For ProtonMail’s response, which is worth reading, see here (Tildes discussion here). It looks like the original reporting by Bloomberg was misleading incorrect.
For ProtonMail’s response, which is worth reading, see here (Tildes discussion here).
It looks like the original reporting by Bloomberg was misleading incorrect.
Hi. I'm the creator of that video. It matters because the explicit agreement with HW puts them into scope of their data protection, assessment and localization laws. The blog I cited in that video...
Hi. I'm the creator of that video. It matters because the explicit agreement with HW puts them into scope of their data protection, assessment and localization laws. The blog I cited in that video is here:
What explicit agreement are we talking about? There's no partnership and the blog post mentioned Protonmail were considering publishing their app on Huawei's platform, alongside others, but...
What explicit agreement are we talking about? There's no partnership and the blog post mentioned Protonmail were considering publishing their app on Huawei's platform, alongside others, but specifically mentions no final decisions had been made.
The explicit agreement that would be required to pre-load ProtonMail on all Huawei hardware, and to add PM to Huawei's store. Both of those things require an explicit agreement. The "it's not a...
The explicit agreement that would be required to pre-load ProtonMail on all Huawei hardware, and to add PM to Huawei's store. Both of those things require an explicit agreement. The "it's not a partnership" line that PM is using is a half-truth: they're not creating a formal business partnership, but they're partnering to add PM to the store and to HW hardware and HW's upcoming OS.
The no final decision has been made line is important! That means we still have time to pressure them into taking a hard stance on privacy, free speech and human rights.
So now we're not talking about a present issue based on provable facts anymore but rather conjecture. Where does it state that ProtonMail will be pre-loaded to Huawei devices? Did either party...
The explicit agreement that would be required to pre-load ProtonMail on all Huawei hardware, and to add PM to Huawei's store. Both of those things require an explicit agreement.
So now we're not talking about a present issue based on provable facts anymore but rather conjecture. Where does it state that ProtonMail will be pre-loaded to Huawei devices? Did either party make a statement to this effect?
they're not creating a formal business partnership, but they're partnering to add PM to the store and to HW hardware and HW's upcoming OS.
In language of business "partnering" is the same as a formal business partnership. Merely using the platform isn't partnering anymore than you posting on Tildes is a partnership between you and Tildes.
You can't have it both ways on this. Either ProtonMail and Huawei are provably in a partnership, in the present time or they are not. And if they have informally agreed to something with Huawei you should provide proof of that rather than appealing to possibility. Stating that there exists an agreement because there could be is misleading.
Yes, they did, in the Forbes article the CEO stated they were looking at offering the app pre-loaded on Huawei devices. Nobody is implying the agreement has already been made. It hasn't been,...
So now we're not talking about a present issue based on provable facts anymore but rather conjecture. Where does it state that ProtonMail will be pre-loaded to Huawei devices? Did either party make a statement to this effect?
Yes, they did, in the Forbes article the CEO stated they were looking at offering the app pre-loaded on Huawei devices.
You can't have it both ways on this. Either ProtonMail and Huawei are provably in a partnership, in the present time or they are not. And if they have informally agreed to something with Huawei you should provide proof of that rather than appealing to possibility. Stating that there exists an agreement because there could be is misleading.
Nobody is implying the agreement has already been made. It hasn't been, that's why I'm pushing for them to change course. "but they're partnering to add PM to the store and to HW hardware and HW's upcoming OS" is assuming they reach the agreement that they said they're looking at.
I think you mean the Bloomberg article because Forbes directly contradicts those claims and repeats what has already been said before. The Bloomberg article says No source is given for this and...
I think you mean the Bloomberg article because Forbes directly contradicts those claims and repeats what has already been said before. The Bloomberg article says
The Swiss company’s service could come preloaded on future Huawei mobile devices or be offered inside its app store, AppGallery, said Andy Yen, ProtonMail’s chief executive officer. The company hasn’t made a final decision about offering its service on Huawei’s channel, he said.
No source is given for this and it's not a direct quote which in journalistic terms means this could be Bloomberg's own interpretation/Paraphrasing of Andy Yen's statements.
Nobody is implying the agreement has already been made. It hasn't been, that's why I'm pushing for them to change course. "but they're partnering to add PM to the store and to HW hardware and HW's upcoming OS" is assuming they reach the agreement that they said they're looking at.
You did not actually address the criticism because you did imply in your earlier video the agreement had been made, a record you have not corrected, and now you're assuming they will reach the agreement, without providing anything to build your case. Effectively reasoning backwards from the conclusion now that the prior argument is false.
I don't know how you intend to push for them to change course by misrepresenting, if not outright lying for views, and signal boosting Bloomberg's bad reporting because that's a really fast way to lose what credibility you might have had.
At no point in the Forbes article you cited did Forbes directly contradict the pre-loading claims. They didn't contradict them in DMs with me on Twitter and they haven't contradicted them on...
No source is given for this and it's not a direct quote which in journalistic terms means this could be Bloomberg's own interpretation/Paraphrasing of Andy Yen's statements.
At no point in the Forbes article you cited did Forbes directly contradict the pre-loading claims. They didn't contradict them in DMs with me on Twitter and they haven't contradicted them on Twitter. This is a status where they were asked pretty directly about the pre-loading issue, and they did not at all deny that it was being considered.
I absolutely did not imply in my earlier video that an agreement has been made. The entire premise of this whole exercise has been with the understanding that the agreement hasn't been made. This is a status in which I explicitly clarify that an agreement hasn't been reached. You can see in the wording of my tweets that I am treating any agreement as an if and not a given.
I don't know how you intend to push for them to change course by misrepresenting, if not outright lying for views, and signal boosting Bloomberg's bad reporting because that's a really fast way to lose what credibility you might have had.
I'm doing just fine on credibility. It's why this campaign has gotten this far. I understand you're supporting PM and that's your right, but at no point did I lie or intentionally misrepresent any part of this story. I presented the discussion between HW and PM as ongoing, and pointed out that PM was intentionally misrepresenting the relevant Chinese laws and lying to customers.
A lack of denial is not the same as a confirmation. The burden of proof is on you and/or on Bloomberg, not on everyone else to disprove the claim. A tweet is also not in any way the same as...
A lack of denial is not the same as a confirmation. The burden of proof is on you and/or on Bloomberg, not on everyone else to disprove the claim. A tweet is also not in any way the same as correcting the video itself, it puts the onus of finding the correction on the viewer rather than on yourself, not to mention Twitter is far less reliable as a public record and much harder to search.
I understand you're supporting PM and that's your right
Again here you are making an assumption without proof, my issues is specifically with the way you misrepresent news and signal boost bad reporting, the subject notwithstanding.
Okay again, I didn't say in the video that the deal was already made. The initial article itself made that very clear to myself and others. I didn't signal boost bad reporting. A crap outlet was...
Okay again, I didn't say in the video that the deal was already made. The initial article itself made that very clear to myself and others.
I didn't signal boost bad reporting. A crap outlet was the first one to report quotes from the CEO. The bits that made up the core of my argument were either never refuted in the re-do, or they were misrepresentations of the real situation (such as when PM said "we're not partnering with HW" when in reality, they meant they were creating an agreement with HW, they just weren't becoming formal business partners.)
And given the thumbnail in the video, it's looking forward to capitalising on that reporting for it's own monetary gain. This is why I've pretty much given up on YouTube outside of a few trusted...
And given the thumbnail in the video, it's looking forward to capitalising on that reporting for it's own monetary gain.
This is why I've pretty much given up on YouTube outside of a few trusted channels - because it's so easy for independent people to game YouTube's algorithm and audience to earn some extra coin.
People to sell their work need to make things that will make you click if you are mad at that I don't wanna see you looking at adds or titles from the news. The content of the video was good and...
People to sell their work need to make things that will make you click if you are mad at that I don't wanna see you looking at adds or titles from the news.
The content of the video was good and that's the thing that matter. Sure you can disagree with what he said, but he gather information pass it to others.
To be honest in tildes you don't see the thumbnail so if you click on the video it was not that make you click.
Hi. I'm guy who made the video. The thumbnail was a decision obviously to draw people to the video. I teach privacy quite a lot to others, and you find that you have to "trick" people into caring...
Hi. I'm guy who made the video.
The thumbnail was a decision obviously to draw people to the video. I teach privacy quite a lot to others, and you find that you have to "trick" people into caring most of the time. An attractive thumbnail is a good trick.
For ProtonMail’s response, which is worth reading, see here (Tildes discussion here).
It looks like the original reporting by Bloomberg was
misleadingincorrect.what with the spy chip fiasco a year ago and now this I'm not sure how much I trust Bloomberg to report on technical issues any more..
Wasn't there another spying-thing fiasco as well sometime after that? Maybe with Huawei?
Just out of curiosity, why not?
Hi. I'm the creator of that video. It matters because the explicit agreement with HW puts them into scope of their data protection, assessment and localization laws. The blog I cited in that video is here:
https://www.chinalawblog.com/2018/05/china-data-protection-regulations-cdpr.html
This is how China has (ab)used that law many times in the past.
What explicit agreement are we talking about? There's no partnership and the blog post mentioned Protonmail were considering publishing their app on Huawei's platform, alongside others, but specifically mentions no final decisions had been made.
The explicit agreement that would be required to pre-load ProtonMail on all Huawei hardware, and to add PM to Huawei's store. Both of those things require an explicit agreement. The "it's not a partnership" line that PM is using is a half-truth: they're not creating a formal business partnership, but they're partnering to add PM to the store and to HW hardware and HW's upcoming OS.
The no final decision has been made line is important! That means we still have time to pressure them into taking a hard stance on privacy, free speech and human rights.
So now we're not talking about a present issue based on provable facts anymore but rather conjecture. Where does it state that ProtonMail will be pre-loaded to Huawei devices? Did either party make a statement to this effect?
In language of business "partnering" is the same as a formal business partnership. Merely using the platform isn't partnering anymore than you posting on Tildes is a partnership between you and Tildes.
You can't have it both ways on this. Either ProtonMail and Huawei are provably in a partnership, in the present time or they are not. And if they have informally agreed to something with Huawei you should provide proof of that rather than appealing to possibility. Stating that there exists an agreement because there could be is misleading.
Ain't misleading, if you state something as fact because it has a remote chance at being so, you're straight up lying at that point.
Yes, they did, in the Forbes article the CEO stated they were looking at offering the app pre-loaded on Huawei devices.
Nobody is implying the agreement has already been made. It hasn't been, that's why I'm pushing for them to change course. "but they're partnering to add PM to the store and to HW hardware and HW's upcoming OS" is assuming they reach the agreement that they said they're looking at.
I think you mean the Bloomberg article because Forbes directly contradicts those claims and repeats what has already been said before. The Bloomberg article says
No source is given for this and it's not a direct quote which in journalistic terms means this could be Bloomberg's own interpretation/Paraphrasing of Andy Yen's statements.
You did not actually address the criticism because you did imply in your earlier video the agreement had been made, a record you have not corrected, and now you're assuming they will reach the agreement, without providing anything to build your case. Effectively reasoning backwards from the conclusion now that the prior argument is false.
I don't know how you intend to push for them to change course by misrepresenting, if not outright lying for views, and signal boosting Bloomberg's bad reporting because that's a really fast way to lose what credibility you might have had.
At no point in the Forbes article you cited did Forbes directly contradict the pre-loading claims. They didn't contradict them in DMs with me on Twitter and they haven't contradicted them on Twitter. This is a status where they were asked pretty directly about the pre-loading issue, and they did not at all deny that it was being considered.
I absolutely did not imply in my earlier video that an agreement has been made. The entire premise of this whole exercise has been with the understanding that the agreement hasn't been made. This is a status in which I explicitly clarify that an agreement hasn't been reached. You can see in the wording of my tweets that I am treating any agreement as an if and not a given.
I'm doing just fine on credibility. It's why this campaign has gotten this far. I understand you're supporting PM and that's your right, but at no point did I lie or intentionally misrepresent any part of this story. I presented the discussion between HW and PM as ongoing, and pointed out that PM was intentionally misrepresenting the relevant Chinese laws and lying to customers.
A lack of denial is not the same as a confirmation. The burden of proof is on you and/or on Bloomberg, not on everyone else to disprove the claim. A tweet is also not in any way the same as correcting the video itself, it puts the onus of finding the correction on the viewer rather than on yourself, not to mention Twitter is far less reliable as a public record and much harder to search.
Again here you are making an assumption without proof, my issues is specifically with the way you misrepresent news and signal boost bad reporting, the subject notwithstanding.
Okay again, I didn't say in the video that the deal was already made. The initial article itself made that very clear to myself and others.
I didn't signal boost bad reporting. A crap outlet was the first one to report quotes from the CEO. The bits that made up the core of my argument were either never refuted in the re-do, or they were misrepresentations of the real situation (such as when PM said "we're not partnering with HW" when in reality, they meant they were creating an agreement with HW, they just weren't becoming formal business partners.)
None that would pass skeptical evaluation.
It's in the original version of the article discussing this matter.
If they'd already made the decision, the video I made would have been much more "scorched earth" than heavy pressure to change their minds.
And given the thumbnail in the video, it's looking forward to capitalising on that reporting for it's own monetary gain.
This is why I've pretty much given up on YouTube outside of a few trusted channels - because it's so easy for independent people to game YouTube's algorithm and audience to earn some extra coin.
People to sell their work need to make things that will make you click if you are mad at that I don't wanna see you looking at adds or titles from the news.
The content of the video was good and that's the thing that matter. Sure you can disagree with what he said, but he gather information pass it to others.
To be honest in tildes you don't see the thumbnail so if you click on the video it was not that make you click.
Hi. I'm guy who made the video.
The thumbnail was a decision obviously to draw people to the video. I teach privacy quite a lot to others, and you find that you have to "trick" people into caring most of the time. An attractive thumbnail is a good trick.
What's wrong with people making content for monetary gain?
The problem is when people optimize for monetary gain, letting silly things like factual reporting slip far down the list of priorities.