data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/99079/990790a4e60a3004dc249866891546d68f25910c" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/352d3/352d310a419037eb648fb289327c01e8042bd0c3" alt=""
Unfortunately, several of the author’s conclusions are drawn from either errors or outright lies, or simply things being swept aside. Several of Andy’s later posts are ignored, as is the amount he doubled down. Him using the official proton accounts to call his statements the official proton stance is waved away. It basically only examines the cleaned up, shiny final version of events proton would like you to pretend happened after they deleted everything, instead of what actually happened. Worse, it pretends that was the only chain of events that happened. It’s straight up gaslighting.
It’s a very, very biased article that doesn’t even attempt to do any kind of deep analysis and just tries to justify its stance by cherry picking, instead of actually looking at the facts and coming to a conclusion from there.
Proton’s CEO turned out to be a Trumper with a Nazi dogwhistle username and a lot of Republican buzzwords peppering his vocabulary. Lots of people are defending Proton anyway because of sunk cost fallacy.