{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreid2jddbgtu3eaohddeus3mqh4tnag7ibu3e7i2uooiy4nbejog2zu",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:haakkg7y3xdghcdmprxeexso/app.bsky.feed.post/3mktmg2as64d2"
  },
  "path": "/t/my-grievances-with-proton/37526?page=3#post_44",
  "publishedAt": "2026-05-02T01:14:42.000Z",
  "site": "https://discuss.privacyguides.net",
  "tags": [
    "@protonmail"
  ],
  "textContent": "I’m not sure if “vendor lock in\" is quite the right term for what you mean. You already commited to vendor lock in when you chose to use a @protonmail address instead of bringing your own custom domain. But it’s a subscription lock in, sure.\n\nOverall I understand your point that it’s lame for Proton to gate features without a direct cost behind a subscription. I tend to agree. Though in this case I’m not sure what the solution is. You could apply the same argument to most of the paid plan features: custom domains, unlimited labels/folders/filters, IMAP/SMTP, etc. Does removing access to those features save them money? Not exactly. (Except storage space - that has an obvious direct cost.) But at the end of the day, developing and supporting all of these features does cost money.\n\nI like the idea of a grace period where you can still access the aliases, because it is a huge problem if you didn’t migrate any accounts from that email alias. Or maybe the aliases become receive-only in a limited kind of way.",
  "title": "My grievances with Proton"
}