You don’t get it.

They are destroying the planet on top of all the other things.

Yeah, like, come on! Being born in the Middle East? Rookie mistake!

So do 100% concentrated evil, but they also wipe their arses with the constitution, set up concentration camps, and literally ruin the political and economic position of the US.

How do you usually deal with that aspect? What I do is to make the documentation easily skimmable (for advanced readers) and just accept the need for rework.

Confluence’s “Expand” element. Make everything into an easy to read task-list, but if more details are necessary, just expand a step and get an “idiot proof” description. Bookstack allows that as well, even better, because you can nest them (Confluence had that up until they “updated” the editor and killed half the features).

EDIT: “Include Page” in Confluence also works wonders here. For example, I have an article describing how to RDP to our AD server. In all articles that describe a process that needs to be done on the AD server, I just include that page. If any connection details change, I just edit the original article and the changes immediately propagate to all the other instances.

I write mine with a simple mindset: “imagine we go outside with a net, catch a random person off the street, sit them at the PC and tell them to do X. Will they manage, following this documentation?”

I also number every step (even if they’re stupidly simple and could technically be jumbled into a single sentence), so that when a user calls me asking for help with something documented, all I need to do is ask them “at which step of the instructions are you encountering the problem”, and then they hang up because they never read the instructions in the first place. Saves a lot of hassle!

Pro-tip: stop being a fundamentalist, and you won’t be getting compared to one.

Small steps? What small steps are you talking about? We both know there are none

Yeah, absolutely nothing’s been done (other than two court cases, one ban, and a bunch of further actions I outlined).

It’s a shame that you’re so thoroughly brainwashed into this tribal attitude, mate. You seem like a smart person, but somehow, when it comes to this “us vs them” you revert to a mindless fundamentalist no different than a Taliban blowing up statues…

I hope you find it in yourself to take a step back and look at things from a wider perspective, to see that you can applaud the good moves of a bad party, while still pointing out the bad ones.

Peace!

try and look at what I am saying outside the lens of internal US politics.

I’m not from the US, I think this is how I’m looking at this.

An oligarch gang does not engage in good faith with respect to anti-trust

I already said this a couple of times, but seems like I have to repeat it: nobody in the conversation (Yen included) believes Trump did anything “in good faith”. I specifically stated that I believe whatever anti-trust policies and actions Trump has made were done explicitly in bad faith, as an attempt to get back at “Big Tech” for being “anti-right-wing”.

To try and imply otherwise (and be all high and mighty about it) is essentially mocking your customers.

He didn’t “imply otherwise”. Not once has he stated that he “believes in the long term mission of the Republican party to fight for the rights of the consumers”. He only said that Reps became anti-Big Tech recently and that it’s good.

Again: there are no statements of intent, ONLY statement of fact.

The examples you cited mean nothing

I’m sorry, what??

You asked “what were the good things [Reps did]”. I gave you examples. You didn’t ask “what did the attempts accomplish”, did you?

Considering it’s the US we’re talking about, and how hilariously long some court cases can take, it’d be a miracle to see ANYTHING come out of these cases before 2030 (assuming they’re not trashed now that Big Tech is back in bed with Trump, of course).

However, it is an undeniable, objective FACT that these cases are a start, that these examples show anti-Big Tech attitude, and that these are examples of Trump admin’s (accidental) fight for the betterment of the life of “the little guy”.

then you would actually highlight some real world results

Did you forget about the Tik-Tok ban? Again, you asked for examples of actions, not results. Considering how fresh things are (it all started fairly late into his previous term), I don’t know why you’re expecting many examples of results, that’s just being extremely unrealistic.

Although I will say there is a beautiful irony in the following phrase (…)

Well, that’s because you still seem to be thinking in a kind of “all or nothing” way. It’s either “Trump == Hitler” or “OMG I love Trump” for you - no inbetween. It’s either “they completely obliterated Big Tech” or “absolutely nothing accomplished”. It’s like you don’t believe in small steps? I honestly am baffled by your responses so far.

This whole situation is baffling. It’s literally:

Me: Guy said X, not Y.

You: Well, he shouldn’t have said Y.

Me: But he didn’t.

You: But he very well didn’t say Z, therefore he meant Y.

It’s just… weird to me.

Anyway, maybe read THIS comment by Yen which he made just 3 months ago, and THIS post from a day later… It sheds some more light about his stance on things.

I don’t see any malicious intent in there, do you?

OK, so you missed the point of the discussion and have nothing constructive to add. Got it.

Then what does this mean?

Elsewhere, yes, I will happily call the proton guy a nazi supporter

Are you capable of stating what issue it is you see with my arguments?

Once again, you are the person in this thread arguing about the rightness or wrongness. The fact is he made a post praising trump

Oh God, we’re running in circles, this conversation no longer makes sense.

I guess if I ever end up in a situation when I say “Trump accidentally did something good”, I’m now a Trump supporter and I’m praising him, and I’m MAGA - in your book. Right? Oh, no, sorry, I’m actually a Nazi supporter! Well, fuck off, and fuck you.

Further, what you just said looks like a carbon copy of other bad faith arguments I’ve seen on lemmy on this subject

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe the reason you’ve seen “carbon copies” of those arguments is because these are not arguments, these are statements of fact? And the only thing making them “bad faith arguments” in your mind is that they go against your fundamentalist worldview of “us vs them”?

Don’t bother answering, I know you haven’t.

EOT on my end.

No.

I mean, it’s probably reported as that a lot, but no, they didn’t.

First of all: Proton provides privacy, NOT anonymity.

Second of all: the authorities knew the suspect used Wire. Subpoena on Wire revealed the user had a Proton email account. Subpoena on Proton revealed that they had an iCloud recovery email.

Once they subpoenaed Apple, they got all the data they needed - name, address, etc., etc.

Proton didn’t give up their user, but they are legally obligated to provide any data they have on the user if a court orders them to. Had the user’s recovery email been a Tuta address, or even another Proton mailbox, that would’ve been the end of it.

It’s disrespectful because he think his customers are stupid enough to buy his ruse about “genuinely” thinking that a Trump admin would be concerned about anti-trust.

But… He never said that?

He said that “democrats used to stand for the little guy, but tables have turned”. Again, in context he’s 100% correct - Dems went to bed with a lot of big business while Reps started a lot of anti-trust anti-BigTech moves (which, due to tribalism, Dems criticised).

He doesn’t say anything else - nothing about him “thinking the Trump admin is concerned about X”, he just states a simple fact.

And we live in a time when stating a fact makes you “the enemy of the people” because, apparently, “my feeling are more important than facts” rings true on both sides of the political divide… And that’s shameful.

You referenced the current US admin assigning someone who is allegedly anti-trust? So what? What does this have to with anything?

Well… only just the fact that this is precisely what he was commenting on?

What do you mean “what dos that have to do with anything”?? It’s got literally the entirety of it.

What exactly were the good things?

DOJ Antitrust Lawsuit Against Google (2020)- Focused on Google’s deals with Apple and others to maintain default search engine status, thus harming competitors.

FTC Antitrust Lawsuit Against Facebook (December 2020)- To potentially break up Facebook by forcing it to divest those companies.

DOJ Antitrust Review of Big Tech (2019)- Laid groundwork for later actions, like the 2020 Google lawsuit.

FTC Tech Task Force (2019)- Re-examined acquisitions like Facebook’s of Instagram and WhatsApp.

Trump’s Executive Order on Section 230 (May 2020) to weaken legal protections that shield social media platforms from liability over user content and moderation decisions. - didn’t get much done as actual change would require Congressional action. But it intensified scrutiny of Big Tech.

And indirectly: Trump supported conservative-led Congressional hearings and investigations into Big Tech’s political power and influence or pushed the idea that companies like Amazon were harming small businesses and exploiting USPS.

Obviously, most of these were fuelled by his pettiness (he always complained about social media having anti-conservative bias and wanted to hurt them in retaliation), but you cannot look at these and go “all of this is shite” and not be considered either insane or a fundamentalist.

Which major company was broken up? Which executives went to jail?

Don’t be childish. We’re not talking about completely redefining the tech landscape, we’re talking about reining a couple of “too big” companies in.

Try and look at what I am saying outside the lens of internal US politics. As I said earlier, I am not even necessarily saying that the Proton CEO is a Trump supporter, that doesn’t make the situation any better.

What you seem to be saying is: “he didn’t criticise Trump, therefore he went against his client-base’s belief system, and that’s a bad thing”.

Am I getting this right? Maybe elaborate on what’s your exact stance on Yen if I’m getting something confused?

I just find it sad that we came to a point where any public discourse is this tribal.

There are things the Trump admin did objectively right (often for all the wrong reasons), but people like you will not only not allow themselves to acknowledge that, you’ll put people like me, who do, to the “Trump supporter or gullible fool” basket without giving it a second thought.

We blame the right-wing for creating a massive divide in society, and then this happens? The left-wing is equally as responsible for this divide, it seems. At least for maintaining, if not deepening, it.

It’s a message praising the republican party and actions taken under the trump admin, in response to a trump tweet.

Very specific actions under a tweet about a very specific thing, yes.

No, it would be bad faith to argue it isn’t praising trump. You can argue he has a point, or that you don’t care, or it’s no big deal, but it’s absolutely praising trump

For a specific thing in specific circumstances, yes. How is that a bad thing? Do you think that we should just carpet-bomb with hate every action that Trump and his administration does? Even if it’s something objectively good for the average person?

you can reasonably state that Trump and his regime are extremely corrupt and are unlikely to have any good faith interest in targeting American technology oligarchs via anti-trust

NOW you can.

In 2024, you couldn’t, because his previous admin, as bullshit-filled, corrupt and dishonest as it was, DID do some good things (mostly in a bad way - if it was all good, it was usually by accident). The anti-trust stuff was some of those good things.

And don’t get me wrong - I know full well that Trump never intended any of that stuff to benefit the “Average Joe”. I’m willing to bet my life’s savings that he and his admin did it to show “who’s the boss” to all the “tech bros” (who were famously anti-Trump at the time). I guess you could say it worked, considering how they all sided with him now.

But, again, we NOW know what the true intentions were. In 2024, looking at the first term, you COULD honestly say that Trump did some good in a fight against Big Tech.

And, again, all Yen said was that appointing someone known for being anti-Big Tech into such a high position in the DOJ was a good move, and stated the obvious (at the time) fact, that Dems were very much siding with Big Tech, which did not benefit the average citizen.

Yen clearly disrespect his customers by engaging in faux-anti-trust polemics

From a purely tribal (“us vs them”, “Republicans vs Democrats”) perspective (“anything they do is wrong and evil, anything we do is correct and good”) - yes, you’re right. From a more saner perspective of just looking at facts of life (anti-trust work, the appointment to the DOJ, Dems’ stance on Big Tech), I don’t see any disrespect at all.

context was provided in a relatively neutral way

Was it, though?

What started it I think is this twitter post praising trump

That’s a pretty non-neutral way to present things, considering nothing like that happened in said tweet.

If you ignore all the fast and loose they play with privacy, sure

I’m not ignoring it, I just never heard about it. Got some articles/examples?

It’s not an aggressive push if you ignore the part where they repeatedly use the foot in the door technique where they first promise they won’t do something, and then later do it anyways.

Can’t comment because I haven’t seen the original announcement. Are you sure it wasn’t to the tune of “it will be available for Business” and then people extrapolated that to mean “it will never, ever, ever-ever even remotely touch the ‘civilian’ accounts”?

They claim it is optional but they just shove a pop-up in your face about AI

Ah, yes, recommending new features, the Hitler of XXI c’s IT.

Come on now…

while misleading you about how it works

Please elaborate.

it predictably leads to many users thinking it’s off but being surprised when they find it turned on without them realizing it it’s not much consolation

I mean… Yeah, they added the button instead of having the user toggle a switch for the button to appear. But, as I’m reading it, it’s not the feature that is “on” or “off” in the sense that you seem to see it. It’s not “‘on’, therefore it’s doing something behind the scenes”. It’s “on” as in: “the button is visible, and if you click it, you can start interacting with it, but it does nothing unless you tell it to do something”. I may be wrong, of course, but I wouldn’t discount the entire company on the basis of a Reddit comment.

How do you figure that works? The server somehow corrects your spelling mistakes without reading the email containing the spelling mistake?

If you ask Scribe to correct spelling mistakes, then the prompt contains the email you asked it to correct, that seems fairly obvious. It doesn’t, however, “read your mailbox”, because it can’t.

He says Trump supports the little guy

1. Not “Trump” but “Republicans”, via the “tables have turned”.

2. Considering the actions of the Democrats at the time (viciously pro-Big Tech just on the basis of “let’s criticise everything Trump admin does”), and the actions of the Republicans at the time (last administration started a lot of the anti-trust moves against Big Tech), he’s right.

and prefers him to democrats

OK, quote that part of the tweet. I posted its entire content in another comment in this thread.

he says are the party of big business.

He’s right. They vehemently criticised all the anti-Big Tech actions from the Trump admin during his previous term.

I’m sorry you want to support people who support fascists.

I’m sorry your fundamentalism blinds to simple English.