4 ms·
> Extremely bland, stock-photo website. I felt uncomfortable giving them my email address, let alone my payment info. That's not valuable information. > A hea
by wepple 9y ago
> Extremely bland, stock-photo website. I felt uncomfortable giving them my email address, let alone my payment info.
That's not valuable information.
> A heavily marketed product lacking inspiration which I ultimately couldn't get to work properly.
At this point you've given up even trying. It's not a useful comparison any longer.
- matt4077 9y agoThis comment is a nice example of how the "I'm a rational person and only features matter"-mindset actually works against its stated goal. With any VPN provider, there are certain crucial features where you have to trust them, "no logging" being the most prominent. Since you're unable to get to the actual truth (until it's too late), you're left with trying to get a sense of the provider's character: are they supporting open source projects in the privacy space? Do they advocate for causes you believe in (by, for example, participating in the net neutrality blackout)? Do they take pride in their work ("show source" may be helpful here)? Do they have humour? None of these are definitive. But in my experience, it's actually pretty hard for people who aren't members of a certain community to emulate it convincingly.
- wepple 9y agoI agree with your basic premise, and I definitely use some kind of fuzzy gut feel metric when doing my own evaluations. That said, if someone is claiming to do an unbiased review, we need more than gut feel. If your goal is no logging and one of your metics is "Do they have humor"? You're in deep trouble.