Proton Offered Me Money... Then It Got Weird

TL;DR:

Proton allegedly ghosted The Hated One (THO), after he declined a sponsorship from them, when they were in talks to do an interview.

DETAILS:

  • THO who is notoriously known for not doing sponsorships was approached by Proton for a sponsorship which he felt conflicted about.
  • During negotiations, THO asked if he could interview Andy Yen, Proton’s CEO, or some other higher up in the company.
  • Proton said they were definitely open to it.
  • Proton guaranteed that THO’s answer to their sponsorship proposal would not influence the likelihood of an interview.
  • Ultimately, THO declined the sponsorship offer, but when he reached back to Proton to schedule the interview, they ghosted him.

IT’S DEFINITELY SUSPICIOUS

I certainly fishy that THO hasn’t heard back from Proton. Especially when Proton knows that THO is hard to reach. I am inclined to believe his account of the situation, and find Proton’s behavior disappointing.

THO IS RIGHT: SPONSORSHIPS ARE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST

I agree with THO that sponsorships are a conflict of interests because they incentivize positive coverage. That doesn’t necessarily mean that taking sponsorships is bad, but it’s still a conflict of interest, especially when your channel covers topics related to the sponsor’s services. I understand why companies like Mullvad refuses to do it.

NO SPONSORS DOES NOT NECESARILY MEAN YOU’RE UNBIASED

Cleo Abrams

In his video, THO shows Cleo Abram’s channel for a brief moment. CleO Abrams is an independent tech journalist with almost 7 million YouTube subscribers. Like Johnny Harris (7M+ subs), she used to work at Vox, the sister company of The Verge. That’s how I personally discovered both of them.

I don’t know what THO’s issue is with Abrams, but I remember being extremely disappointed by Abram’s interview of Mark Zuckerberg last year. As far as I can remember, she doesn’t take any sponsorships from Meta, and yet, she did not ask Mark any hard questions when his company was/is drowning in controversies. It was a compcomplete softballerview.

Marques Brownlee

Similarly, Marques Brownlee (20M+ subs), who is technically not a journalist I guess, did the exact same thing when he interviewed both Tim Cook and Mark Zuckerberg. Marques interviewed Zuckerberg in 2020, when he was summoned to testify to the Senate. And yet, Marques didn’t ask Mark about any of Meta’s controversies. He also didn’t challenge Apple’s executives (Tim Cook & John Ternnus) on Apple’s anti-consumer practices. Louis Rossmann called him out on it, partly because Brownlee had interviewed Louis about right to repair, years prior.

This is the problem with access journalism

Even if news outlets and influencers don’t take sponsorship from a privacy company, they can still be incentivized to cover them positively if they have regular access to its leaders for interviews. Right now, I wouldn’t say such a dynamic exists with Proton and some of the outlets their employees appear on. But they are getting bigger, so the risk will always exist, and likely increase.

I don’t think the outlets I follow are covering Proton poorly. IMO, they’re doing a great job. But I am not entirely confident that those outlets will always be bold enough to ask Proton uncomfortable hard questions, and if they are, that they would challenge Proton’s answers when they are not satisfying.

EVERYBODY IS BIASED:

We all have biases, for the simple reason that we all have a unique experience of the world that color our perspectives. But it’s important to acknowledge them, especially when you have an audience. It’s also important to recognize conflicts of interests and not let companies launder their reputation through your platform. Although they are far from perfect, and I have not followed their work in years I subscribe to The Intercept’s idea of adversarial journalism, that is rigorous and in the public interest.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE AN INDEPENDENT JOURNALIST / INFLUENCER / MEDIA OUTLET?

Not accepting sponsors shows a level of integrity few have

I admire THO for declining Proton’s offer. He did so when his channel is struggling to earn him a living income, which makes his decision that more commendable. I know that Louis Rossmann holds the same principle about sponsors but he doesn’t live off YouTube, which is a deliberate strategic decision on his part.

I follow a lot of “independent” journalists and media outlets.

Some of them brag about having zero sponsors, and only receiving money from their audience. I have tremendous admiration for that.

Others outlets have sponsors. Sometimes their sponsors have nothing to do with the type of content they produce (eg: coffee brand on tech channel), but often it is related.

Can those who fall into this category call themselves truly independent?

I have mixed feelings about it, but I’m leaning towards no. There are independent online news companies with sponsors that criticize billion-dollar corporate media (CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc.) for being dependent and influenced by their advertisers. The way I see it, they are on the exact same boat, but just on a much smaller scale.

Not everyone can afford to forego sponsors

I recognize that it can be extremely hard to earn a decent living without sponsors. That’s why I have so much admiration for those who forego or slow down their upward mobility to honor their values.

I can also sympathize to some degree with journalists who are struggling financially and leap at the opportunity to work for big corporations like CNN if it provides them job security. But there is no doubt that that kind of decision will change you, as it only can, and always does. Your values will change whether you realize it or not.

FINAL WORDS:

I really hope Proton makes things right with THO and grant him that interview.

4 Likes

It is disingenuous when THO is talking about making money off of their audience by literally showing Techlore’s channel at 6:06 onward for about 8 seconds.

And if anyone knows anything about Techlore, we know Henry is reputable and is transparent and honest with what he does and how. I’ve been following him for years now. I do not believe THO and what he is implying about Techlore.

What THO is saying while showing the entity (Techlore) he may want his viewers to associate with the negative comment is straight up a lie. Dick move by him and does not inspire confidence in his “honest” video he just made here. It really is to make him appear to be superior than others as a content creator.

I urge people to think critically about this video and all that’s said and how (including what’s not said). Do not by default consider THO a martyr in the fight to bring only unbiased videos and info.

2 Likes

It’s interesting to me that while you have pointed out Cleo and others from the video, you did not point out Techlore in your post. It’s right there, and it was obvious. Selectively talking about or not talking about something also heavily hints as bias. I can’t chalk this upto any plausible deniability on your part here either.

Well, like you said - we’re all biased for the narrative we’re trying to share and establish with anything we speak about. But we should at-least be mindful of this and actively ensure objectivity and sound logic in our assessment of what we see, hear, understand that are grounded in facts about everything - including entities we like and don’t like.

So, reading my two comments, do you still 100% honestly believe Proton is in the wrong here? As of right now, I don’t know what to think of this.

While I am confident THO is not intentionally misleading us or lying about correspondence with Proton, I do believe he may not be sharing 100% of the info that’s relevant to this story either. Why? Exhibit A is my first comment above.

Anyways, these are my thoughts.

His point stands even in face of Techlore. If you get money from sponsors, that’s a conflict of interest. There is no debate, it’s by definition.

Though I personally don’t care as I only watch these channels for the interviews and don’t take recommendations without doing my own research.

2 Likes

If you do to the point in the video I mentioned, the point was not conflict of interest per se but claiming that those entities make money off of their users without consideration or deliberation about the product and its quality.

That’s always good advice for all. But not everyone has the time or the know how to do said research so that’s why you do sometimes need trusted sources to tell you what to get and why. And often with privacy products, OSINT is easy so said trust can be easily established when creators like Techlore are honest about their reportings.

I don’t think he’s implying that Tech Lore is dishonest. I agree that TechLore are open about their sponsorships. What THO is saying is that to him, sponsorships represent a conflict of interests. Having a conflict of interests doesn’t mean you are corrupt or lack morals. It simply means that because of your relationship with a party, it’s hard for you to be unbiased.

You’re right. I have a bias. I did see TechLore being shown in the video. But that’s not why I didn’t mention them. I have had an issue with independent tech journalists who do soft interviews for a long time. Specifically, I’ve had an issue with how Cleo Abrams and Marques Brownlee handle their interviews of high profile people in tech. To me, it was more important than focusing on Tech Lore. In part because they are huge.

Plus, we’ve known TL takes sponsorships. They have always been open about that. I am not against sponsorships, but it’s important to recognize that they can be a conflict of interest. And as I also said, not having any sponsorship doesn’t automatically mean that an influencer can’t be biased.

Although privacy companies are all committed to privacy, they don’t necessarily share the exact same values when it comes to marketing. For example, Mullvad vs Proton. It’s ok to have different approaches. They both have pros and cons.

We can’t be sure that Proton stopped replying to THO because he declined their sponsorship. Do I think it is likely? Yes. As THO said, Proton doesn’t owe him an interview.
They could have at least respecftully declined. It would still have been a bad look given the timing, but it’s better than ghosting.

That’s fair. THO is a prominent voice in the privacy community, and I thought this story was worth discussing because it involves a prominent, if not the biggest, privacy company.

2 Likes

That’s not what he says on 6:06 though (even a bit before and after), which I still stand by.

”They do not have journalistic standards or accountability” is true: there is no code of conduct / ethics standards for influencers like there is for journalists, and no regulator seeing how they actually go about making the comparisons and recommendations. They are not accountable to the community in terms of how much they are making, what their contract entails, whether they need to send the videos for review before posting, if the interviews are scripted…

It’s the same for the influencers that do not take sponsors, but at least there one can’t claim they are under conflict of interest.

1 Like

Really? It was very intentional the way he showed Techlore while saying what he was saying. Do you not see that?

I disagree with you here.

What are some legitimately bad things about products and tools Techlore is sponsored by and are recommended? If what you’re saying is true, there would be a list of bad and negative thinsg about tools they recommend and talk about. Their reporting is honest and based on facts. Where’s the bias here?

Yes, I agree with you here. The balls are lacking in these interviews from both parties. It’s all corporate speak and doesn’t add value to the discourse about the products or the companies being interviewed.

I’ll point you to what I said above. Atleast in Techlore’s case, where is said bias when we both know of their history, the products and tools they talk about and recommend.

I don’t think it matters if you’re a journalist or not. Cleo Abrams is a journalist. She probably didn’t breach any journalistic code of ethics when she interviewed Mark Zuckerberg, but it’s still problematic that her interview was soft. You can’t discipline someone for doing a soft interview.

On the flip side, Marques Brownlee is not a journalist, but he has a huge audience. He reviews tech every week on his channel, so I am sure that he has some ethics about how he does them. But he doesn’t feel the responsibility of asking hard questions to the powerful people he talks to.

I think part of it is that he has a clean image which make him extremely sponsor friendly, and I guess he doesn’t want to make any enemies, given his influence.

I think one thing you’re forgetting or perhaps do not know is that you don’t get these big interviews if you want to ask the hard questions. All questions asked are approved by the company or the individual in question. So, no tech executive interview has yielded a good interview where hard questions were asked and “answered”.

The only one I can think of right is is when Joanna Stern of WSJ interviewed Craig Federighi about the failure of Apple Intelligence in an interview during WWDC I think at Apple Park. That was I think not a planned interview where the journalist or the interviewer is invited for the interview. Every major publication was there and they must have approved her to interview on the spot. I could be wrong here but this interview had some hard questions Apple has never answered like they did.

The only thing influencers and content creators care about is how to keep you watching so they can continue making money. They’re not doing this for the good of society or something like that, and if that’s what you think you’ve been fooled.

1 Like

Seems rather overblown reaction to not getting what you want…

We (Privacy Guides) also have been offered sponsorship by Proton and dozen others before. (Which we do not accept from anyone)

Proton is off and on active on the forum here. It is their choice really when they want to do that and when not. I think always expecting a reply and a yes is a bit mad. Perhaps the contact person now has other things to do. It may not be the best communication, but making a whole thing about it seems bit overreacting to me.

5 Likes

Yes. There is no doubt that he intentionally highlighted TechLore. His point is that they don’t have the same standards, which is true. That doesn’t mean TL has poor standards. I generally trust and value their voice. But it could be argued that when it comes to objectivity, THO holds himself to higher standards. That doesn’t mean I agree with everything he says. I believe there was a time when he unrecommended Signal. I understood why he did it, but I didn’t agree.

I think you misunderstand. The mere fact that a conflict of interest exists doesn’t mean that you did anything wrong. What it means is that your relationship with a person or company is likely to influence how you talk about them at some point or another.

TL is sponsored by Notesnooks. I like Notenook and am a paid subscriber. I believe TL reviewed NN and interviewed their founder a year before hey became a sponsor. No conflicts there. But once’s NN becomes a sponsor, the conflict exists. Even if NN is fantastic.
I not saying TL won’t feel free to criticize NN when they make bad decisions, but it will definitely be harder.

I think you’re too hung up on TechLore, so I will use another example from the privacy community.

CARISSA VÉLIZ & PROTON

Two months ago, Fire Walls Don’t Stop Dragons interviewed Carissa Véliz for a second time. Both are prominent voices in our community. I personally LOVE Carissa’s work. The topic was the ethics of AI.

From what I can tell, the privacy community is quite divided on AI. Some are for it, and think “private” AI is ethical, others are very skeptical about it regardless if It’s private or not. I personally lean on the latter. So does Carissa Véliz. Her next book is about AI.

I was curious what she would have to say about “private” AI given that she sits on the board of Proton’s foundation. I was relieved when she disclosed her conflict of interest, because it is one. She said “private” AI (like Lumo) is better than surveillance AI, but she’s still very skeptical about it.

I am glad she was able to say that. However, I am doubtful that if her criticism of AI, and specifically private AI became harsher and louder, that it would sit well with Proton. And I could also imagine a situation where she would find it harder to criticize them.

In addition, I think it can be challenging when a prominent voice in privacy is hired by non-private companies to advise them on how to handle their users’ privacy. I’m not against it, but it has its pitfalls, IMO. Especially if it’s lucrative.

1 Like

I think you’re failing to read between the lines here. That’s what it meant and it was implied. How are you not seeing it that way?

I can apply the same logic you’re trying to use here. Just because THO doesn’t accept any sponsorships, doesn’t by default mean they have higher standards.

Good to know.

discouraged, is the word.

I think then it depends on how much trust you have in a creator based on what you know about them to really think this way or not.

What specifically is overblown? Sharing the story?

I don’t think it’s overblow to share the story. At all. I don’t think this story is a huge scandal or anything, but I think it was right for THO to share it with is audience.

PS: Why did you change the title? It obscures the topic I wanted to discuss that is related to the video.

Let’s speak in practice. Knowing who he is, do you think that not having any sponsors makes THO more objective as a voice in the privacy community when talking about products and services?

It doesn’t remove the conflict of interest, though.

1 Like

Community guidelines for not editorializing the primary link’s title is the rule for making posts here.

1 Like

I’m not going to jump into the on-going discussion about ‘standards’, but having interest in this event, (if I may), I’d like to tag @Proton_Team and maybe hear their story out? The privacy community is not that large and overblown drama between its members is useless and serves to further divide us when we should actually be uniting and campaigning together. Therefore, any sort of explanation or even statement of Proton’s side may help explain the situation (apologies if this was already done and I have missed it).

I think they meant THO making the video itself - appears to be a response in reaction’s disguise.