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.
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.
I am not aware of any other vpn service that has been raided with a warrant for any information present and had the police come away completely empty handed.
That raid I’m thinking of served two functions: one was to get any information available, the other was to investigate mullvads infrastructure in order to evaluate if it was possible to get a warrant to install logging capacity.
While the inability to install wiretaps (logging capacity) has not been explicitly confirmed by law enforcement like the inability to get any data was, we can assume it was impossible because rather than pursue that direction, Interpol advised cdns and hosting providers to block mullvads endpoints instead.
The reason we are able to assume a warrant for wiretapping was impossible is that the action taken, making mullvad unusable to the point that the company dropped port forwarding, has the effect of flushing the target out from the service which is not what you’d want if you were able to install a wiretap.
It’s evidence of a type of trustworthiness borne out by the effects of actions surrounding the service, not just tests, audits or press releases. That is something unique and if it’s not I’d really like to know.
That’s not just rhetoric, I’m truly interested in other VPNs whose impact with law enforcement left only cloud chamber evidence of their trustworthiness.
Your idea that people should apply the strictest ethical scrutiny to their own purchases in the marketplace really seems like it’s based entirely on the liberal assumptions that the marketplace is frictionless and has many goods of equal quality on offer.
It’s also, on another level, patently ridiculous that a person who is choosing a battle tested privacy and anonymity focused vpn should choose something they’re less sure about because they need to somehow avoid any microfraction of blame flowing to them through the market from the specific currency units they used in the transaction.
It’s cool, I know the immigration police are kicking down our door, but at least I didn’t use the gross vpn associated with a person who donated to a fascist party.
At some point you gotta recognize that not only does your reasoning not hold up to theoretical interrogation (how could blame for the effects of transactions flow down to the purchaser if everything solid melts into air, huh? Explain that lieberuls!) but is absurd in the very real life situations you bring up.
It’s like some bizarre inversion of the old “they say the next drone bombs will be dropped by a black trans woman” joke.
Removed by mod
You just said I made a strong case that mullvad has the best infrastructure then at the end said you wouldn’t fund it when alternatives exist. My whole point is that alternatives don’t exist.
A person who’s using proton is getting something fundamentally different (and in a lot of ways more featureful!) than mullvad.
I really cant even begin to address the moral/ethical angle you’re working from other than to simply call it absurd.
Oi! You got a loicense for that spending money in the marketplace without bearing the burden of others decisions?
Imagine for a second that you don’t like Donald trump. You have two neighbors, one of them is very wealthy and loves trump. Your wealthy neighbor runs the local supermarket and made a huge donation to the local campaign for trump. Your other neighbor is very poor and apolitical, well, you never heard them talk about politics. They don’t have a car and shop at the local supermarket. Trump wins your district and is elected and you find out your poor neighbor didn’t vote.
Who bears responsibility for the election of trump? Would it have been different if your poor neighbor voted?
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
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.
What ethical consideration, the party he did donate to does not even remotely support the claims you are making. And also there is the consideration of what type of democracy we want.
Do we want one where people are free to donate and get involved with whatever party and opinion they want without prosecution?
Or do we want a democracy where you are only allowed to have opinions allowed by the state?
Removed by mod
Seems like you didn’t check the links in the wikipedia article you sent, that you based your whole “they are def nazi”-monologue.
Giving people the option to move back to their home countries is not extreme, and as I have written before. Already something that is law today.
Here is btw the actual like to the “our politcs”-page: https://www.orebropartiet.se/var-politik/ note how it does not actually have any of the politics there. Yet the wikipedia page seems certain that they have some views, that I cannot see specified anywhere. Even the quote from X is totally out of context.
You can of course do whatever you want, I am just saying that we should be observant to what the party actually wants before we demand the head of a person that gave them money. And clearly you feel comfortable citing sources you haven’t even checked.
Removed by mod
Trump doesn’t offer them to move, he grabs them of the street and throws them out. Regardless if they are citizens or not. Also the nazis were not socialistic.
So your argument is that they COULD BE bad, so therefore the safe option is to not give any money that could possibly end up in their hands? Lol.
The X post is not deleted, you did not check the sources. Don’t pretend like you did.
Yes, there is an actual statement from him. What he is talking about there are migrants that has not worked in all the time they have been here, do not speak the language or has been convicted of a serious crime. I do not find it fascist to throw out foreign nationals that clearly has not respected the laws of their host country.
Me personally, do not want socialism. But yes ÖP is a socialist party.
Removed by mod
Also to clarify this is already law to give immigrants the possibility to move. And if Trump has that as a policy? Cool. Better than literally grabbing them of the streets.
https://www.migrationsverket.se/andra-aktorer/kommuner/frivillig-atervandring.html
https://www.regeringen.se/pressmeddelanden/2025/10/ett-kraftigt-hojt-atervandringsbidrag/
You misunderstand, I am part of another party entirely. But I sympathies with having the left smear the party rather than discussing politics, which is harmful in a democracy.