[jraph]

> ProtonMail is overhyping the "encrypted" email charade. 99% of the humanity doesn't need anything of that sort

Did you mean that 99% doesn't need unencrypted mails, and 1% would love to have open bar access to the emails of others (to "fight against criminality", or to "offer" a personalized ad "experience")?

I could have just ignored the whole post but this idea is harmful and needed a reply. The idea that people don't need privacy needs to die.

It's not even like it is an argument against protonmail and it doesn't convince me that fastmail is better. Fwiw I don't use any of them, I don't know them, I self host my mails unencrypted but this last characteristic is a bug, not a feature.

[methou]

ProtonMail's encryption is PGP, and it's difficult to get PGP right. The whole signing party thing doesn't scale. If it can't be done right, then it's just a hype at best.

[jraph]

OK, that's a substantive comment (which I don't have the experience and knowledge required to judge), and very different from saying that people don't need encryption. It was the main thing I wanted to do: counter this statement.

Now, it would not be enough to state that fastmail is better than protonmail. It matters to me because I would like to know what to suggest to someone who'd like to leave one of the big player. The original author took the time to write a Tell HN post to advise us fastmail, but fails to give an actual reason why it is better than the rest.

I don't need a mailbox for myself but should I advise someone, I'd be inclined to suggest a local association, and then maybe protonmail because iirc it turned non profit. I'd be happy to find arguments for or against this. I don't much know about protonmail nor fastmail and the original post didn't advance me though it kinda wanted to. We just know that the author prefers fastmail and the post read a bit like an ad.