comprehend the value of one type of transaction, but not the other.
That’s some interesting perspective, I hadn’t thought of it that way. With Trump it’s really hard to know what is coming until it happens, but it’s nice that some people see a silver lining.
Nobody had to go kiss the ring they payed for his campaign because THEY WANTED to please him. Edit: Typo
Yeah but why they wanted to please him? What’s the benefit for them? Why they wouldn’t want to please previous administrations? The other user mentioned that Trump is very transactional, and that sounds quite right too.
Either way, look at Facebook, literally went through a shitstorm to align, that is a sign of weakness in my opinion.
What’s the benefit for them?
Not being targeted by a President.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/29/business/ceos-trump-revenge-nightcap/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/05/politics/trump-prosecute-political-opponents/index.html
Why they wouldn’t want to please previous administrations?
Those administrations weren’t targeting them.
I think it’s always about the money, plain and simple. If there is a threat to their gravy train, they will bend over backwards to keep it going. Otherwise, they don’t care about you.
The Biden government was targeting them, though. Kind of. Various companies were facing challenges from the administration. I think the difference is: If they suck Trump’s dick enough he’ll leave them alone. Biden was less likely to do that. Or probably that’s their view of it, anyway. Somehow big business seems to view Trump as a “rational actor” while they view Biden as the opposite.
Something something TOS Mirror Universe episode…
OK, but then that was exactly my point. Antitrust is one way to target those companies, hence they had to suck up. Therefore them paying (peanuts in the grand scheme of things) could be seen as the exact opposite of “they are all in the same team”.
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.
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.
The election already happened. Therefore it’s not a matter of picking. With regards of antitrust and big tech, Trump can do nothing, worse or better. In case of “better” there are indirect privacy wins. Everything else is completely unrelated, it’s not like the Trump administration will break up a monopoly every 3 other human rights he violates.
So what does it mean
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.
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? I didn’t read a celebration of Trump as a win for human rights tout court, which could have prompted this response (I.e., hey, might be a win for privacy, but it’s a loss for x, y, z).
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.
Fuck, they are dumb and bad businessmen. What’s the reason still to chose their product over Tuta, Posteo, Mullvad? They have lost their unique selling point as at least pretending being a neutral instance providing private services. Plain stupidity.
Their unique selling point is having a suite of integrated privacy products under a single moderately-priced subscription.
Standing up for the little guy. Huh. Is that why billionaires and CEO are throwing literal tens of millions at Trump? Why he staffed his cabinet with billionaires? Why the center of his policy is tax cuts for the giga wealthy, at the expense of everyone else and the national debt, at a time where wealth inequality is literally tearing the country apart?
https://www.axios.com/2025/01/15/trump-windfall-fundraising-500-million
https://www.axios.com/2024/12/09/trump-wealth-cabinet-politicians-billionaires
These are objective, public facts. Like, I’m way more conservative than Lemmy’s center and willing acknowledge any good Trump does, but what reality is this guy living in? Who is this statement for? Who the heck does he think is using Proton services? He just pissed off his employees and customers for… What?
Probably doesn’t want to get banned in the US… Or so my copium tells me.
Silver lining is that Proton is owned by a non-profit.
I was thinking this for a second, but is this really plausible? Normally when we talk about corporations we talk about how powerful they are and how they use different nations to locate headquarters and offices in order to mitigate legal and tax obligations. We regularly talk about how governments can’t reign them in and how they act with impunity.
But now? “They HAVE to capitulate. They are just doing it to survive.” Really? Do we really believe that? Or is it more likely that this is what they want and if they didn’t, they’d be fighting tooth and nail to stop it? I’m with the second option honestly.
That’s what I don’t get. If the proton CEO was actually raging MAGA, the last thing he should do, strategically, is stoke fires by stirring this up. That’s business 101.
…He must want conservative’s ears for some kind of policy issue, maybe to the detriment of Proton’s competitors. But what?
There is no ethical consumption under capitalism, and that applies to tech. I pay for Proton and this is disappointing af but not shocking. Corporations and wannabe billionaires always fold to fascism.
Gonna start looking around at alternative email services to consider but I use my Proton email everywhere, so switching away is going to suck.
deleted by creator
If you think any anti trust shit is happening to any company who gave trump a million dollars, I have a used car I would like to sell you.
what’s the big deal with second hand cars in the USA ?
People somehow still surprised by Switzerland being neutral on Naziism
Antitrust in tech is Nazism?.. I get the joke but, what…
If a Nazi sits at a table with ten other people and everyone is talking cordially, you’ve got a table of 11 Nazis.
This mother fucker saw a Nazi and said “HEY BRO SIT OVER HERE.”
It’s not a joke.
To me this is complete nonsense.
It’s absolutely possible to disagree with 99% of what a government does and still agree on a 1%, by coincidence or something. This doesn’t mean “sitting at the table” in any way, which I think would be an overall endorsement. If that 1% would be use to fully endorse the government then it would implicitly mean the support (or at least passivity) towards the rest 99%. This is not the case.
Let’s talk hypotheticals for a moment: let’s sat Trump will actually do something and break up tech monopolies, google for example, or decrease their power and create a fairer market. In this case, saying “good policy” would make you a Nazi? For me, this is simply absurd, and it is very very similar to what is happening.
Let’s not get carried away. The scope of the comment is pretty narrow if you read it closely. This is one member of a 5-person board that also includes Tim Berners-Lee. The foundation structure is also a protection against abuses.
Yes you are right, and no you are not. It is concerning and something to stay vigilent about in the upcoming times.
Can’t you both be right? One it is a very narrow complement and also it be very concerning that the “small tech” is also bowing harder than big tech.
But this may be the price for not donating?
Let’s not get carried away. The scope of the comment is pretty narrow if you read it closely
The only thing I want to hear from you is that you actively disavow Trump, or if you feel this is going to hurt your business, at least say nothing at all. Anything other than that marks you as a shameless suck-up, and I want nothing to do with you or your business.
Ergo, I want nothing to do with Proton. It’s time suck-ups pay the price and see their bottom lines drop because of their dubious choices.
if you disavow every company contributing to the republican party/trump you might as well sell all your belongs, and learn to live off grid. no internet access, no power, no retail.
we just dont live in a black and white world. its lovely shades of depressing grey gradients.
if you disavow every company contributing to the republican party/trump you might as well sell all your belongs, and learn to live off grid. no internet access, no power, no retail.
As much as possible, I will take my business to companies that aren’t openly terrible.
we just dont live in a black and white world
Tell that to the orange utan. He sure is about to turn the word from RGB to 1-pixel color space.
Do you really think I want to split people into people I can talk to vs. people I want to avoid at all costs? Trump is doing that. He’s forcing shitty choices on everybody. I’d rather have constructive and peaceful interaction with my fellow man. But can you honestly shake hands with a magard and not feel sick to your stomach? I can’t.
right, i agree the idea is revolting… but the old man at the dog park who only watches fox news isnt inherently evil. hes brainwashed. hes a fellow human who if shown the light would absolutely change his tune. to abandon those people is to abandon civilization.
sure thats not everyone, but its enough. we just need to show them the truth… that theyve been lied to and actually do have a choice.
treating every conservative voter as you would trump himself is absolutely painting in black and white.
but the old man at the dog park who only watches fox news isnt inherently evil
I’m sorry but no.
You have the die-hard racist MAGAs with the flags and the red cap. Those can fuck right off obviously.
But you also have all the ordinary folks who are NOT die-hard MAGA, but who decided that it was okay to vote for a convicted felon who tried to overthrow the government. And guess what: in a sense, they’re even worse.
Voting for Trump is crossing a line. If you voted for Trump, I really don’t want anything to do with you because you have proved to me that your sense of morality and your respect for the institutions of this country are compromised.
Burned my accounts, moved to Tuta.
What is a good alternative for Mail? I’m mostly for Proton because of Data security and Mail aliases. But this move is actually concerning.
Yes, I know the background behind it.
Tuta and Posteo are my recommndations for mail.
I registered and waiting for activation. Will probably also subscribe the lower plan.
Tuta is pretty nice. Used to be named Tutanota.
I’ve used tuta mail for nearly 10 years. They’ve never let me down.
Leftist: fuck the little guy
Extra weird because this is always the narrative, yet Trump could be any further from “standing up for the little guys” if he tried. It’s the same with the AfD in Germany, their voted policies (which is public as per the EU regulations) are as anti-consumer pro-corpo as you can be, even edging our truly crazy libertarian money sucker positions.
“standing up for the little guys” actually means “being racist as fuck”. Hope this helps you understand their position.
Fox and Roku, everyone’s two favourite small companies!
I don’t want to mix tech with politics, but what in the actual fuck?
Politics are mixed with everything.
In that case, I see this as speak with your wallet moment. That statement has done it for me and I am dropping proton for Tuta or something else.
