3 ms·
I think they could have made it clearer, and changing up their FAQ didn't exactly make a great impression on a lot of users. That said; I think providing they t
by Jake232 11y ago
I think they could have made it clearer, and changing up their FAQ didn't exactly make a great impression on a lot of users. That said; I think providing they tell users about this upfront, and don't waste their bandwidth on mobile connections etc (as they say they don't) - then I see no problem with this.
It's a way for users to get a VPN for "free". For most end-users they won't even notice/care about the odd HTTP request they're proxying. I think transparency may have been the issue here.
- thefreeman 11y ago> For most end-users they won't even notice/care about the odd HTTP request they're proxying. I'm pretty sure people would care if the cops showed up because that odd HTTP request happened to requesting child pornography.
- Jake232 11y agoThat is a risk they take. That's what I was saying about transparency. If the Hola website made had made the whole situation more obvious, then users either take this risk or pay the $X a month for an actual VPN service.
- joepie91_ 11y agoThe problem is that that goes against Hola's own (commercial) interests.
- kristofferR 11y agoIs CP on the clearnet really still a "thing"?
- DanBC 11y agoYes, images of child sexual abuse still exist on regular Internet, no darknet services required.