He said unnecessarily political things in a tweet which don’t match the experiences of many people, at the exact worst moment possible. Then he doubled down on his statement with an official company account, which he later edited after there was backlash. The original comment. He’s promised to post from a personal account in the future. In that same post he stated that “while the X post was not intended to be a political statement, I can understand how it can be interpreted as such, and therefore should not have been made”.
In further discussions he described his political leanings as “probably closest to European center-left parties. But again, that’s a massive generalization/simplification. Where that puts me on the American spectrum, I have no idea”. That’s not really part of the drama, but can be taken to imply that despite working with US legislators in the past and touting this work in his responses, he may not have fully understood the current political climate or party dynamics if he doesn’t know which US party he more closely identifies with. Another interpretation could be that he knows full well and doesn’t want to say either way because making a statement of partisan support is what put him in the hot water in the first place.
I linked original sources so you can do your own reading and come to your own conclusions. Personally I bounce between believing that he stepped in something he didn’t mean to and he genuinely doesn’t support either party, and thinking that he’s too clever a man to not understand, especially since he has directly worked with US legislators on privacy issues and he doubled down in the comments after the general response was critical of his original tweet.
I don’t see what’s controversial here. This just seems like an independent thinker who evaluates issues on a case-by-case basis rather than blindly adopting the views of any one group as a package deal.
The tweet where he said Trump’s pick was great and that people forget that the Republican party is the one that fought against Big Tech, blah blah blah.
Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt for a second and say he isn’t familiar with why that isn’t true since he’s not American.
He is publicly tweeting something supporting Trump.
There’s a broad spectrum of people who are flawed which I’m 100% fine with acknowledging publicly that they did something right. But there is a line where it doesn’t matter anymore.
An extreme example: if I thought of something Hitler did that was good for the German people, should I tweet about it?
No. Because I don’t want to come off as supporting Hitler.
Trump and his administration are causing so much awful shit. The wording of Andy’s message wasn’t “Trump sucks but just FYI there’s one small thing he did right”. His wording was simply all positive, leaving the important context that Trump is a fascist out entirely.
He said unnecessarily political things in a tweet which don’t match the experiences of many people, at the exact worst moment possible. Then he doubled down on his statement with an official company account, which he later edited after there was backlash. The original comment. He’s promised to post from a personal account in the future. In that same post he stated that “while the X post was not intended to be a political statement, I can understand how it can be interpreted as such, and therefore should not have been made”.
In further discussions he described his political leanings as “probably closest to European center-left parties. But again, that’s a massive generalization/simplification. Where that puts me on the American spectrum, I have no idea”. That’s not really part of the drama, but can be taken to imply that despite working with US legislators in the past and touting this work in his responses, he may not have fully understood the current political climate or party dynamics if he doesn’t know which US party he more closely identifies with. Another interpretation could be that he knows full well and doesn’t want to say either way because making a statement of partisan support is what put him in the hot water in the first place.
I linked original sources so you can do your own reading and come to your own conclusions. Personally I bounce between believing that he stepped in something he didn’t mean to and he genuinely doesn’t support either party, and thinking that he’s too clever a man to not understand, especially since he has directly worked with US legislators on privacy issues and he doubled down in the comments after the general response was critical of his original tweet.
I don’t see what’s controversial here. This just seems like an independent thinker who evaluates issues on a case-by-case basis rather than blindly adopting the views of any one group as a package deal.
The tweet where he said Trump’s pick was great and that people forget that the Republican party is the one that fought against Big Tech, blah blah blah.
Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt for a second and say he isn’t familiar with why that isn’t true since he’s not American.
He is publicly tweeting something supporting Trump.
There’s a broad spectrum of people who are flawed which I’m 100% fine with acknowledging publicly that they did something right. But there is a line where it doesn’t matter anymore.
An extreme example: if I thought of something Hitler did that was good for the German people, should I tweet about it?
No. Because I don’t want to come off as supporting Hitler.
Trump and his administration are causing so much awful shit. The wording of Andy’s message wasn’t “Trump sucks but just FYI there’s one small thing he did right”. His wording was simply all positive, leaving the important context that Trump is a fascist out entirely.