Video description explicitly mentions a partnership (not just affiliate link) + 2min 20s segment embedded in the video.
The person in question: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Lapierre
User Lumpy_Carpet9877 shares more info:
Vincent Lapierre’s Wikipedia page is quite explicit about his far-right positioning and includes numerous sources. He worked for several years for a far-right organization founded by Alain Soral, which promotes anti-Semitic, Holocaust-denying, conspiracist, sexist, masculinist, transphobic, and homophobic ideas, and who fled to Russia to escape justice.
He is close to Dieudonné) (a Holocaust denier). He founded Le Média pour tous, a far-right website that particularly targets anti-fascists and defenders of Jewish rights. He has always been close to conspiracist circles
I'll add that if you dare venture on his youtube channel (at the risk of ruining your suggestion algorithm like I did to provide the screenshot), you'll see that most videos are typical far right content / talking points
Update: read Proton's response below
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."
Their response sounds like what AI would say when it's called out.
They should do better and they should make public what they'll do so it won't happen again
Oh? Doesn't seem like that to me at all. In fact, it was a pretty decent response.
They admitted they were wrong, what corrective action will they take?
Did I hallucinate this or are you intentionally ignoring the very specific action they said they were taking to address this?
This is it. Saying "that's on us" and then saying "keep telling us, we rely on you" shows no real change in behaviour, it mostly amounts to a "oops, made a booboo, better say something to make the cross people less cross".
Yeah, I also thought this sounds very AI generated. I'm still willing to give them the benefit of the doubt though