Virtual Private Networks, or VPNs, are popular services for (supposedly) increasing your security and privacy on the internet. They are often marketed as all-encompassing security tools, and something that you absolutely need to keep hackers at bay. However, many of the selling points for VPNs are exaggerated or just outright
I feel like the opening sentences explained the reasoning behind the article sufficiently, even when there are plenty of valid use cases for them. This was mostly a response to manipulative marketing tactics:
Virtual Private Networks, or VPNs, are popular services for (supposedly) increasing your security and privacy on the internet. They are often marketed as all-encompassing security tools, and something that you absolutely need to keep hackers at bay. However, many of the selling points for VPNs are exaggerated or just outright false.
They’re not the only ones pointing this out, either. Tom Scott released a video on the topic a few years ago to explain his thoughts VPN sponsorships
Sure one group might understand why a tool exists and use it effectively, but there are also companies over-selling their capabilities and people are using it for things it doesn’t help with.
The opening scene is a parody of his typical videos (which are typically about places/people) transitioning into a VPN ad segment. The fact that it isn’t about a real person means that it is not in fact from one of his real videos. If you watch the opening scene and read the pinned comment on the video my reply might make more sense.
So he typically advertises for VPNs? I don’t understand.
He “typically” discusses interesting places/people. In the first 5 or so seconds of the video he discusses a fictitious person and how they “weren’t protected from viruses, but you could be with a VPN”. So he transitions from his typical video style to a VPN ad to then highlight all of the things wrong with VPN ads.
…and since then, Tom Scott took a NordVPN sponsorship. And possibly SurfShark too?
He found that it was actually useful while in countries with questionable Internet access.
Personally, I just host my own VPN, so no matter where I am, all my traffic exits from my home ISP. I figure they’re at least accountable to the same laws I am.
But that’s the thing. When that Video was made, almost all of the advertising was focused on the same BS the article is disagreeing with.
I remember lots of NordVPN ads by uninformed nontechnical creators just reading the provided script. Saying that Balaklava wearing hackers will steal your credit card data just by being in the same cafe as you, and only an expensive VPN subscription can protect you from that. Or that only using a VPN will protect you from malware.
This sort of advertising is what Tom Scott critizied back then. IIRC he even said that there are real use cases, but that you shouldn’t believe the fearmongering. Same as the article.
The fearmongering advertising was the problem, not advertising the service itself.
Your comment in no way negates my observation. If the clickbait title of the article was “You probably don’t need a VPN to avoid market tracking” or something similar, you’d have a point.
I was simply adding information your comment had left out, it wasn’t negating information at all. So congrats on getting the point, not everyone is trying to argue 🎉
I didn’t ask you. I didn’t ask the other neutral guy either. Not my issue that you have a problem with me suggesting the original respondent check his phrasing to make his intention clear, or pointing out the specific phrases that make it unclear.
I don’t know if those useful features are the main reasons VPNs are used, though. There’s evidence they are used often for bypassing blocked sites (like VPN downloads jumping in Russia recently), most of the other advertised privacy and security benefits are questionable. Most of them don’t advertise torrenting/piracy because that’s a legal gray area.
My VPN advertises protected torrenting as a feature. Many do.
And it’s pretty nondebatable that VPNs are advertised for getting around regional blocking for Netflix etc, or generally getting around censorship like in China.
My VPN is headquartered in California, and actively removed their presence from Hong Kong once their security policy matched China’s, and removed themselves from Russia since that country was opposed to the zero logs policy.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Spends most of article telling you why they probably aren’t necessary.
Ends with 4 examples why they’re useful, which are the main reasons they’re used to begin with.
I feel like the opening sentences explained the reasoning behind the article sufficiently, even when there are plenty of valid use cases for them. This was mostly a response to manipulative marketing tactics:
They’re not the only ones pointing this out, either. Tom Scott released a video on the topic a few years ago to explain his thoughts VPN sponsorships
Yep, articles have different audiences.
Sure one group might understand why a tool exists and use it effectively, but there are also companies over-selling their capabilities and people are using it for things it doesn’t help with.
This article is for them, simple as that
The opening scene of that video is from a VPN sponsorship he did.
This is inaccurate, read the pinned comment on the video where he points out that the opening scene is entirely made up and isn’t about a real person.
I don’t understand. Of course it’s not about a real person, it’s about a VPN…
The opening scene is a parody of his typical videos (which are typically about places/people) transitioning into a VPN ad segment. The fact that it isn’t about a real person means that it is not in fact from one of his real videos. If you watch the opening scene and read the pinned comment on the video my reply might make more sense.
So he typically advertises for VPNs? I don’t understand.
I did both of those things. Neither his comment or yours make sense because the opening scene is obviously not about any person, it’s about a VPN.
He “typically” discusses interesting places/people. In the first 5 or so seconds of the video he discusses a fictitious person and how they “weren’t protected from viruses, but you could be with a VPN”. So he transitions from his typical video style to a VPN ad to then highlight all of the things wrong with VPN ads.
The things that wrong with VPN ads is in the VPN ads, not the transition.
deleted by creator
…and since then, Tom Scott took a NordVPN sponsorship. And possibly SurfShark too?
He found that it was actually useful while in countries with questionable Internet access.
Personally, I just host my own VPN, so no matter where I am, all my traffic exits from my home ISP. I figure they’re at least accountable to the same laws I am.
But that’s the thing. When that Video was made, almost all of the advertising was focused on the same BS the article is disagreeing with.
I remember lots of NordVPN ads by uninformed nontechnical creators just reading the provided script. Saying that Balaklava wearing hackers will steal your credit card data just by being in the same cafe as you, and only an expensive VPN subscription can protect you from that. Or that only using a VPN will protect you from malware.
This sort of advertising is what Tom Scott critizied back then. IIRC he even said that there are real use cases, but that you shouldn’t believe the fearmongering. Same as the article.
The fearmongering advertising was the problem, not advertising the service itself.
Your comment in no way negates my observation. If the clickbait title of the article was “You probably don’t need a VPN to avoid market tracking” or something similar, you’d have a point.
I was simply adding information your comment had left out, it wasn’t negating information at all. So congrats on getting the point, not everyone is trying to argue 🎉
You may want to reconsider your phrasing then if you don’t want it to appear to be argumentative.
Assuming good faith, I don’t see the argumentative part.
I already addressed this in reply to someone else, you only wasted your time here.
Maybe. And yet, this also didn’t sound particularly nice.
Neutral party here, I read it naturally as a supplement to your comment, not an opposition. I don’t detect an argumentative tone personally.
You’re welcome to your opinion but these phrases
are oppositional in tone.
If you ask me, you seem to be looking for a fight here.
I didn’t ask you. I didn’t ask the other neutral guy either. Not my issue that you have a problem with me suggesting the original respondent check his phrasing to make his intention clear, or pointing out the specific phrases that make it unclear.
I don’t know if those useful features are the main reasons VPNs are used, though. There’s evidence they are used often for bypassing blocked sites (like VPN downloads jumping in Russia recently), most of the other advertised privacy and security benefits are questionable. Most of them don’t advertise torrenting/piracy because that’s a legal gray area.
My VPN advertises protected torrenting as a feature. Many do.
And it’s pretty nondebatable that VPNs are advertised for getting around regional blocking for Netflix etc, or generally getting around censorship like in China.
Ironically, almost all the exit VPNs are owned by either China or Israel. With a few exceptions.
citation needed
My VPN is headquartered in California, and actively removed their presence from Hong Kong once their security policy matched China’s, and removed themselves from Russia since that country was opposed to the zero logs policy.