He wrote, she has a good track record. Which is true.
> My post is talking about Gail Slater, who is by all measures, actually a good pick, with a solid track record of being on the right side of the antitrust issue. Yes, she happens to be nominated by Trump, but her record speaks for itself.
And just looking at where proton puts its mouth and money, it’s obvious they cannot be MAGA, it just does not fit at all. They commit 10% of their benefit to Ukraine, as an example.
Hence, the post was out of touch a bit, badly formulated, but that’s it. Hence could indeed have simple said nothing, I agree.
I mean, maybe, but as folks in the comments pointed out, she literally lobbied on behalf of Amazon and others against regulation on big tech companies. She worked against a number of EFF efforts, for instance.
To be clear, I don't think this is some hidden effort to secretly support Trump, but it's such an obviously bad move that was then defended that makes it hard to understand what he was possibly thinking.
If he'd been deep in the comments talking about how he personally knew this lawyer and laying out why he was convinced she was a good pick, then maybe. But outside of him saying "solid track record", I don't think I saw any actual articulation of the record he's saying she had, and plenty of people calling out the things she did that were as pro-Big Tech as Chuck Schumer's daughters that he called out as marking the decline of his support for democrats.
Which is the additional part of this being horrible judgement. If it was just "This person is someone I think is good" then sure. Maybe he's wrong, but it's a defensible position. Publishing a detailed explanation of why he's disowning an entire political party that had literally just had Lina Kahn doing some of the most aggressive anti-trust prosecutions in decades is wild. There's a space to just cheer for people doing things well that your organization agrees with, but he chose to issue statements condemning entire parties and praising others by name.
> My post is talking about Gail Slater, who is by all measures, actually a good pick, with a solid track record of being on the right side of the antitrust issue. Yes, she happens to be nominated by Trump, but her record speaks for itself.
And just looking at where proton puts its mouth and money, it’s obvious they cannot be MAGA, it just does not fit at all. They commit 10% of their benefit to Ukraine, as an example.
Hence, the post was out of touch a bit, badly formulated, but that’s it. Hence could indeed have simple said nothing, I agree.