What VPN have you switched to after the Mullvad situation. I have looked at nym and ivpn. But don’t know if they are any good.

  • godsammitdam@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    18 hours ago

    Your analogy actually proves my point. The wealthy neighbor who runs the supermarket and donated to Trump is Berntsson. The supermarket is Mullvad. The poor neighbor without a car who has no choice but to shop there is the dissident in the war zone you described earlier. I’m the person with a car who can drive somewhere else and is choosing to do so because of where the profits go.

    Nobody in that analogy is blaming the poor neighbor for Trump winning. You’re describing exactly the distinction I’ve been making the whole time. The ethical consideration only applies to people who have genuine alternatives available to them. For people who don’t, use what works.

    Your technical case for Mullvad’s uniqueness is the strongest argument you’ve made and I’m not going to pretend the raid evidence isn’t meaningful. However, it is only a matter of time given our increasingly surveilled, authoritarian world. If you’re genuinely in a situation where that specific level of proven infrastructure is the difference between safety and exposure, the calculus is different and I’ve said as much.

    But most Mullvad subscribers aren’t in that situation. Most are people making a privacy choice with real but not life-critical stakes. For those people the gap between Mullvad’s proven infrastructure and a service like IVPN or Proton is meaningful but not absolute, and the moral consideration can be part of the calculation. You’re arguing that the technical gap is so large it should override everything else for everyone. I’m arguing it’s relevant for some people and not determinative for others. That’s not the same as saying the ethical concern is absurd. What I find absurd is stating that the only option should be the one that funds the selfsame political parties advocating for the REASON the people you describe would need a VPN.

    • whatiswrongwithyou@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Hey, i make mistakes sometimes. Because of that i went back and re-read your comments to others and me and my replies. It’s not impossible that im wrong here, you know?

      Except im not wrong even in the slightest.

      You came in with a comparison to a fascist burger shop, which is facile in ways i find hard to articulate but here goes:

      A person doesn’t need to eat burgers. Burgers are largely the same in flavor and nutritional content when compared against other foods. Burgers don’t keep you safe. Restaurants have much greater labor margins as compared to internet services.

      I’m just gonna stop there because it’s clear you’re comparing apples and plutonium ingots.

      As far as i can tell you were never claiming that it’s okay for some people who need it but a valid ethical consideration for others, you were saying that a person continuing to use it is a serious ethical or moral violation.

      My position on your behavior is that it actively harms the people you claim to be concerned about (possible future victims of a fascism) because it frames the choice as being between being responsible for the owners actions and choosing safety.

      The same arguments get trotted out when someone wants to buy a gun “oh, do you really need that?”, “more money for the murder industrial complex.”, etc.

      The difference between what you’re doing and what you claim to be doing is that people who are actively talking about alternatives are sharing their experiences, you’re moralizing through metaphors aggressively at people.

      If you really believe what you just wrote then make replies that help people figure out what kind of vpn they need and evaluate their safety instead of pulling out the dictionary.com to define fascism at them.

      • godsammitdam@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        17 hours ago

        It’s metaphor bro.

        And yes, many do not need burgers. Just like many don’t need VPNs. But some people do need food. Just as you’ve defined they do need VPNs. Some. Not all.

        And I did. I mention Proton, I mentiom IVPN, others have mentioned AirVPN, that’s why we’re here. And that user said it couldn’t possibly be fascist. I defined why it is. Plain and simple.

        I have never said that someone in a life or death position shouldn’t eat a burger. Nor not use a VPN. You did and you keep trying to force your narrative on me. For those of us that have the ability and privilege, as most of us on this platform do, we can make other choices. If you decide that only a raid by law enforcement can make a VPN worth it, regardless of what the leadership of the team that makes it decides, that is your prerogative.

        It’s not mine nor is it harmful to share said opinion. I am not mandating anyone do anything. I’m simply stating my reasons for wishing to no longer support them. I am not mandating someone’s personal choice nor should you or anyone else be able to mandate mine.

        And what you keep ignoring is my point that funding these ideologies, directly or indirectly, creates more victims you yourself describe who have no choice. A theoretical extreme, and as I said, use whatever you want, whatever is necessary, eat the burger, use the VPN if you need to. That doesn’t mean it won’t create more victims along the way. So I, personally, will not use it. I, personally, would even rather Proton over Mullvad at this current point. Or IVPN. Or AirVPN.

        I’m out. This is pointless as you keep dodging the argument and attempt to force your narrative onto me. You are causing more harm by attempting to have individuals support a founder who supports people’s persecution. Fuck outta here man.

        • whatiswrongwithyou@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          17 hours ago

          First things first: 👋😘

          When i claimed what you are doing is harmful —and i know this is a weird concept but bear with me— i was talking about replies you already made, not replies you would make in the future.

          When i just now called back to that part of our conversation it was to explicitly point out that you’re not here trying to help find a solution, you’re here pointing at the dictionary and moralizing at people.

          When i broke it down you shifted your tone and started all this “oh, i never said what people should do, only what i would do.” nonsense.

          You’re the hot dog costume man irl.