user
My feedback
29 results found
-
5 votesuser
supported this idea
·
-
4 votesuser
supported this idea
·
-
5,017 votesuser
supported this idea
·
-
5 votesuser
supported this idea
·
-
3 votesuser
supported this idea
·
-
2 votesuser
supported this idea
·
-
3 votesuser
shared this idea
·
-
197 votesuser
supported this idea
·
-
3 votesuser
shared this idea
·
-
193 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment -
2,110 votesuser
supported this idea
·
-
1,606 votesuser
supported this idea
·
-
2,628 votes
Subscribers now have access to offline view with the introduction of the Proton Pass desktop app for Windows:
For more information, including what's coming next, check out: https://proton.me/blog/proton-pass-windows-app
user
supported this idea
·
-
682 votesuser
supported this idea
·
-
177 votesuser
supported this idea
·
-
799 votesuser
supported this idea
·
-
21 votesuser
supported this idea
·
-
70 votesuser
supported this idea
·
-
224 votesuser
supported this idea
·
-
690 votesuser
supported this idea
·
I’m a Proton Unlimited subscriber myself, and I have to say: this post reads less like a critique and more like a made-for-Drama-101 script. Proton has built a globally recognized reputation for privacy and ethics - reducing all of that to a “self-inflicted brick wall” because a premium chatbot isn’t bundled? That’s absurd.
Let’s get real: including Lumo Plus in Unlimited is economically impossible.
- Same price -> Proton loses money (AI inference is expensive).
- Higher price -> fewer users, undermining the company’s mission.
Now, let’s unpack the post:
1. The imaginary “we”
“We, Unlimited users…” Who exactly? There’s no evidence this represents anyone but the author. Classic rhetorical plural to inflate an opinion into a supposed consensus.
2. Using AI as a legal witness
Taking a language model’s mistakes as “proof” of corporate deception is laughable. LLMs generate text probabilistically, not legally. That it says “Unlimited is a misnomer” is not a legal admission - it’s a statistical hiccup. If chatbots were court-certified witnesses, every class action would be AI-driven.
3. Presumed malice everywhere
Every Lumo quirk - apologies, conditional statements, contradictions - is framed as deliberate sabotage. That’s pure overinterpretation. By that logic, every autocorrect fail in Word is Microsoft trying to gaslight its users.
4. The real debate ignored
Yes, you can debate whether “Unlimited” is the clearest marketing term. That’s fair. But hijacking the conversation into a pseudo-legal, drama-heavy indictment, combining AI hallucinations and imaginary class-action risk? That’s not critique. That’s theater.
Proton isn’t perfect, but it’s one of the rare tech companies sticking to ethics and transparency. Constructive criticism helps. Using AI hallucinations to accuse Proton of deliberate fraud? That’s just sensationalism. This post proves nothing except how a small naming quibble can be blown into a dramatic soap opera.