I’ve been a paid Proton Unlimited customer for several years now and aside from a few small complaints, I’m generally very happy with the services I’m paying for. I agree that there is too much focus on “sidequests” like Wallet and Meet before core products are fully rebuilt and meeting expectations. I agree that Linux versions and some feature implementations are taking a long time. However, I have a fully functioning suite of Mail, Drive, VPN, Calendar and more that meet 95% of my needs. To be fair, I’m sure the zero-access/zero-knowledge encryption aspect makes development much more difficult.
If you’re worried about political affiliations/interests, I’ll give you that Andy Yen has made a few worrisome comments. I’m not sure what to do there. Assuming there aren’t repeat occurrences, I’m satisfied with their statement about the French political figure sponsorship.
If it’s the FBI cases and subpoenas, it comes down to understanding the difference between privacy and anonymity, and knowing what strategy is required to achieve actual anonymity.
So why (especially on Lemmy) is there so much Proton hate/relunctancy? Eager to hear some non-biased, fact-driven thoughts here!
I’ve noticed that there’s a peculiarly dogmatic approach to antifascism here, and I think that colors a lot of the discussion around Proton.
Its the same wirh firefox… so much FUD spreads for every tiny missetep. And the result is likely that more people stay with gmail/chrome or people killing upstream by supporting forks
I’m not aware of the stuff with Firefox specifically, but I think I can agree with the premise. It seems that this boils down to the question of whether “good enough” really is.
This line of thinking is particularly relevant within this community. For instance, Proton/Tuta isn’t immune to subpoenas, so the only way I can think of to have truly secure email is to have a self-hosted service with a dead man switch. However, most email providers block most self-hosted email servers… so one either needs to compromise, or not participate. It’s an uncomfortable place for a lot of people, and calls into question their morals as well as their commitment to the same. I think this is why points that may seem spurious may often creep in, because we’re all trying to find something to better inform our decisions in uncertain circumstances.
Could you elaborate further or clarify specifically why this approach “colors” the discussion here? Almost all approaches to antifascism kinda have to be dogmatic in my view
Of course. It seems that one of the foundational truths of antifascism is the approach that fascism, operates in all tenets of life, not just on the debate floor, and so if one resigns themselves to only confronting fascism using the establishes channels (i.e. voting), they are “leaving the back door open”, so to speak.
This leads to a certain suspicion toward all things; for example, not accepting trump’s dismissal of project 2025, because it is a forgone conclusion that lying about something that is exactly something a fascist would do.
However, I think that worldview can complicate (and at times create tension with) other discussions, i.e. Proton. Someone who may not consider themselves fascist or antifascist, and just wants to degoogle, may look up Proton and feel as if they don’t have the tools to separate the stuff which isn’t in the scope of their inquiry from the stuff that does, which what I think is going on here.
To put it another way, it’s like someone saying they want a burger and asking if mcdonald’s is good, then being told that mcdonald’s sucks because their food is unhealthy, they facilitate factory farming, and they take advantage of the economically disadvantaged. While those data points are important to the person sharing their opinion, and may very well extend to the life of the individual asking, it doesn’t say anything about whether the food tastes good or not, thereby leaving the initial question unresolved.
So while the data points about proton’s CEO (and anyone else who may be implicated) may be true, and while there may be wider implications as well, it can serve to muddy the waters for those who are coming in perpendicular to the conversation.
I didn’t understand how you’re supposed to be measured about fascism. As if fascists are equally charitable and deserve measure.