You're just making stuff up now.

Brave seems more that somewhat sketchy, like their rewriting of affiliate codes: https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2020/06/06/the-brave-we...

Yes, that was definitely a mistake, but it happened in 2020, and they apologized. I don't know how relevant that example is today, as it doesn't represent current behavior of the browser.

Disclaimer: I don't use Brave

Can you recommend a paid mail service which is better? I'm in a search process now, to ditch google as much as I can, and was leaning towards Proton services.

Proton is good, not sure what OP means by "sketchy". I personally also use Hey and used Fastmail before. All three are great alternatives to Google.

I’m slowly moving to Fastmail. I tried hey. Their app is terrible. The whole thing seems clunky.

Hey isn't for everyone, it's quite quirky and opiniated. Fastmail is more a classic email experience. I personally like the style of Hey and some of their unique features such as Screener and Collab.

I've been using Tutanota for the past several months, and the experience has been exceptional! I highly suggest checking them out. They even have free accounts now (when I signed up, it was pay-only).

https://tutanota.com/

Happy Fastmail customer for 10 years or so. They are quite focused and do a great job. My only complaint is their mobile app: I wish it worked offline. I've used K-9 to work around this, but don't feel like I should have to.

I guess it depends on which parts they need to be better.

From a functionality standpoint I would list, hey.com, fastmail and icloud as better. mailbox.org is better on being a traditional mail host you access using your own client (no wierd bridge app). hey.com and icloud are US hosted if that matters to you.

For the semi selfhosted options https://thehelm.com seems like a really good option.

I spotted a Proton address in the movie Knives Out (2019). It was used by the villain, naturally.

I see critics on Protonmail, but Brave is an absolut legit fully open-sourced project. Nothing Sketchy, and no the opt-in Crypto Program is also nothing sketcht.

While the opt-in crypto program may not be sketchy per se, all ads that I have ever seen on it where in some way or the other get-rich-quick schemes. And that is imo what most of the criticism is about.

The sketchy part is being a Chrome clone while pretending to be a "different" browser.

To create a web browser you need some kind of rendering engine. And writing rendering engine that correctly handles current HTML, JavaScript, CSS specifications is hard. On top of that you build features like bookmarks, password manager, etc. I do not have a problem with some browser using Chrome rendering engine, if they remove all the sketchy parts, like sending every url that you browse to some central database, or backing up your passwords on Google server.

So, in the end, being based on Chrome rendering engine is not a damning quality in itself.

You guys will eventually have to get over that old "blink is chrome" trope. The world has moved on. It's time that you do.

As soon as will see even a single real fork of the Chrome, I will of course call it a separate browser. Just like I called Safari if you saw above. Safari and Chrome grow from the same source years ago, but Apple decided to make a real own browser, not just tune some settings and add or remove plugins.

Well, it's the other way around, actually. Safari's WebKit was based on Konqueror's KHTML, and Chrome's Blink was in turn based on WebKit. See here [0], it's pretty interesting

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebKit#Origins

Yes, as if the rendering engine is the only part of a browser.

The main part of the browser is its main developer. In this case it is Google. If Google decides to add QUIC support to the browser it will appear in all of the clones too, because they are not standalone. If Google decides to move to the Manifest V3 then all closes will move to it too. Whatever Google decides to implement deep in the Chrome browser, other will have no choice but to accept.

That's false. For example, Brave will continue supporting Manifest V2.

https://nitter.net/BrendanEich/status/1134141335881912320

https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/20059#issuecom...

Yes, if they will keep this promise it will be great. It is a big effort for almost no profit, so I guess then Brave could be counted as a separate browser. It would probably depend on the extension authors too, since they would need to support two different versions, one of which for the Brave only, and another for all Chrome variations including Chrome itself.

What's sketchy about Protonmail? It seems fine to me.

The 'commercial'ness of Protonmail is why I trust it. The email company makes money by charging for email accounts. Very straightforward.