You probably still don't want one, given they've been known to divulge user info to various authorities in the past.
"“The Internet is generally not anonymous, and if you are breaking Swiss law, a law-abiding company such as Proton Mail can be legally compelled to log your IP address.” This cannot be changed due to how the internet works. However, we understand this is concerning for individuals with certain threat models, which is why since 2017, we also provide an onion site for anonymous access (we are one of the only email providers that supports this)."
And, in the case you are presumably talking about, Proton took it through the courts and ended up getting a ruling that "email services are not telecommunications providers. Consequently, email services are not subject to the data retention requirements imposed on telecommunications providers and are exempted from handing over certain user data in response to Swiss legal orders"
Which paints an incredibly different story than the one you are trying to paint.
Third, emails weren't handed over (nor were files, calendars, etc.). Which is another important distinction your comment does not mention.
Why parrot half of a story disparaging one of the only large email providers that fights in court to protect the privacy of its users?
> Third, emails weren't handed over
That they weren't, however the information that was handed over was enough to identify the target.
> Why parrot half of a story disparaging one of the only large email providers that fights in court to protect the privacy of its users?
Because despite their apparent and commendable work in trying to preserve the privacy of their users, they have regretfully failed to do so in the past, and it will more than likely proceed that way in the future.
It's not that I want to badmouth their efforts, but it has tainted them so I think it would be wrong not to bring it up. An email provider that has never divulged info (of which several exist) isn't tainted the same way as one that has. It may only be a difference of time and scale, but it's your freedom of choice, and I think freedom of choice is a very important thing. Email is decentralized, and the more email providers that exist and hold themselves to high standards the better. If more people moved between or started smaller email providers, it would help relieve these kinds of issues.
So that is why I would recommend against it.
Instead, you should have mentioned the context, and allowed people to come to their own conclusions. Your quote: "Because despite their apparent and commendable work in trying to preserve the privacy of their users, they have regretfully failed to do so in the past, and it will more than likely proceed that way in the future." alongside a bit more detail would have been a fantastic comment, instead of the vague accusatory one-liner you wrote.
Proton is obligated to cooperate with authorities just like any other company. Proton has a distinction in that it also takes certain cases to court when it argues there is no legal justification.
The best way to make sure they don't divulge information is to make sure they don't have information to divulge.