this post was submitted on 06 May 2025
1061 points (96.4% liked)
Technology
69846 readers
3943 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The premise is already wrong. There was no promise or loyalty, not even close.
He endorsed the republican party. He said we should clean house of democrats. Is that not declaring party loyalty? It was also a completely unnecessary comment, in response to nothing. It was shortly after Trump's election when every CEO went out of their way to kowtow to the new regime. Its transparently a loyalty pledge to the new boss
He didn't endorse the republican party.
The fact that you inflate the meaning of that tweet to make it more meaningful than it is, doesn't mean he did anything of the sort. The tweet happened after the election but before the government, and it was an endorsement of the antitrust appointee. He also expressed his opinion that republicans were more likely than democrats to fight big tech monopolies in the antitrust space. This is far from an endorsement.
It was in response to Trump's tweet about the antitrust appointee. I would say quite relevant context for a tweet about the antitrust appointee.
It was unnecessary, true. Like every tweet. He expressed his unnecessary opinion, the same way we are doing now.
Bro I mean come on, this is literally an endorsement of the republican party. I don't know how more explicit it can get. You're asking people to not believe their own eyes here. Even worse:
He decries the "corporate capture" of the Democratic party while completely failing to address to much larger and more immediate threat of an outright christo-fascist movement capturing the entire Republican party and all 3 branches of federal government. Like he thinks that "the democrats didnt move as fast on this thing as I wanted them to" somehow compares to "the president is kidnapping people with a personal army of gestapo and disappearing them to a black site in El Salvador".
And you may say "well he's not interested in immigration policy; he's interested in technology policy". If you are in the business of privacy and security, then you should not be putting yourself in the corner of a political cult with zero respect for the law, zero guiding moral principles, and which is only motivated by using any means necessary to crush their political enemies. Yen is supporting a wannabe dictator because he's willing to weaponize the federal government to destroy his competitors.
If all he said was "good pick by Trump, look forward to working with them", I'd accept it as a politically neutral statement that you often see from business leaders and even democratic politicians sometimes. But he went out of his way to demonize the democratic party and somehow hold the Republicans up as the defenders of small business
It's such an unbelievably bad take (which he dug in on like 5 times even though he could have said nothing and waited for it to blow over) and completely tone deaf as to be unbelievable. Like I literally don't believe that he doesn't know what he's saying; I think he, like many tech CEOs, is simply a conservative who's too ashamed to admit it.
Yes, the whole discussion is around antitrust, and he thinks republicans have a chance to do better than democrats there. There is nothing to "bro" about, it's pretty clear from the context. If he said any of that before the election, I could vaguely read an endorsement for single-issue voters. Saying republicans are better than democrats in fighting antitrust after Democrats shat their pants about it, doesn't sound an endorsement to me.
The rest of this comment is out of topic. His focus (and his company focus) has always been on a specific political area. So there is no expectation that he would address the whole political scenario, when he was talking about that narrow area.
So this is what bothers you? A completely legitimate critique of the democratic party? Well, I personally cannot care less, but you do you.
I see the issue as very simple: Him and his company work in the privacy space. Tech monopolies are a problem because captured people. Improving in this space is a win for privacy. Which is not something that is beneficial "in a vacuum", it's beneficial to all those vulnerable people that will be attacked by this government, or the next. he expressed optimism about the fact that republicans can do better than democrats here. Period. Naive, wrong, whatever. A legitimate opinion based on his reading of the last few years' trend.
No endorsement, no "pledge loyalty", nothing. Just a consideration. He also mentioned on his reddit account that ultimately actions will be what will count (as it is obvious). So to me this is legitimately a nothing burger. I cannot care less that people in US (and in many more places) live politics like a football game. I cannot care less that you or others got hurt because he criticized Democrats. They could and should do better, and then if the critique is unfair I will be there saying that he "goes out of his way" to criticize them. So far he clearly motivated his opinion with what Schumer did.