Followed by the company doubling down, deleting their mastodon account and making official announcements on Reddit instead of making a proper statement and facing the backlash on mastodon like adults.
Can you explain exactly what he said, and exactly how it was technically wrong?
You know, without moral judgment. Just the literal facts.
Because as I recall, my reaction was that what Rump did, was in it’s full context a bad thing, but specifically for those Andy was referring to, it might be good for them. So Andy was pretty tone-def, and clearly going to piss off people who have a hard time separating fact from moral judgment (most people). But maybe I’m wrong. I know I don’t remember it all perfectly.
You’re conflating or combining two separate things.
Specifically, the antitrust actions against big tech were started (in a very limited way) under Rumps first term.
But forcing backdoors into encryption, aren’t antitrust actions.
Again you’re back to moral judgement and mind reading, ignoring the cold literal facts.
We don’t disagree on much actually. I’m right there with you on Rumps motivations against big tech. It was always obvious to me that the antitrust threats were just using the courts as leverage to get what he really wanted from big tech. Which proved to be true in hindsight. All the lawsuits were dropped as soon as they started licking his boots enough.
I guess you’re right that “tonedef” was the wrong term, naive would be more accurate. Andy was naive to think it might amount to anything positive; Naive to not see that Rump was just doing it for his own power and ego. But is that hate worthy? Being ignorant, naive, or optimistic in the face darkness? I hope not. I’d like to think the last one is actually a virtue.
That’s actually the only way I see improving things from here. As terrible and painful at it is and will be. The best outcome we can hope to achieve after Rump, will come from him destroying as much as he can, as fast as he can. The Great Depression birthed The New Deal and the greatest half century of economic progress this nation has known. The rise and defeat of fascism supercharged our desire for democracy and social progress in the US.
We need to keep our Nazi hating antifascist fire. But we can’t let it color our vision so much as to see enemies where we have misguided friends.
But now I’m straying from the cold facts, and rambling about my hopes for a silver lining, on this dark cloud. We’re all driven by our emotions at the end of the day.
Followed by the company doubling down, deleting their mastodon account and making official announcements on Reddit instead of making a proper statement and facing the backlash on mastodon like adults.
Yah. What he said wasn’t technically wrong. And the backlash here was unreasonably extreme.
The Fediverse is small enough that we’re easy to ignore. So why would they deal with that level of shit?
Removed by mod
Can you explain exactly what he said, and exactly how it was technically wrong?
You know, without moral judgment. Just the literal facts.
Because as I recall, my reaction was that what Rump did, was in it’s full context a bad thing, but specifically for those Andy was referring to, it might be good for them. So Andy was pretty tone-def, and clearly going to piss off people who have a hard time separating fact from moral judgment (most people). But maybe I’m wrong. I know I don’t remember it all perfectly.
“ current antitrust actions against Big Tech were started under the first Trump admin. “
Andy seems to have forgotten that Trump’s Attorney General William Barr tried to force backdoors in encryption.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/07/tech-firms-can-and-must-put-backdoors-in-encryption-ag-barr-says/
It’s not only “tone deaf” as you put it, it’s a blatant lie to kiss up to the Nazi boot.
You’re conflating or combining two separate things.
Specifically, the antitrust actions against big tech were started (in a very limited way) under Rumps first term.
But forcing backdoors into encryption, aren’t antitrust actions.
Removed by mod
Again you’re back to moral judgement and mind reading, ignoring the cold literal facts.
We don’t disagree on much actually. I’m right there with you on Rumps motivations against big tech. It was always obvious to me that the antitrust threats were just using the courts as leverage to get what he really wanted from big tech. Which proved to be true in hindsight. All the lawsuits were dropped as soon as they started licking his boots enough.
I guess you’re right that “tonedef” was the wrong term, naive would be more accurate. Andy was naive to think it might amount to anything positive; Naive to not see that Rump was just doing it for his own power and ego. But is that hate worthy? Being ignorant, naive, or optimistic in the face darkness? I hope not. I’d like to think the last one is actually a virtue.
That’s actually the only way I see improving things from here. As terrible and painful at it is and will be. The best outcome we can hope to achieve after Rump, will come from him destroying as much as he can, as fast as he can. The Great Depression birthed The New Deal and the greatest half century of economic progress this nation has known. The rise and defeat of fascism supercharged our desire for democracy and social progress in the US.
We need to keep our Nazi hating antifascist fire. But we can’t let it color our vision so much as to see enemies where we have misguided friends.
But now I’m straying from the cold facts, and rambling about my hopes for a silver lining, on this dark cloud. We’re all driven by our emotions at the end of the day.
You can’t support a nazi because you like that they’re making volkswagons and say “there is nuance here”