email fans are like:

Email is an open protocol and therefore we dont need this.

Openness doesn't mean flawless. Openness doesn't mean it is good. The protocol of BlueSky is open, but gives only the mighty the ability to take ownership.

I don't know why they think email is good enough, it must be something irrational.

...

Email is distributed.

It is certainly not distributed. Today it is a mix of oligopoly and decentralized. If it was distributed, it would be as easy to host an email service as it is to own a phone. Entirely possible, but not the reality of today.

Tuta wasn't able to succeed and therefore this is not going to succeed.

Just because somebody has failed before, doesn't mean it can't be done.

They are targeting the tinfoil hat people.

...

People don't care.

If you say this, then you are out of the discussion. Let adults speak instead.

A comment section full of strawmen.

If you are going to criticize this project, you need to criticize how they present their ideas. Perhaps you disagree how they portray email. Then you can say something like, "it is not an issue that a few corporation host most of the emails of the world." You can say "A significant amount of funding comes from xxx and this compromizes their integrity." You could say "Open email sais that their protocol is private, but why do they not implement superduper encryption".