Thanks, this is what I was referring to.

Honestly I'm quite confused why he chose to talk about that.

I can understand it in general if you truly think that pick would be better for big tech antitrust (not convinced any party is going to do much about it), it seems said pick was the CEO of the lobbying group founded by big tech (the Internet Association). So not sure how that does actually help with antitrust

There's a new class of statesmen forming in the U.S. as we speak, and it's ripples in the pond. People get psychotic over the little things, imagine what kind of micro-psychosis could do to somebody whose misfortune is to actually interface with the government, and be collateral in the never-ending state-side counter-intelligence activities. The back-pedalling on his part, I think, is the inconsequential part—never admit your mistakes is 101.

And I’m confused why instead of discussing anything in the article, you chose to derail the conversation with an unrelated grievance over antitrust policy.

I appreciate you expressing this concern. Now I realize the connection might not be clear to everyone.

The article is about Proton "is now the resistance tool of choice in authoritarian regimes trying to control the internet". IMO such position requires Proton to be politically neutral so users have more confidence for the service.

It’s crazy this caused such a stir. Everything Andy said was not wrong.