the “controversy” is that the CEO of Proton used his official proton twitter account to be excited about the US government appointment of someone that is likely to pursue antitrust sanctions against Big Tech. Fast Forward to now, this is true against Microsoft. He was also amused at Big Tech CEOs kissing up to Trump due to this specific threat of their monopolistic nature.
The CEO removed their posts and the company reaffirmed that was not in line with the neutral stance.
Vicariously invested people act like anyone that finds something beneficial in this administration is supposed to be ostracized.
And that even if the CEO had posted this on a personal account, “accountability” is needed and should affect everything he is a part of and benefits from, in order to cause financial pain, I think forever? I’m not sure what people want or expect, it doesn't feel fleshed out
The CEO posted something, and then the official Proton account also followed up with a multi-post writeup of how democrats were all captured by big tech as if the appointed person in question wasn't a former tech lobbyist.
I don't think it should follow them forever, but for a company a lot of people are looking to to protect them against US government intrusion, picking this time specifically to @ mention Donald Trump and praise him appointing a big tech lobbyist and then have official company account defend him is certainly a bad look even if it mostly got deleted.
Things like email security and VPNs are 99% a business of "do you trust this company to defend you against a nation-state as best they can" and injecting themselves into what, for them, is international politics at very least shows questionable judgement.
If it was a post now about the action against Microsoft, sure. But preemptively praising someone's appointment feels very "kissing the ring" in a way that I don't want my trusted security company to be doing.
Second, regarding the message that was mistakenly posted from Proton's Reddit account, that message was not approved to be posted. I was unaware that it was posted, and I asked for it to be removed as soon as I saw it. We apologize for this failure in internal controls.
So, I think that's referring to a different message though. Most of what I referred to was from the official Mastodon account: https://archive.ph/LlbSj
Either way, it wouldn't have been much better if he'd personally posted the things the official account posted, or if the official account had posted that political rant with a "A response from our CEO:" at the top. Endorsing specific governmental actions would be something I could be fine with them doing, but calling out specific parties and candidates just feels like poor judgement.
the “controversy” is that the CEO of Proton used his official proton twitter account to be excited about the US government appointment of someone that is likely to pursue antitrust sanctions against Big Tech. Fast Forward to now, this is true against Microsoft. He was also amused at Big Tech CEOs kissing up to Trump due to this specific threat of their monopolistic nature.
The CEO removed their posts and the company reaffirmed that was not in line with the neutral stance.
Vicariously invested people act like anyone that finds something beneficial in this administration is supposed to be ostracized.
And that even if the CEO had posted this on a personal account, “accountability” is needed and should affect everything he is a part of and benefits from, in order to cause financial pain, I think forever? I’m not sure what people want or expect, it doesn't feel fleshed out