🇮🇹 🇪🇪 🖥
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”.
I mean, they showed agreement on one issue, which is obviously important for Proton and as a consequence beneficial for the general population (fairer competition with privacy respecting companies).
Antitrust in tech is Nazism?.. I get the joke but, what…
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.
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.
It’s not even a matter of “thinking” that, it’s basically what he said. All his “siding” is in the context of antitrust and breaking tech monopolies. I don’t think trump will do much in this space, but dems didn’t do much either. If Trump will (the election is over anyway, so we are not discussing of choosing trump for this) it’s good, even if it comes from the Trump administration.
I don’t know any guide, but deliverability is the biggest concern and it may also not be fully under control. Sometimes IP blocks get blacklisted or deranked and your emails end in spam, and you might not even know that.
1,2 and 3 are completely irrelevant. 1 is completely normal, 2 missed the point that the wallet (which I don’t use, I never owned crypto) has nothing to do with privacy and 4 is an optional marketing strategy to incentivise migration from google. Nothing is wrong with any of this.
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).