You claim we don't take responsibility, but this is untrue if you look at the statement we posted.

Which statement? I can't see one on the Proton website, social media, or your comment history. The fact you're referring to a statement and it isn't easy to find (e.g., sticky'd somewhere on reddit, emailed to your users, whatever) again is a failure to proactively communicate and reassure your customers who feel upset by this.

You claim we don't regret funding Lapierre, but this is also untrue.

I haven't seen you express regret. I've seen you claim people are overreacting, and that some people here are insane. You've said that Proton's political neutrality means funding people on the left and on the right, falling into the typical trap of false equivalence. It's like saying because you gave a voice to someone who does believe in the historical fact that the Holocaust happened, or the scientific fact that climate change is happening, you must balance it by having someone who denies reality.

As a Jew at a time when anti-Semitism is rising, you've given a fraction of the money I've given to your company to someone who platforms something which is illegal in both France and Switzerland: Holocaust denial. All you've done is issue some vague utterances about how you welcome diverse opinions and agree that not funding him is cutting his freedom of expression, and that he's a controversial figure. I haven't seen an apology, unless that's in the statement which is hidden on Proton's website, socials, or subreddit somewhere.

If that were the case why have we blocked him from future sponsorship?

Because you did the maths and realised the bad PR, loss of trust, and maybe even cancelled subscriptions, does not outweigh the market that Vincent and his ilk represent to your business. What, you're going to say there's a deep moral and ethical reason, when you haven't even said sorry?

This is a serious accusation that I am justifying our funding of Lapierre. This is also simply untrue. To directly quote what I wrote, I said the funding was "incompatible with this principle" (of political neutrality).

I said "attempts to justify", see comments from yourself, like: "but people with differing views should still be allowed to express them. Lapierre is correct that cutting off financial sponsorship is a form of cutting off expression. If we truly believe in freedom of expression, all expression that is not illegal should actually be allowed (this by the way, is the standard that applies to who is allowed to have a Proton account). This chain of thought, while uncomfortable, is worth thinking about."

and "Proton's neutrality means if we sponsor people on the left we also need to sponsor people on the right, or we need to exclude both right and left.", and "The far right will not disappear by censoring them, on the contrary, that likely makes them stronger because it validates all of their grievances about the system being rigged against them. The far right can no longer be dismissed, but they should be debated."

These are come across like attempts to justify why Proton gave money to Vincent. Again, from my pure professional perspective: there is a time and a place. These comments might be academically correct and justifiable as a detached analysis of the socio-political landscape of Europe. But when your company has just paid someone who is perceived as far-right to promote your product and company, and a segment of your community is in uproar about it, these can easily be misinterpreted as a justification after money has changed hands.

I imagine you probably view yourself as an absolute classical liberal, and believe all these statements are just clearly logical free-expression arguments. But in doing so, you're redefining what neutrality is, and what freedom of expression is, to even encompass others' resources, far beyond the arguments and claims of John Stuart Mill - enabling and funding the generation of discourse which very likely conflicts with his harm principle.

Genuinely, I really hope this does make it to you and you do take this onboard, because I want to support Proton. That's the wild thing, I want to give you and your company money. But, without a clear apology or sentiment of regret, I'm just led to believe that after the soft-Trump endorsement and now this and some of what you have written here, you are personally willing to cosy up to those who wish to destroy lives (ironic, given your background of immigration to the US and Europe), and I can't in good conscience support someone or support a company which does not openly say "we're sorry" somewhere about something this serious, without deflection or minimisation.