> I'm honestly pretty surprised that so many people were unaware about how Hola worked up til now. I've had a seperate Chromium installation for Hola for years

> I'm honestly pretty surprised that so many people were unaware about how Hola worked up til now. I've had a seperate Chromium installation for Hola for years now, since I didn't want to contribute bandwidth/my IP. > It would have been impossible for them to give people unlimited IPs in almost all the countries in the world for free if they themselves had to buy and maintain them like a traditional VPN service. Hola markets itself explicitly to a demographic that doesn't understand what business models are and aren't feasible in the tech world. That's why. > Apart from the exploits (which should be fixed ASAP ofc), Hola is a great thing for the internet. Geofencing is the real enemy, and Hola kills it. And does so in a highly unethical way. The workings and possible drawbacks of Hola should be transparent, but they are not. And they are unlikely to ever be sufficiently transparent, as that will decrease their userbase and hurt their income through Luminati. And this is exactly why you don't let a commercial business "fix the internet". > The problem with Hola isn't really that it shares your connection, the problem is that it is too uncommon. The internet would be a better place if you weren't responsible for what exited through your IP, if everyone were an exit node nobody could be held responsible. Plausible deniability only works if it's actually plausible. Sure, if that were the case, then it'd be great. Unfortunately, it's not.