I suspect they used Lumo.
“You are right to raise this and we want to address this directly”
Isnt that how Claude Sonnet or Opus writes?
I think they’ve just been trained on corporate speak
They screwed up, admitted it, apologized, don’t see why people are calling for blood anymore. People are allowed to make mistakes, they owned it and they cut ties with the guy.
Do you actually think it’s okay that they had a bot make a press release this hamfisted?
Bold claim, corroborated with no proof.
Sure it looks like AI speech patterns, but they are trained on corporate speech, so hard to differentiate an LLM from a corporate spokesperson.
*ChatGPT apologized
They didnt even have a human do an editing pass, just a straight copy paste out of the dialog box.
I loved proton years ago… even did a paid account for a while. This isn’t their first wtf moment and won’t be their last. The problem for me, its that I expect more carefulness and thoughtfulness from a company that promotes encryption and privacy.
Showing me how easily you make mistakes is a quick way for me to question how well you’re safeguarding the platform.
I’ve moved away. Will take some time for them to earn back the trust, but honestly… I don’t see a huge need for them anymore. I simply don’t consider email secure. If you want real secure communication (that you can host on a server yourself) Matrix and XMPP are a much better choice.
Anyway… the response is nice. Just doesn’t fix anything.
I mean I’m sure they pay more attention to safeguarding data than some random french YouTube channel, that’s why they didn’t think too much about the sponsorship.
I feel like this is a good statement. The one that should have been written immediately after outrage began, and ideally before removing dozens if not hundreds of posts and comments covering this topic.
Some people say it stinks of AI. I don’t know. Maybe? PR messages have always been like this, and they seem to be one of the types that chatbots got most of their writing patterns from.
Some people definitely overreacted. Others completely missed the point. Proton is far from a perfect company, and a case in favour of boycotting them could be made. But not because they accidentally sponsored one video of a far-right youtuber.
They’re just not as private and secure as they pretend to be or to want to be. Pretty much all alternatives are leagues above. There appears to be no apparent reason why they’re lagging behind. I suppose that’s where the CIA honeypot allegations may come from.
In any case, if you really care about privacy and security - you probably aren’t a Proton user, let alone customer. And if you are - I highly recommend trying alternatives that don’t have a long history of working with law enforcement.
Just fyi, every company is legally obliged to work with law enforcement. It’s strange that people think that a company can just refuse court orders. The point and benefit of companies like proton or tuta is that there is very little information they can actually give and they are fully transparent with public when and what they were obliged to give. It’s funny that when company hides this, like telegram, who worked with law enforcement thousands of times and handed over stuf like non encrypted chat messages, they are seen as private and not disputed by their users. But when company like Proton writes blog posts about the cases to be transparent and what (little meta) data they gave, people are out of their mind calling them out for it.
every company is legally obliged to work with law enforcement
Of course. Proton doesn’t really have a choice whether or not to fulfill law enforcement’s requests.
However, Proton absolutely does have a choice when it comes down to the scale of their cooperation with law enforcement, as well as the enthusiasm behind it.
In my opinion, in these two metrics Proton very noticeably falls behind most of their competition. That’s why I wouldn’t use it for security or privacy.
Plus - Lumo AI? Seriously? What sort of privacy-focused company invests into an AI chatbot?
It’s definitely better than GMail. Everything is. But if you want serious privacy and security… Yeah, no.
The one that should have been written immediately after outrage began, and ideally before removing dozens if not hundreds of posts and comments covering this topic.
For what it’s worth - apparently they said they’re crafting a response fairly early, kept one of the original threads and removed the rest as duplicates.
But I don’t know if that’s really the case.
Personally can’t wait until thundermail has a free tier
As I mentioned more in detail in other post, Proton is not the pro-MAGA many had misinterpreted. It is just sloppy at the marketing campaign and its leader makes statements that can easily misunderstood too.
That said, Proton has decided to aim for the masses, which has proven to be a winning business formula here. However, in that quest, it’s natural that concerns from top-tier privacy users (Linux users, those wanting non-Google push notifications, too-many-eggs-in-a-basket, etc.) get relegated in favor of the bulk of their primary target customers, the regular Joe who simply wants to move away from email and web traffic scraping. We should all applaud that decision, but we also recognize the limitations and big risks of having a single company holding some 80% of this privacy market, both for us and even for Proton. It would be better to foster a healthy, diverse, and more equitable privacy ecosystem.
The fact you think being pro-MAGA is the only evil we should be concerned about is telling.
No idea why the downvotes are hitting this so hard.
Maybe because it’s a bit like if someone said “I got the test results, I don’t have cancer”, and that dude replied with “the fact that you think cancer is the only danger you should be concerned about is telling”.
Sure, it’s technically correct, but it’s obnoxious and, without any further context, just seems to be off-topic.
Lefty lemmy
Always hold companies responsible! Call them out and make them publicly respond. Shop local, fuck corporations!
This response is unfeeling and reactive Claude slop. Proton doesn’t care. They’re working to avoid being in trouble.
What would have been the right response in your opinion?
Probably not starting the statement with “you’re right to raise this. Here’s why”
So if that sentence wasn’t there the response was perfectly acceptable?
for once, directly fucking saying they will drop the fascists they are paying for and never doing it again.
shouldn’t be that hard, but with these it always has to be.
You stopped reading after the first paragraph, didn’t you?
i stopped believing after “divisive for our community”
I’m pretty sure that’s what they said no? Are you upset that they didn’t use more emotional language?
they’ve directly addressed democrats before and directly condemning fascism would have been reassuring, if that’s what you mean by ‘emotional’.
none of that “dividing our community” bullshit. this text just makes them sound disappointed they got caught.
I completely disagree. I think you’re massively overreacting.
i see bad signs shaped like writing on the wall. i think you’re massively underreacting to the normalization of fascism.
why else would we even need all that privacy?
That’s exactly what they said in this response
No, there is not an antifascist position on their statement. Only a ultracentrist position based on the reaction of their user base/market.
Moving the goalposts. You said they need to drop the fascist from their sponsorship and they did. They also committed to not doing it in the future. They did exactly what you said.
On top of that, companies are not your friends and they don’t need political positions. Not supporting fascists is perfectly adequate.
The goalposts when it comes to fascists has been the same since the 1940s. Nobody moved shit.
No, I didnt’t say that. I’ve said:
No, there is not an antifascist position on their statement. Only a ultracentrist position based on the reaction of their user base/market.
See the original paragraph:
I understand that they would have removed also the sponsorship of a feminist, vegan or antiracist that created discontent in their use base (by being feminist, vegan or antiracist).
I think you’re extremely confused as to what Proton is and the service they offer.
I also think it’s because you’re falling (or have fallen) into the tribalist view of “if you’re not with us, you’re against us, and if you’re against them, you’re with us”.
Proton is a-political, pro-agenda. Their agenda is “net neutrality, privacy, security”. They don’t care who makes that happen, and will support anyone who fights for these things.
They won’t take an antifascist position because that would put them on the political spectrum.
I also understand that - to you - not making that statement already puts them on the political spectrum, in the opposing camp, but that’s, again, due to the tribalist views.
They’ve praised left-wingers and right-wingers, they’ve criticised Democrats and Republicans - as long as anyone pushes for their agenda, they will praise them, as long as someone threatens their agenda, they will criticise them. That’s all there is to it.
Exactly. I’m a bit grumpy about that response because they’re just saying that if his opinion would be more main stream, they wouldn’t back down on the sponsorship.
They have also said that if the user base finds their sponsorship or seeming alignment with any other divisive agenda, they welcome feedback.
I’m not following their PR engagement, but if anyone feels strongly about them aligning with furbys, they are welcome to feedback.
I think it’s smart as a privacy focused initiative to be more neutral than not. Especially as they cater to the masses that may not have as defined an opinion.
I strongly dissagree. Cannot be neutrality with fascism.
Oh i agree. Neutrality doesn’t mean embracing nor endorsing fascism, nor any other extreme.
But humans being humans will always selectively interpret any public facing message to fit their narrative as many have already done here: “Because they aren’t outright condemning or fighting the enemy, they must be working with them! Therefore, they are not friends.”
/U/encryptkeeper has said it better.
Have a real human type out the apology
Edit:
You’re right to call this out, and I want to address it directly and provide important context on how this happened.
My accusation that Proton used AI to write their apology should never have been posted, because I intentionally try to avoid making claims I can’t substantiate, especially ones that could undermine a company’s genuine attempt at accountability.
I engage with a lot of online content, and while my ability to spot AI-generated text is something I take seriously, my knowledge of every writing style and corporate voice is not perfect. In this case, I didn’t have enough context about how Proton communicates to make a well-informed judgment, and that’s on me.
I also want to be straight about what an accusation like this is and isn’t. Pointing out polished writing is an observation, not evidence. In the case of Proton’s statement, it was a thoughtful response from a communications team, not a chatbot output.
But that distinction doesn’t excuse what I said. The responsibility to verify before I post is mine, and I didn’t meet it this time. I’m now reviewing how I evaluate content before making public claims to ensure this doesn’t happen again.
If you see me do something like this again, call it out. I rely on that feedback.
Brilliant
Man, it’s so obvious. Wether it’s bots in the replies, or genuine people who can’t tell, we’re fucking cooked.
Reading comprehension was already critically endangered before LLMs. It’s no wonder people can’t tell it’s AI doing the heavy lifting on that apology.
You can call everything AI if you want to.
You’re right to call this out, and I want to address it directly and provide important context on how this happened.
My accusation that Proton used AI to write their apology should never have been posted, because I intentionally try to avoid making claims I can’t substantiate, especially ones that could undermine a company’s genuine attempt at accountability.
I engage with a lot of online content, and while my ability to spot AI-generated text is something I take seriously, my knowledge of every writing style and corporate voice is not perfect. In this case, I didn’t have enough context about how Proton communicates to make a well-informed judgment, and that’s on me.
I also want to be straight about what an accusation like this is and isn’t. Pointing out polished writing is an observation, not evidence. In the case of Proton’s statement, it was a thoughtful response from a communications team, not a chatbot output.
But that distinction doesn’t excuse what I said. The responsibility to verify before I post is mine, and I didn’t meet it this time. I’m now reviewing how I evaluate content before making public claims to ensure this doesn’t happen again.
If you see me do something like this again, call it out. I rely on that feedback.
You’re not making a point.
In fact I did, because I wrote that with AI 😂
Literally everyone understood that.
🎶You can call me AI🎶
PR team writing excuses and AI is the same fucking picture.
I don’t see any compelling indications that this was AI generated.
Have you ever yelled at Claude or chatgpt and had it apologize to you? It’s literally word for word this format. Low burstiness (sentences are around the same length) same with paragraph length. Absolutely perfect grammar and it reads like LLM vomited it out. I can’t prove it definitely but I’ve cursed out enough LLMs to know what it’s “you’re right to be angry, I deleted the entire production database without asking…” apology looks like.
Have you run it through an AI checker?
So your proof is that the post has good grammar? Idk man
“you’re right to raise this” is an LLMism on the same level as “You’re exactly right!”
Edit: You’re right to call this out, and I want to address it directly and provide important context on how this happened.
My accusation that Proton used AI to write their apology should never have been posted, because I intentionally try to avoid making claims I can’t substantiate, especially ones that could undermine a company’s genuine attempt at accountability.
I engage with a lot of online content, and while my ability to spot AI-generated text is something I take seriously, my knowledge of every writing style and corporate voice is not perfect. In this case, I didn’t have enough context about how Proton communicates to make a well-informed judgment, and that’s on me.
I also want to be straight about what an accusation like this is and isn’t. Pointing out polished writing is an observation, not evidence. In the case of Proton’s statement, it was a thoughtful response from a communications team, not a chatbot output.
But that distinction doesn’t excuse what I said. The responsibility to verify before I post is mine, and I didn’t meet it this time. I’m now reviewing how I evaluate content before making public claims to ensure this doesn’t happen again.
If you see me do something like this again, call it out. I rely on that feedback.
“you’re right to raise this” is an LLMism on the same level as “You’re exactly right!”
It’s also a standard PRism. Given that this is a PR post, that’s not really proof.
“you’re right to raise this” really triggers my AI detection Spidey senses. Sounds like Claude, specifically.
“and thats on us”
AI slop from top to bottom
“You’re right to push back.”
Just add a “here’s why it works” chapter at the end, sprinkle in a few em dashes and some unnecessary intense phrases, and you’ll tick all the boxes for me.
Written by Claude … “You are right to raise this”… Like chatgpt dashing
Ah, yes, reaffirming that someone raising an issue is correct to have done so is the telltale sign of an LLM. Couldn’t just be basic professional writing etiquette that LLMs were trained forwards and backwards on; it has to have been written by an LLM.
You don’t actually write formally very much, do you?
I am forced to use claude daily at work, it smells like claude
I write formally all the time; smells like a PR team writing formally.
Nice try bot.
Formally on reddit? This is 100% AI assisted writing
Formally on reddit?
Yes. I even write semi-formally on Mastodon for PCSX2 (or wrote; on hiatus) within its constraints; a PR team attempting to apologize for something will normally resort to formality regardless of the forum.
You’re giving off major “A 10-page essay before AI-assisted writing? As if!” vibes. I’m sorry basic PR etiquette is inconceivable to you personally. The Wendy’s Twitter account is that way if you want to soothe your preconceptions about PR on social media.
This is terrible because they didn’t hold 3 hrs of management and PR meetings to craft a response onto a message board that has no say in their operations?
Claud, reject this comment.
Why you trying to carry water for an AI written reply? I mean I understand bootlicking, but this is next level beyond that.
Take notes, GOG.
GOG in this situation: Block the video for everyone speaking French.
But let’s see if Proton actually stop this shit with other right wing weirdos or will just stop the sponsorship with this one dude.
For sure. I’m suspicious of Proton, though they clearly have a better PR staff. Low bar compared to GOG’s recent self-own.
Nah this is what peak PR looks like:
"The right wing ideology is part of my cultural and historical heritage. As a Swiss, I am fully aware of both its history and the sensitivities surrounding it.
…
As a Swiss, I have every reason to treat this history with seriousness and respect. Precisely because of that, I reject any suggestion that this promotion carried an extremist message. It did not."
I’ll never forget this shit, such ass response from GOG
Fill me in, what have GOG done? Please link to trustworthy source(s).
Sent a newsletter to half their customers containing “Slavic runes” (literally the logo for the SS) to promote some Slavic fantasy game
Imo it’s even odds between some marketing child-left-behind googling “Slavic runes” to add to their email, and some 4channer on the team thinking they’re making a funny joke. The fact that they recognized the issue enough to know that couldn’t send the email in Germany, but sent it everywhere else anyway, makes me lean a little bit more toward the latter
I’m confused. I have Scandinavian ancestry and understand that some of the cultural identity was appropriated by Nazis and now some extremist fuck wits. e.g. how the Hindu swastika (also often confused with sauvastika) was appropriated. But I don’t understand why that means appropriated symbols automatically = bad if they’re used in their original context?
The main issue is that
ϟϟwas both totally irrelevant to the topic besides being vaguely Slavic, and also literally the logo for the SS. In the modern day, that is its only connotation. It’s not in its original context, it’s just random runes thrown togetherI’m asking both specifically about the GOG thing but also more generally. Yes, I know the SS appropriated runes for tgwit logo but I still don’t see how that automatically makes runes themselves bad. I can understand how it would be triggering for some folks and so a level of sensitivity is required (which GOG clearly failed on) but I still don’t get how appropriated symbols automatically = bad (because I’ve seen the same reactions to other ancient symbols over and over again and I’m still trying to understand it)
Because they used the ϟ rune twice. When used like that, it only has one meaning.
It’s bad because the SS appropriated it and stripped all other meaning from it. It’s like using the number 1488 in a username. It only means one thing, and while it’s possible to stumble into it by accident, it remains a white supremacist dogwhistle
Aha. That news. Thanks for the reminder.
I didn’t see news covering this shit but almost everyone subscribed in their newsletter receive an advertising for a game and the the e-mail subject contained nazi symbols. GOG response was the most idiotic thing possible.
https://redlib.nadeko.net/r/gog/comments/1txlz7z/comment/opxsir6
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/weird_subject_line_choice_for_a_newsletter
“You were right to raise this” and “we want to be straight about this” smacks of AI
“And thats on us”
At least they removed all the em dashes
Why does everyone seem to regard the em dash as an instant LLM-indicator? Many real people—me included—use them regularly. Yes, LLMs use them—perhaps too much—but many so-called “AI-tells” come from training data—real text written by real people.
Why the hell would you type a em dash.
deleted by creator
An affiliate or sponsorship arrangement is a transactional placement for awareness, not an endorsement of a creator’s views.
Uh, that’s kind of how this works. You might have your own corporate definition of sponsorship and endorsement but at the end of the day, it’s at the very least tacit approval
