"Proton’s position on this is clear, and has never wavered from day one. As a Swiss company, when it comes to the data of Proton users, we will only comply with the laws of Switzerland, the jurisdiction of our headquarters and where all of our servers are located. As we have always consistently stated in our term and conditions and privacy policy, any requests which fall outside of Swiss law will be politely refused. That is not to say that we ignore foreign law enforcement requests and provide a safe haven for criminals, its just that we require all matters regarding Proton users to be adjudicated in Switzerland, through established international legal assistance channels."
This is only tangentially related but I take issue with the way Tildes works in this here situation and how it affects the way information is displayed to users. Were it not for my comment...
This is only tangentially related but I take issue with the way Tildes works in this here situation and how it affects the way information is displayed to users. Were it not for my comment bringing this topic to the top, this link bringing an opposing view would be sitting at the 23rd place whereas the original video post sits in first place (even though the former has at least twice as many votes).
I think it's not unreasonable to think that some users might not scroll past the first 10 links on the frontpage. I also think it's not unreasonable to think that some users will only click on the video and not read the comments. What I'm getting at is that context is lost. There is a discussion on whether the video represents the situation fairly and accurately and that state of affairs is not being displayed clearly.
Whether you think Protonmail is compromised in some way or not, and it doesn't seem that any one side is proven to be right at the moment, there should be clear warnings that the post is contested.
Would readers read the comments on the video and see that there may be more at play? Sure. But it's possible to miss it. This status quo just leads me (and others I'm sure) to simply check the comments first and always because I can't trust what's posted. Here's a proposal that I think would help improving things.
I would suggest a mechanism that allows admins to mark a direct link as contested and transform it into a text post. This way, new visitors would get a preface explaining the situation in the body of the text post before being able to click the link.
I also think this mechanism could be applied to direct links that have been proven to contain misleading and false information. Topics like these can contain important discussion and I don't think we need to necessarily delete the thread if there has been ample warnings.
The top comment of that other post is pointing to this response from Protonmail, and this thread. Most of the comments on it are also debating the accuracy of it. We could certainly try to do...
The top comment of that other post is pointing to this response from Protonmail, and this thread. Most of the comments on it are also debating the accuracy of it. We could certainly try to do more, but unless someone only watches the video, the information about it being misleading is already very accessible.
A possibility might be something similar to how labeling comments works—let people mark a topic as "misleading" or something similar, and if enough users do it, it adds a marker or some different behavior to the topic.
I think a visual indicator would be useful but I find it hard to argue for or against without more concrete evidence of whether or not the current way presents a problem.
I think a visual indicator would be useful but I find it hard to argue for or against without more concrete evidence of whether or not the current way presents a problem.
I certainly don't deny that once you jump into the comments it is very clear that the information is misleading. What I instead wish for would be to preemptively warn users with a simple tag, much...
I certainly don't deny that once you jump into the comments it is very clear that the information is misleading. What I instead wish for would be to preemptively warn users with a simple tag, much like we already do with nsfw and it's special styling, so that users click on the link fully aware of what is going on. Evidently you seem open to the idea so I won't argue further.
Yeah, it makes sense. I think maybe fitting it into a system kind of like reporting for topics might make the most sense, since we don't really have any way currently other than tags to add more...
Yeah, it makes sense. I think maybe fitting it into a system kind of like reporting for topics might make the most sense, since we don't really have any way currently other than tags to add more information.
This is where I miss things like Reddit's post flairs, because a "misleading" flair would be very useful both for the video or the Bloomberg article and might encourage people to look for a...
This is where I miss things like Reddit's post flairs, because a "misleading" flair would be very useful both for the video or the Bloomberg article and might encourage people to look for a correction in the comments.
I think it's not unreasonable to think that some users might not scroll past the first 10 links on the frontpage. I also think it's not unreasonable to think that some users will only click on the video and not read the comments.
To the last point: this tends to vary with the type of content, but it's well known on Reddit as well that many users do not read/watch long-form material and instead immediately jump into the comment sections based on the information in the title.
I could see a world in which community tags become a thing, with the ability to tag a post as misleading and if a certain threshold do so it gets displayed. @Deimos, are there plans for...
I could see a world in which community tags become a thing, with the ability to tag a post as misleading and if a certain threshold do so it gets displayed. @Deimos, are there plans for community-style tagging in the future?
I don't understand where you're getting that from. The fact that Protonmail is considering releasing their app on Huawei's store doesn't seem to say anything about Huawei "wanting" proton mail. Do...
I don't understand where you're getting that from. The fact that Protonmail is considering releasing their app on Huawei's store doesn't seem to say anything about Huawei "wanting" proton mail. Do you believe that Google specifically "wants" and endorses (beyond the assurance that it isn't malware) every app on their store?
I'm only speculating here; maybe because it would appeal to the population where they might need an encrypted communication app. Especially where censorship is becoming enforced strictly. Thus...
I'm only speculating here; maybe because it would appeal to the population where they might need an encrypted communication app. Especially where censorship is becoming enforced strictly. Thus further sales for Huawei. Even more if other phone company's app store don't contain something similar to Protonmail.
I think everyone is reading way to much into this. All proton is doing is considering putting their app on huawei's store, so that Chinese users can continue to use it if they lose access to...
I think everyone is reading way to much into this. All proton is doing is considering putting their app on huawei's store, so that Chinese users can continue to use it if they lose access to google play. I don't think that means huawei "wants" protonmail any more than google "wants" micro transaction riddled shovel wear that is put on their store.
This is only tangentially related but I take issue with the way Tildes works in this here situation and how it affects the way information is displayed to users. Were it not for my comment bringing this topic to the top, this link bringing an opposing view would be sitting at the 23rd place whereas the original video post sits in first place (even though the former has at least twice as many votes).
I think it's not unreasonable to think that some users might not scroll past the first 10 links on the frontpage. I also think it's not unreasonable to think that some users will only click on the video and not read the comments. What I'm getting at is that context is lost. There is a discussion on whether the video represents the situation fairly and accurately and that state of affairs is not being displayed clearly.
Whether you think Protonmail is compromised in some way or not, and it doesn't seem that any one side is proven to be right at the moment, there should be clear warnings that the post is contested.
Would readers read the comments on the video and see that there may be more at play? Sure. But it's possible to miss it. This status quo just leads me (and others I'm sure) to simply check the comments first and always because I can't trust what's posted. Here's a proposal that I think would help improving things.
I would suggest a mechanism that allows admins to mark a direct link as contested and transform it into a text post. This way, new visitors would get a preface explaining the situation in the body of the text post before being able to click the link.
I also think this mechanism could be applied to direct links that have been proven to contain misleading and false information. Topics like these can contain important discussion and I don't think we need to necessarily delete the thread if there has been ample warnings.
The top comment of that other post is pointing to this response from Protonmail, and this thread. Most of the comments on it are also debating the accuracy of it. We could certainly try to do more, but unless someone only watches the video, the information about it being misleading is already very accessible.
A possibility might be something similar to how labeling comments works—let people mark a topic as "misleading" or something similar, and if enough users do it, it adds a marker or some different behavior to the topic.
I think a visual indicator would be useful but I find it hard to argue for or against without more concrete evidence of whether or not the current way presents a problem.
I certainly don't deny that once you jump into the comments it is very clear that the information is misleading. What I instead wish for would be to preemptively warn users with a simple tag, much like we already do with nsfw and it's special styling, so that users click on the link fully aware of what is going on. Evidently you seem open to the idea so I won't argue further.
Yeah, it makes sense. I think maybe fitting it into a system kind of like reporting for topics might make the most sense, since we don't really have any way currently other than tags to add more information.
This is where I miss things like Reddit's post flairs, because a "misleading" flair would be very useful both for the video or the Bloomberg article and might encourage people to look for a correction in the comments.
To the last point: this tends to vary with the type of content, but it's well known on Reddit as well that many users do not read/watch long-form material and instead immediately jump into the comment sections based on the information in the title.
I could see a world in which community tags become a thing, with the ability to tag a post as misleading and if a certain threshold do so it gets displayed. @Deimos, are there plans for community-style tagging in the future?
Lots of users can already edit tags. There aren't any plans for something like "tag voting" though, no.
Seems the elephant in the room then is:
Why on earth would Huawei want Protonmail in its AppGallery?
I don't understand where you're getting that from. The fact that Protonmail is considering releasing their app on Huawei's store doesn't seem to say anything about Huawei "wanting" proton mail. Do you believe that Google specifically "wants" and endorses (beyond the assurance that it isn't malware) every app on their store?
I'm only speculating here; maybe because it would appeal to the population where they might need an encrypted communication app. Especially where censorship is becoming enforced strictly. Thus further sales for Huawei. Even more if other phone company's app store don't contain something similar to Protonmail.
They saw a lot of bad press due to privacy concerns, maybe this is an attempt to send a positive signal?
I think everyone is reading way to much into this. All proton is doing is considering putting their app on huawei's store, so that Chinese users can continue to use it if they lose access to google play. I don't think that means huawei "wants" protonmail any more than google "wants" micro transaction riddled shovel wear that is put on their store.