Comment by eightysixfour
5 hours ago
Response from Proton
> You're right to raise this, and we want to address it directly and provide you important context on how this happened.
> Vincent Lapierre's channel should never have been part of our affiliate and sponsorship program, because we intentionally avoid association with channels whose content could distract from our message and divide our community.
> Proton operates globally, and while our services are available to everyone regardless of political views and our mission is consistent everywhere, our knowledge of every local media landscape is not. In this case, our team didn't have enough context about the French space to make a well-informed decision, and that's on us.
> We also want to be straight about what a placement like this is and isn't. An affiliate or sponsorship arrangement is a transactional placement for awareness, not an endorsement of a creator's views. In the case of Vincent Lapierre, this was a single video sponsorship, not a partnership.
> But that distinction doesn't excuse what happened here. The responsibility to vet who we put our name next to is ours, and we didn't meet it this time. We're now reviewing our vetting process and our guidelines for our marketing agencies to ensure this doesn't happen again.
> If you see something like this again, tell us. We rely on your feedback and vigilance.
Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/ProtonMail/comments/1u05xs2/comment...
What a load of damage control. Partnerships are not something dumb algorithm can pick up like in some AdSense campaign. This was deliberately done by a human after a series of negotiations between parties in writing. You (Proton) were absolutely not intentionally avoiding it, but you were intentionally seeking it and finalized the contract yourself.
> You're right to raise this
Is this LLM generated?
Does it matter if it was?
It's 2026. LLMs are integrated into text editors the same way as spell checkers and grammar checkers. Even if people write things themselves, they likely are using LLMs to review and edit.
This isn't a bot pretending to be a human, this is an official announcement from a company. It's going to be written by a committee and edited by legal and PR and marketing anyway. Who cares if one (or several) of those steps used an LLM.
Yes? Can’t take 10 minutes to speak (or at least redraft) with your own voice?
I’ve written PR copy solo, and in committee. It’s not rocket surgery. It’s a group of people standing around with a thesaurus. But if you leave AI-isms in, just feels like you whipped it out while coffee was brewing.
1 reply →
Lazy enough to draft their response with LLMs, but not diligent enough to vett their sponsors with LLMs.
You're right to raise this
Possibly reworded by llm. It would make sense for sensitive communication
This is valid construct in languages, and a very legitimate use of this construct in the context.
If this was AI generated (which I am not convinced of given the full text), it escapes my alarm bells.
Honestly, I think this is a good response.
Does not dodge responsibility, offers a good explanation, agrees that current vetting process is imperfect.
> We rely on your [..] vigilance
A crazy idea, but: Why not be vigilant, yourselves?