pmk

I’m trying to understand your thinking. I don’t see the evil in buying a company to learn what they know. Buying standard notes resulted in proton docs, but standard notes is still there. Simplelogin is still there. I don’t see how they are “destroyed”.

Can you provide an example of a corporation that you can prove is good and will not turn bad in the future?

But do you consider it inherently harmful to have a collection of services with a common login and shared resources like contact list or integrated calendar? It’s always possible to have one provider per service, like signal for messages, a standalone calendar, a standalone video meeting program, etc, but then we expect users to make a lot of informed decisions. There seems to be a demand for ecosystems where people don’t have to connect services to their own stack, is this bad in itself, or can there be both good and bad actors in this area?

I don’t think we can ever trust that someone will stay good forever. But I also don’t want to dismiss someone because they might turn evil in the future. For me I mostly look for the question “how easy/hard would it be to suddenly move to a different provider”. I.e. am I locked in?

Google is an ad company, using surveillance and tracking to sell more ads, is that what you mean? Or Google started as a search engine, and now they’re an ecosystem? What about Protons business model is evil?

I interpret it as they want to be an ecosystem, because most people want the convenience of ecosystems. And far down that line, that means it will have more services like a chat and phone and browser etc.
On the grapheneos forum they were quick to say “they’re making a phone!”, but I think he’s just describing what it means to try to be an ecosystem.