> 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...
Is this LLM generated?
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.
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.
If this was AI generated (which I am not convinced of given the full text), it escapes my alarm bells.
Does not dodge responsibility, offers a good explanation, agrees that current vetting process is imperfect.
A crazy idea, but: Why not be vigilant, yourselves?
Not saying there's a pattern behind those two informations but I'll definitely be watching more closely their news.
but, i dont understand the 404 piece. they are a lawfully operating company, they will answer lawful requests. the same will be true of any and all companies you choose to use for your mail.
in this case, only payment data was handed over. if your payment history is of concern, proton accepts cash and bitcoin
(if anything, this should be a point in favor of proton, seeing as how the only data they were able to hand over was payment data, and not email contents)
i thought their response was pretty reasonable.
what would a sufficient response for you look like?
Genuinely curious: What do you find insufficient specifically?