citation needed
My VPN is headquartered in California, and actively removed their presence from Hong Kong once their security policy matched China’s, and removed themselves from Russia since that country was opposed to the zero logs policy.
citation needed
My VPN is headquartered in California, and actively removed their presence from Hong Kong once their security policy matched China’s, and removed themselves from Russia since that country was opposed to the zero logs policy.
They seem to understand nuance well enough when willfully ignoring it to make bad faith comparisons.
Otherwise, true.
Possibly also because one case he’s working on has to do with Trump provoking violence on Jan 6, so all the death threats aren’t doing Trump any favors there.
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.
I had to actually go search to confirm it. He probably doesn’t make such a great sustainable target for them since after the Hague all their nonsense is a bit muted for him.
Oh, even they know, as evidenced by all the death threats against Engoron, Willis, CO Supreme Court, ME sec of state, etc. ~~Only one who seems to not be getting threats is Jack Smith, though I could have just missed those.~~
edit: pfffffft of course Jack Smith got death threats, why did I consider otherwise?
We don’t think it. We know it.
One of the best thread openers from yesterday
Yeah, part of it reads like he was paid to do it, just without including obvious marketing links so he can claim in the article that he wasn’t. Ending the article with valid use cases seems like preventing anyone saying he left out valid reasons, but after a wall of text that could make less savvy users do a “TL;DR: VPN not needed” before they got to that part. I’d respect it more if he led off with the same short description of valid uses, especially considering the article title, then pivoted to where it could be irrelevant.
My VPN advertises protected torrenting as a feature. Many do.
And it’s pretty nondebatable that VPNs are advertised for getting around regional blocking for Netflix etc, or generally getting around censorship like in China.
Same people who promised to but didn’t really release all the Jan 6 footage?