For one, Gail Slater was only 'tough on big tech' for a few years in the very beginning of her career, and the entire rest of it has been spent as a big tech lobbyist for Internet Association. The most relevant lobbying being the opposition of a california data privacy bill that would require ISPs to gain customer permissions to collect and sell their browsing history. Needless to say, it's pretty horrifying to hear a privacy company CEO call a noted anti-privacy lobbyist a good pick with those 'credentials'.

Only two of Andy Yen's posts regarding the matter are shown or referred to- the original post, and a later 'clarification'. Every double-down, the 'official' statement he (supposedly erroneously) made, the deleted posts, all of those are not mentioned, yet the author spends a lot of time claiming that they went through 'thousands of tweets and replies' to find everything relevant, which in my opinion is gaslighty as hell when he then promptly discards all of them since they don't match his narrative.

The biggest issue with the article though is that it makes a ton of assumptions presented as fact about Andy Yen's motivations, which are then used as 'evidence' to discredit the evidence he's pro-trump... and then assigns actions the entire Proton company did as justification for why Yen, himself as a person, is not pro-trump.

So the evidence he is NOT pro-trump is that the company he works for and doesn't wholly control has done some some decent privacy stuff, and the proof that he IS pro-trump is either thrown away, not mentioned, or discard on the basis that 'he totally said he wasn't guys trust me.'