How to play: Some comments in this thread were written by AI. Read through and click flag as AI on any comment you think is fake. When you're done, hit reveal at the bottom to see your score.got it
Could it be you’re using Chrome with the offline Docs extension? On Brave and without the extension, Docs isn’t nearly as fast for me — even if Proton remains slow.
I also wish I could afford Proton as a non-pro user…
The thing I am interested in proton docs is if it can have API functionality. Proton docs allow anonymous users to write things and I wish if there was an API functionality, then people can use it to create anonymous/(pseudonomous?) comments and hose those comments as a comment engine and many other interesting things like creating forms themselves on it.
I would love to build on proton but Alas the API isn't open source and recently with Proton meet and its controversy, my trust on proton has shifted a bit too which dampened my enthusiasm in all of this.
(To make the API I even used puppeeter instances to do it, and after quite a long time I was able to succeed actually but that's just not scalable)
For a start, you can't edit docs on mobile. But if you just use it for a while you notice there's a fairly large amount of bugs which need working on. Try entering a couple of dates and using their autofill to extend the sequence... it's pretty comical.
Proton Drive still can't do real-time collaboration. Mail has no snooze. Calendar reminders are flaky. Saw the same thing with Novell in the 90s -- keep bolting on products while the core gets neglected. At some point the surface area just becomes a liability.
The launch of Proton Meet officially eliminates the lazy excuse that securing real-time WebRTC media at scale is "too hard" for modern enterprise platforms. Hopefully this forces the hands of Slack, Teams, and Google to stop treating E2EE as a premium afterthought and start offering it as a standard option for the modern web.
Slack, Teams and Google are meaningfully making this choice and that's because customers rarely care and yes, many of customers do prefer the server side transcriptions, recording and AI note taking.
You can add the server to the call even if it is E2EE. You don't need to physically show it as a separate user and the client can hide that information and make it seamless.
Who still believes that anyway given that WhatsApp, Facetime, and even Google Meet (formerly Duo) (formerly Hangouts) (the one that was not Google Meet 1.0) (not for Woरkspaces) have been supporting E2E multi-party video calls for a long time now?
unrelated but was using र a stylistic choice of some kind or a mistake? I thought my screen had a speck of dust or something on it (also what language do you speak if it was a mistake, linguistics are fun)
This must integrate with Proton's appointment scheduling feature, no? That's a feature offered as part of their Workplace Standard and Workplace Premium plans. Does anyone have experience with that feature? How does it compare to the Microsoft Office 365 bookings feature? Honestly couldn't do my job without something like this manage my stacked schedule.
We at Sourcemeta (https://www.sourcemeta.com) are in the Proton business plan. The "Talk to an expert" and "Schedule Consultation" buttons in the main page point to my (the founder) calendar to book a slot.
No complains from it so far. People get it, book with success, and I run those calls on Proton Meet, which also proved to work pretty well.
There is a history of international legal action as a result of them violating privacy laws, nevermind being privacy friendly:
France’s data protection regulator (CNIL) fined Google €325 million in 2025 for displaying ads between Gmail messages without consent and for placing cookies during account creation without consent. This is on top of prior fines of €100 million in 2020 and €150 million in 2021 for cookie violations, so this is a documented pattern.
The Dutch government commissioned Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) on Office/Microsoft 365. The 2018 report found Microsoft collected 23,000–25,000 different telemetry events from Office and called it “large scale and covert collection of personal data”
The FTC went after Zoom in 2020. The complaint alleged that since at least 2016, Zoom misled users by claiming “end-to-end, 256-bit encryption” when it actually provided a lower level of security, and Zoom saved the cryptographic keys that would allow it to access the content of customers’ meetings.
You could also just go read their own policy documents, or ask AI to explain what is possible under those to you if they are too dense.
>The FTC went after Zoom in 2020. The complaint alleged that since at least 2016, Zoom misled users by claiming “end-to-end, 256-bit encryption” when it actually provided a lower level of security, and Zoom saved the cryptographic keys that would allow it to access the content of customers’ meetings.
I imagine if a person is doubting that big corpos are spying on us, then he is operating in a different paradigm altogether. I suggest this old but still 100% relevant article as a starting conversation point, bonus points for being written by an industry authority. Replace NSA with Google, Amazon, Apple or Microsoft etc. and nothing would meaningfully change.
Sibling comment does a great job, but I just wanted to add that their Terms and Privacy Policy are simply not compatible with privacy-friendliness.
I used to analyse PPs to detect usage of data brokers, and I’ll confidently say that these 2 have some of the worst policies out there, although less obvious companies such as Netflix and Spotify also had appalling conditions.
If a policy is compatible with data brokerage, you can very well assume they do it, and that means they’ll share your data and get shared data about you in return. But hey, “we don’t SELL your data!”
The burden of proof cuts both ways. Can you prove they're not tracking? Their business models literally depend on behavioral data. You don't need a smoking gun — just look at what they charge for the product versus what it costs to run.
That doesn't even matter. Zoom, Teams, Google are American products and Proton is Swiss.
One side is hostile and focused on solely on shareholder profits, while other claims to be privacy-focused and majority owned by a nonprofit foundation.
There are enough public cases of American tech companies seriously violating privacy. I don't see how there can be hope for any privacy while using any of their products even if E2EE is claimed.
Sigh. I guess I’m less amen less the target audience for proton as they (understandably) focus on enterprise/business customers. But bloody hell, I wish they would fix their core products before rolling out all these new ones. Yes, people want to DeGoogle. Fair. But also, people (me!) just want proton mail to easily let me set up basic rules and bulk operations.
I would be curious to understand whether they implemented this from scratch or whether they got a whitelabel solution from someone else (and if so, who).
I was shocked recently when I looked into this to find out the number of solutions out there.
Proton Meet relies entirely on LiveKit Cloud to run https://proton.me/meet/privacy-policy which uses virtual compute and networking with DigitalOcean, Google and Oracle.
> in today’s unstable geopolitical environment, laws like the US CLOUD Act can compel US-owned video conferencing platforms to hand over any data they store, even if the servers reside outside of the United States
So does that mean two people using this in the US will both have high latency to another country?
LiveKit Cloud uses virtual compute and networking across multiple (USA based) cloud providers. DigitalOcean, Google and Oracle at minimum. They each have servers all of the world of course, but the controlling entity(s) parent companies are all based in the USA.
Latency shouldn’t be a problem, it's handled by a global CDN.
Proton including that part about geopolitical instability implies that Meet is does not fall under the USA's CLOUD Act - that would be wrong. The metadata of any Meet call could be handed to USA authorities, for example the participants date & time, source IP and useragent of each member. The call itself should be E2E encrypted.
Packet round trip between US and EU is approx. 100ms. Given acceptable latency for voice communication is below 300ms, we should not worry about that too much.
The spelling reform angle is interesting here -- Webster's 1828 dictionary was pretty deliberate about dropping doubled consonants in cases like this, which is why American English has traveling but kept compelling. The rule was never fully consistent, which trips people up still.
Proton makes safer, more private (than, say, Gmail) email a possibility for people who don't have much technical knowledge but who know enough to want to keep their emails out of Google's hands.
If you have both the knowledge and time to run a server, by all means, that can make sense (and can be fun!). It's just not as widely applicable.
You send emails to @gmail addresses most of the time, so... How you can avoid giving Alphabet (or some other giant) your messages?
The point of ownership is having your mails in your hand, on your iron, anything who can talk IMAPs or even POP is ok for that. For voice/chat etc Matrix or XMPP might be yours, so nobody could decide to ban you or shut the service down. You still depend on a ISP ok, but much less dependencies anyway. That's the point IMVHO.
While thinking that company X is better in privacy terms than company Y is honestly meaningless, you can trust them or not, you don't know what happen on their servers or someone else ones where they actually live on (like using Amazon o Microsoft cloud as a backend).
IIRC calling SFU-based video conferencing "end-to-end encrypted" is a bit of a stretch -- traffic still routes through Proton's servers for forwarding. The more precise claim is that keys never leave clients so the server can't read streams. Could be wrong, but Zoom had similar definitional debates a few years back.
