First off, sorry if this has been asked a million times in this community already, but the only post I found on this topic when I searched was over two years old.

I've been using PIA vpn for the past two years, but my subscription is ending soon and I was thinking about switching providers. I'm a fairly basic vpn user so I'm not overly concerned about advanced features and bells and whistles. I have a limited budget to work with, and I run Fedora os. Does anyone have any recommendations on what vpn I should be using?

I've seen Mullvad mentioned frequently, but it's a touch expensive compared to others. I've heard some good things about Proton vpn too, but I know there was a controversy with their CEO not long ago. I've also just read something about IVPN and they look good, but I'd like opinions from more sources. I'm open too all other suggestions as well. Thanks for any and all thoughts!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Ilandar@lemmy.today 18 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (7 children)

The Proton CEO thing was vastly overblown. He is a privacy advocate and expressed support for Trump's appointment for head of antitrust, as well as criticism of corporate Democrats who stand for big business which was misrepresented as a love of the Republican Party. The only mistake he made was to publish those statements using the official Proton account, which he later apologised for.

Some people, especially the American left, love to virtue signal and predictably they tried to cancel Proton as a result of this pretty minor and irrelevant social media drama. There were some good write-ups at the time which exposed how counterfactual the "pRoToN lOvEs mAgA" arguments were, but I guess feel free to skip over Proton if it really concerns you. It is objectively one of the best choices if you value both privacy and functionality (Proton still has support for port forwarding), which I think are far more relevant areas to be looking at when choosing a VPN for piracy.

[–] OccasionallyFeralya@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Okay but his criticism makes no sense when the FTC under biden actually started taking antitrust seriously and has since lost its teeth again under trump.

[–] emogu@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 day ago (4 children)

And the Proton CEO tweet about Trump looking out for the little guys is such an insane MAGA echo chamber take. It throws the credibility of the entire post into question. Not to mention that it’s a Medium article. Too many red flags that it undermines OP’s point pretty quick.

[–] seth_arimainyu@ieji.de 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

@emogu @OccasionallyFeralya sorry, this comes from my ignorance, not to polarize or anything like that but, why Medium is a red flag?

[–] Ilandar@lemmy.today 1 points 5 hours ago

It's not a red flag. It's just an easy out for that person because they can run the "lol bLoG aRtIcLe" line to instantly dismiss any evidence that exists to the contrary without ever having to read or engage with it. Their entire argument is still just based on a couple of brief tweets and they have never backed their read of them up with anything, yet somehow when other people also develop a counter-argument based on a much larger and wider source of public material and collate it on a blogging site it's a "rEd fLaG".

[–] emogu@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Nothing against Medium inherently but it’s basically a glorified blogging platform. Anyone can get on there and write anything. The red flag comes from someone citing a Medium article as evidence that a privacy CEO can be trusted. I’d hope there would be more substantial sources, say, from a vetted publication by an established writer for example. The fact that someone’s Medium blog was their go-to source is a red flag on their argument for me.

[–] Ilandar@lemmy.today 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

This is such a bizarre take when your own position is based on one or two screenshots of social media posts and the reddit hivemind's reaction to them. You are asking for someone to disprove/debunk your social media pile-on, which had almost zero substance to it, with some kind of in-depth, long-term New York Times investigation which deep down you know will never happen because this shit isn't relevant in the real world. That way you can just instantly dismiss the evidence that actually does exist to the contrary, done by regular people and published on their blogs, without ever having to read it or engage with the counter-argument.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)