• Gamma@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    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

    • mateomaui@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      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.

      • Gamma@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        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 🎉

    • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      …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.