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
  • Gamma@beehaw.orgEnglish
    48·
    1 year 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.comEnglish
      16·
      1 year 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.orgEnglish
        24·
        1 year 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 🎉

        • mateomaui@reddthat.comEnglish
          31·
          1 year ago

          You may want to reconsider your phrasing then if you don’t want it to appear to be argumentative.

          • ConstableJelly@beehaw.org
            26·
            1 year ago

            Neutral party here, I read it naturally as a supplement to your comment, not an opposition. I don’t detect an argumentative tone personally.

            • mateomaui@reddthat.comEnglish
              2·
              1 year ago

              You’re welcome to your opinion but these phrases

              I feel like the opening sentences explained the reasoning behind the article sufficiently,

              They’re not the only ones pointing this out, either.

              are oppositional in tone.

                • mateomaui@reddthat.comEnglish
                  1·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                  • cygnus@lemmy.ca
                    6·
                    1 year ago

                    “Everybody on this highway is driving in the wrong lane! What a bunch of idiots!”

    • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
      8·
      1 year 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.

      • _MusicJunkie@beehaw.org
        11·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • Otter@lemmy.caEnglish
      5·
      1 year ago

      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

      • rallatsc@slrpnk.net
        4·
        1 year ago

        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.

          • rallatsc@slrpnk.net
            4·
            1 year ago

            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.

              • rallatsc@slrpnk.net
                4·
                1 year ago

                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.