How do you mean? How is starting a bunch of anti-trust and pro-consumer "hardly a point for anti big-tech"?

The facts are these: Republicans, under Trump, started these processes. Democrats mostly opposed them, because they were defaulting to "Trump = bad".

The apolitical stance of Proton means that they don't do that defaulting. If Republicans do something good for privacy, anonymity (lol), or consumers, Proton will approve. If Dems do the same - proton will approve. If Greens (or whatever the pseudo "third party" calls itself) does it - Proton will approve.

That's all there is to it.

But we now live in times where people assume approving of "something XYZ did", automatically means "approving of XYZ", which is stupid, reductive, and destructive.

For example, it leads otherwise sensible people to boycott an excellent product, just because its CEO said "the appointment of someone famously anti big-tech to a high anti-trust position in the DOJ is a good thing".

I agree that corporate capture of dems is real, but to paint the magats as being for the little guy is insane!

You have to take the timeline into consideration.

It was all written before Trump 2.0. At that time, and specifically regarding tech, Republicans had much more to offer the "little guy" than Democrats.

Was it completely accidental, just because Trump was throwing a hissy fit? Yes. Did it end as soon as the big tech people started throwing money and praise at him? Also yes. But both of those things happened after the tweets and the comments were posted.

Just read this. It's a full analysis of not only the CEO's comments, but also of what Proton does in general. They do not support Republicans.