Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.