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.
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.
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.
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.”
Case in point: their CEO saying that Trump’s appointment of a famously anti-trust prosecutor into a high ant-trust position was a good thing caused so many people to lose their shit because “Proton is now MAGA” somehow.
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 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.
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.
“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.
That’s… exactly my point though? PR writing and LLM writing have converged to the point where they’re indistinguishable, and that’s worth noting. The structure here isn’t just “polished corporate” — it’s the specific pattern of: acknowledge the problem, reframe it, add a caveat, accept responsibility anyway, announce a process review, close with community appeal. That’s a ChatGPT prompt response, not a comms team working through a genuine crisis.
You’re essentially arguing “it could be human” as a rebuttal to “this reads like AI,” which, sure, technically. But the tell isn’t any single phrase — it’s the whole skeleton. PR people write defensively. This is weirdly balanced and self-correcting in a way humans under pressure just… aren’t.
Sometimes PR people don’t write defensively, at least not entirely. Sometimes there’s an error, and the correct PR response is to acknowledge the error and communicate intent to rectify it for the future. Being totally defensive in the light of an actual error can do more damage than gracefully acknowledging it.
LLMs are trained on data. They learn from actual human content. They’re usually pre-prompted to be agreeable, professional, and diplomatic. PR writing is probably a good chunk of the training data used to inform LLM word and phrasing choice.
You’re essentially arguing that an impressionist painting “reads like AI” because you’ve seen a lot of AI images generated by models trained on impressionist paintings.
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:
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.
that’s PR talk for “we didn’t mind until you did”
Sure. That’s more than many other companies do.
Proton or any other company doesn’t owe anyone anything more than what they’re paid for. Everything else is CSR if you like.
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.
Case in point: their CEO saying that Trump’s appointment of a famously anti-trust prosecutor into a high ant-trust position was a good thing caused so many people to lose their shit because “Proton is now MAGA” somehow.
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.
Not everyone. So far I’m a couple comments deep and the AI blind people can’t tell.
I’m just so sick of blatantly obvious AI being an argument with people who somehow are tricked into thinking it’s real…
🎶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.
It’s also a standard PRism. Given that this is a PR post, that’s not really proof.
That’s… exactly my point though? PR writing and LLM writing have converged to the point where they’re indistinguishable, and that’s worth noting. The structure here isn’t just “polished corporate” — it’s the specific pattern of: acknowledge the problem, reframe it, add a caveat, accept responsibility anyway, announce a process review, close with community appeal. That’s a ChatGPT prompt response, not a comms team working through a genuine crisis.
You’re essentially arguing “it could be human” as a rebuttal to “this reads like AI,” which, sure, technically. But the tell isn’t any single phrase — it’s the whole skeleton. PR people write defensively. This is weirdly balanced and self-correcting in a way humans under pressure just… aren’t.
Sometimes PR people don’t write defensively, at least not entirely. Sometimes there’s an error, and the correct PR response is to acknowledge the error and communicate intent to rectify it for the future. Being totally defensive in the light of an actual error can do more damage than gracefully acknowledging it.
LLMs are trained on data. They learn from actual human content. They’re usually pre-prompted to be agreeable, professional, and diplomatic. PR writing is probably a good chunk of the training data used to inform LLM word and phrasing choice.
You’re essentially arguing that an impressionist painting “reads like AI” because you’ve seen a lot of AI images generated by models trained on impressionist paintings.