You're an incurious git that thinks you can pay for something contrary to what the market sells. I pay, therefore I believe the marketing material.

A centralized suit of tools sold by one capitalist-company does not make that company a comrade. They fight for their own capitalist-interests and the goal is a market-monopoly that enriches their owners. They are not open. They are not open to inter-network collaboration. They are capitalist and they hate user freedom.

From the drivel you've typed Google, Microsoft, et al will 'meet 95%' of your needs. "But I pay." "The marketing material says they're private." Are you a child?

Proton: you can have privacy only if you pay us and use our proprietary tools exclusively. Press X to doubt.

You can have privacy now, for free. You're too incurious to use those tools and liberate yourself though.

Try a thought experiment: Alice and Bob each have computers (super-computers in pocket-form); they also are subscribers that grant them access to the majority of the internet. They want to send each other 'e-mails'. The market says you can only do that if you pay a third-party (or if you 'consent' to electronic-surveillance from a third-party that provides e-mail functionality for 'free'). Are either option true? How could Alice, with her internet-connected super-computer, send Bob a message to Bob's internet-connected super-computer. Both computers are functional 24/7/365. Hm... Nope, can't be done. I need to pay Proton to use e-mail and for my pocket super-computer to have a calendar... oh look, the owner is filthy rich. Learning to use a computer is too hard. Let's make him richer. Computer users are a joke.