this post was submitted on 01 Jan 2024
83 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37720 readers
283 users here now

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.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 79 points 10 months ago (28 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 48 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (23 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 16 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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 🎉

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 26 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If you ask me, you seem to be looking for a fight here.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The only reason this continues is because you morons insist on it. I stand by my feedback to the person who responded to me, whether you like it or not. Get over it, you’re not going to harass me into changing my mind about it.

The funny part is I wasn’t picking a fight, that’s what you douchebags are doing with the ongoing commentary. For me this would have been done and forgotten about already.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Assuming good faith, I don't see the argumentative part.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I already addressed this in reply to someone else, you only wasted your time here.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago

Maybe. And yet, this also didn't sound particularly nice.

load more comments (21 replies)
load more comments (25 replies)