Proton Mail Says It’s “Politically Neutral” While Praising Republican Party
theintercept.com
The “privacy-first” company surprised its user base when CEO Andy Yen lauded Trump on social media.

Summary

Proton Mail, known for its privacy-first email services, faced backlash after CEO Andy Yen praised the Republican Party and its antitrust stance.

The company initially posted and deleted a statement supporting Yen’s comments, later claiming an “internal miscommunication” and reiterating its political neutrality.

Critics question Proton’s impartiality, particularly as it cooperates with Swiss authorities on legal data requests.

Privacy advocates warn that political alignments could undermine trust, especially for Proton’s users—journalists and activists wary of government surveillance under administrations like Trump’s.

  • Driveway4964@lemmy.world
    3610·
    2 days ago

    My stance on Proton is my stance on GrapheneOS: just because the creator is bad doesn’t mean the software is bad. As long as the software is better compared to the alternatives then I seen no reason to stop using it.

    Note: better can mean more privacy-friendly, cost-friendly, sustainable, nice to use, open, etc.

    Oddly enough, I found the opposite to be true with companies like Nestle: the news of them killing children makes me dislike their chocolates.

    • jkYkM7a@lemmy.mlEnglish
      15·
      2 days ago

      I don’t know much about the creator of GrapheneOS. What’s the bad about them? I know they’re a little dogmatic, as security/FOSS folk can sometimes be, but I’ve not heard anything beyond that.

        • VitoRobles@lemmy.todayEnglish
          6·
          2 days ago

          To save others a click

          From [deleted]

          Wow, this is big news. My feelings are very conflicted on this.

          I think it is important to recognize both that:

          1. He has (and hopefully will continue to) contribute greatly and meaningfully to privacy, security, and user control/autonomy over our devices and our data greatly. More than most people ever will. The work he has done with Graphene and with Copperhead before that have benefited us all. He has made great technical contributions to Privacy on Android and is a talented developer and deserves recognition and respect for that, I’m certain it was not always easy and often very thankless job. If he chooses to leave the project, losing his experience, knowledge, and dedication is a huge loss.
          1. And at the same time, he often behaved in unacceptable ways, is an extremely socially abrasive and often acted in ways that were not stable nor constructive, and saw anyone that wasn’t 100% deferential to him as an enemy out to get him and get grapheneOS. Many of us have personal experiences with this, and there are a couple well documented controversies as well. He did a lot for the project technically speaking and its existence is thanks mostly to him, but he also did a lot to push people away and alienate and bully people for the small things, perceived slights, or even technical disagreements, and overall contributed to a toxic and hostile culture in the sub community that harmed both the project and his own mental health. We all struggle in certain regards, and I truly and earnestly hope that he seeks the help he needs, or just takes a breather, and re-engages with the project in a more positive and healthy way. None of us are defined by just one aspect of ourselves, we are the sum of all parts, some good, some bad.

          We should be able to acknowledge the good and the bad and not rush to paint a black and white picture in either extreme.

      • NudeNewt@lemm.eeEnglish
        4·
        2 days ago

        All I could tell from my recent search into FOSS Android OS’s is that they shit on competetitors like crazy. It’s pretty funny, albiet concerning, to see the official Reddit account bash on the competition.

    • KingRandomGuy@lemmy.world
      7·
      2 days ago

      My stance on Proton is my stance on GrapheneOS: just because the creator is bad doesn’t mean the software is bad. As long as the software is better compared to the alternatives then I seen no reason to stop using it.

      I think the major difference is that for a software package or operating system like GrapheneOS, theoretically people can audit the code and verify that it is secure (of course in practice this is not something that 99% of people will ever do). So to some extent, you technically don’t have to put a ton of trust into the GrapheneOS devs, especially with features like reproducible builds allowing you to verify that the software you’re running is the same software as the repository.

      For something like Proton where you’re using a service someone else is running, you sort of have to trust the provider by default. You can’t guarantee that they’re not leaking information about you, since there’s no way for you to tell what their servers are doing with your data. Accordingly, to some extent, if you don’t trust the team behind the service, it isn’t unreasonable to start doubting the service.

      • Vinstaal0@lemmy.world
        1·
        1 day ago

        This is where audits come into place. Currently Proton only made the result of their security audit public, but you can also get an accounting firm to audit the privacy statement. Not endorsing them or anything, but PureVPN has been audited by iirc Deloitte on their privacy statement. I have verified this a couple year by then sharing the conclusion of the report from Deloitte with signature.

        Proton should do something similar and yearly and could have a lot more faith in them. An accountant isn’t going to risk his career for something like Proton’s privacy statement. At least I would hope not

    • Vinstaal0@lemmy.world
      11·
      1 day ago

      The Porton Foundation is also the majority owner of the company these days which makes it a bit harder to do whatever you wish with the company