←back to thread

Who Owns, Operates, and Develops Your VPN Matters

(www.opentech.fund)
201 points sdsantos | 7 comments | 03 Sep 25 16:51 UTC | HN request time: 0.782s | source | bottom
Show context
fujigawa ◴[03 Sep 25 17:28 UTC] No.45118394[source]▶
Commercial VPNs will go down as one of the greatest money-making schemes of the last decade. Outside of a few specific use cases their sales often rely on leveraging non-technical users' fear of what they don't fully understand.

I have non-technical friends and relatives that have fully bought into this and when I asked why they use a VPN I got non-specific answers like "you need it for security", "to prevent identity theft", or my personal favorite: "to protect my bank accounts".

Not a single person has said "I pay to route my traffic through an unknown intermediary to obscure its origin" or "I installed new root certificates to increase my security."

replies(16): >>45118443 #>>45118486 #>>45118558 #>>45118644 #>>45118672 #>>45118693 #>>45119064 #>>45119252 #>>45119261 #>>45119717 #>>45119817 #>>45119936 #>>45120136 #>>45120782 #>>45124630 #>>45126517 #
davepeck ◴[03 Sep 25 17:45 UTC] No.45118558[source]▶
Long ago, in the era of Firesheep and exploding prevalence of coffee-shop Wi-Fi, consumer VPN services were definitely valuable.

But that was long ago. Now, HTTPS is the norm. The only use cases for consumer VPNs today seem to be (1) "pretend I'm in a different geography so I can stream that show I wanted to see" and (2) "torrent with slightly greater impunity".

I live in Seattle and Mullvad VPN seems to have bought approximately all of the ad space on public transit over the past couple months. Their messaging is all about "freeing the internet" and fighting the power. It's deeply silly and, I worry, probably quite good at attracting new customers who have no need for (or understanding of) VPNs whatsoever.

replies(11): >>45118660 #>>45118872 #>>45119025 #>>45119060 #>>45119163 #>>45119222 #>>45119386 #>>45119763 #>>45120306 #>>45124719 #>>45126754 #
1. john01dav ◴[03 Sep 25 18:33 UTC] No.45119025[source]▶
What about (3) "bypass government censorship"? UK and China are examples of where this is desirable. This is different from (1) because it's broader than just streaming shows and is about authoritarian rather than capitalist restrictions.
replies(3): >>45119089 #>>45119113 #>>45127903 #
2. flumpcakes ◴[03 Sep 25 18:40 UTC] No.45119089[source]▶
I think the general discussion is conflating censorship with age restrictions. Lumping the UK with China is very disingenuous.

The UK law is stipulating adult content can only be viewed if you are provably over 18. They are putting all of that responsibility onto the websites/platforms to enforce that.

If a child goes to a shop and tries to buy a pornographic magazine and they are denied, is that censorship?

If a child tries to see an 18 film at the Cinema and is denied, is that censorship?

The fact is both of these were freely and easily done on the Internet as most websites do not verify a users age.

I do not like the online safety act as it is, but it is not "censorship".

replies(3): >>45119203 #>>45119739 #>>45146693 #
3. eviks ◴[03 Sep 25 18:42 UTC] No.45119113[source]▶
Apparently, weaklings censor, so fighting them doesn't raise above the silly level
4. verisimi ◴[03 Sep 25 18:52 UTC] No.45119203[source]▶
Do you feel safer now?
5. aydyn ◴[03 Sep 25 19:48 UTC] No.45119739[source]▶
What about all the websites that either shut down or fully blocked the UK? Is that censorship?
6. NoGravitas ◴[04 Sep 25 14:46 UTC] No.45127903[source]▶
Add at least 18 US states to your examples if you consider age verification for porn to be government censorship.
7. john01dav ◴[06 Sep 25 04:45 UTC] No.45146693[source]▶
In practice the UK law is covering far more than explicit porn, but rather anything even slightly taboo or that acknowledges sex. Furthermore, many adults won't hand over government ID to the Internet like that. Taking these together, you get de-facto censorship.