andy1011000 Proton CEO posted:
“People honestly seem to forget that I live in Switzerland, where Republican/Democrat doesn’t mean anything, and Trump isn’t even on our ballot to be voted for…”
Onyx376. replied:
“The point is that fighting for a more just and equal society is not just about fighting for the fundamental right to privacy but also for all other fundamental rights, including individual rights and life. When you, as the CEO of a company that starts from these principles, nod positively to whatever action a political figure like Trump, who is known for always flagrantly putting his private interests ahead of those of his own nation, makes speeches about eliminating minorities, hurting their rights as citizens and flirting with Nazi movements, it is understandable that members of the privacy community are disappointed as this reveals a little about who is being the face of a company that should follow contrary principles. But now we really know what “freedom” means to you.”
I just signed up with proton and was strongly considering moving my Gmail account to their services. But this thing with their CEO is giving me great pause.
I guess it goes to show that no matter what, all ceos/rich people are simply out of touch and cannot be trusted. It is greatly disappointing.
I'm out of the loop. What happened?
Proton CEO turns out to be a far right nut that has a hard on for Trump and everyone that's paying for privacy (AKA their entire customer base) is pretty allergic to authoritarians.
I wouldn't bet on that. Just visit matrix if you want to see how many far right nutters there are who are also into privacy.
Now that you mention it, I read in several places how there were multiple active efforts to convert people on the left to the right through many ways.
E.g., "you care for the planet? Then less people is a good thing, then immigration is a bad thing." "You dislike government overreach? Then dismantling the federal government is a good thing." Etc.. Etc..
Thank you for that insight.
Time to look for an alternative
https://lemmy.world/post/24301835
Point of order: not the CEO, a board member. Doesn't change a ton but worth noting.
Proton AG is kinda complicated.
So its majority shareholder is the Proton Foundation, a non-profit. Andy Yen is one of five members of the Proton Foundation. But Proton AG is still a for-profit corporation, and it still has a CEO. Andy Yen is the CEO of Proton AG.
Basically:
Proton AG (owns every Proton service) = For Profit
It's Shareholders are:
And within the Proton Foundation, is the five members of the board of trustees, one of them is Andy Yen. And its apparant that the board of the Proton Foundation has appointed one of its members, Andy Yen, as the CEO of Proton AG.
This actually confusing for me as well, but the TLDR is, Andy Yen is both a member of the board at Proton Foundation, and simultaneously the CEO of Proton AG.
Talk about a conflict of interests. How can he uphold a non-profit and a for profit role mission at the same time? (Spoilers: he can't) it completely contradicts the reason why the foundation and the company are different entities. They should be a counterweight to each other. This is like the same politician being president, head of Parliament, and Supreme court judge. At that point you have monarchy with extra steps.
I'm not an expert, but I think the idea is that:
Proton AG is a for-profit to maximize revenue for Proton Foundation, the non-profit that owns (a majority of) Proton AG.
Meaning, although its technically "for-profit", but because its owned by non-profits, its not like Andy Yen can just put the money in directly in his pocket. The most he can do is try to get the majority shareholder (aka the Proton Foundation Board) to give him a raise as CEO, but becauase Proton AG is owned by a non-profit, theres probably some legal limit to what's considered "reasonable", since otherwise you have a loophole where a non-profit can be explited for personal profits (I'm sure swiss law isn't so lenient like the US).
The "profits" directly go to Proton Foundation to (supposedly) advance their goal of bringing more privacy to the world, if the board members start stealing funds, the swiss government might step in and remove them from the board (remember, its a non profit, they are on the board as a "truestee" not owners), and possibly jail time for mis-using Non-Profit funds.
Oh, him stealing money is not my concern. He's a millionaire, he already has plenty of venues to make more money than humanly conceivable.
The concern is that he can compromise the mission on the nonprofit side with decisions made as a leader of the for profit company with lesser oversight and higher discretion. Because he wears the same hat of the person that should be his counterpart. And there would be a delay for evaluation of his actions as the board won't supervise his every move day to day, that's not what they're there for and most boards delegate this discretion to executives with explicit clauses to only evaluate strategic performance. That can be manipulated given enough time and resources.
As for making money out of nonprofits, I envy your naïveté. I shall suggest you read "The revolution will not be funded", for a clear example of how nonprofits are exploited to make more money for the trustees.
The swiss government might prosecute a person for fraud if they're accused, but otherwise won't move a single finger if a nonprofit is not fulfilling their mission. They're even more liberal regarding freedom of association than the US. Removing board members is not a power they have, such a thing infringes on fundamental human rights.