Isn't there at least some controversy about that (perhaps it's only a disgruntled competitor who jumps on every second post I see mentioning them, but I'm 99% sure I've seen a few questions/accusations levelled at them...)

Having said that - seeing them vouched for by the Mozilla Foundation seems to be a significantly better indicator of their trustworthiness than this post from a day or two ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18260920 - I _mostly_ trust Mozilla to not be guided just by whoever offers them money, and hopefully to have learnt from their dumb Mr Robot fuckup...

I take it you mean https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17258203?

I fully agree that ProtonVPN seems like a poor choice, considering all the controversy around them, especially when its backed up by that much evidence. Mullvad, Private Internet Access, TorGuard etc. would have been a better choice, but perhaps Mozilla didn't want to look like it was picking sides among 'established' VPNs..

These are actually false allegations which were originally spread by none other than Private Internet Access as part of a smear campaign. We have previously responded here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ProtonVPN/comments/8ww4h2/protonvpn...

As mentioned in Mozilla's blogpost, they did their homework and thoroughly checked ProtonVPN, including visiting us in Geneva at our main office, which also refutes these allegations.

Stay away from PIA. One of their employees was caught red handed spreading false information about other VPNs a few months back. The guy's google profile picture was in one of the screenshots. It was half covered by another window but it was enough to figure out who he was

My Google-fu is failing me. Source?

Why should I trust those comments over Mozilla when they say they looked into the details of the service they promote?