# Shady VPN posts **URL:** https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/shady-vpn-posts/23764 **Category:** Meta **Tags:** discourse **Created:** 2025-01-05T18:36:58Z **Posts:** 19 ## Post 1 by @anon80779245 — 2025-01-05T18:36:58Z I see a trend of new accounts recommending untrustworthy VPNs and arguing why they are good. Thisis wasting time from legitimate products, and is a bit suspicious, while some of those posts could be legitimate, I feel that this is also used as free ads, similar to [how companies use Reddit for the same purposs](https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesdev/2023/02/28/increase-website-performance-with-three-metrics/?). This also improves this VPN product ranking in search engines. At the very least I feel like we should restrict new user first post for mod approval, or make a general thread for new users question. Note that I am NOT saying that we implement a RTFM policy, I just dislike it when we are giving legitimacy to shady VPNs. I was also a noobie, so ¯\_(ツ)\_/¯, I don’t think we should be unwelcoming to new users, but some light rules are fine and are very frequent on most forums. --- ## Post 2 by @anon80779245 — 2025-01-05T18:38:25Z Just to be clear, I am sure many of these users are legit and this is NOT meant as an attack on those. --- ## Post 3 by @anon29374801 — 2025-01-05T18:41:42Z > [@anon80779245](#): > > I see a trend of new accounts recommending untrustworthy VPNs and arguing why they are good. I question whether there has been an actual “trend” here as there have been very few VPN tool suggestions in recent history. > [@anon80779245](#): > > At the very least I feel like we should restrict new user first post for mod approval, or make a general thread for new users question. I could see the argument for doing something like this for the tool suggestions category (not sure id support that) but to disallow new users to asks questions or post at all, even about “shady VPNs”, without mod approval seems unwarranted. This feels like a step towards becoming r/privacy with their draconian rules. --- ## Post 4 by @anon42475305 — 2025-01-05T18:45:03Z I would be in favour of restricting site recommendations to a higher trust level than ‘basic user’ to cut down on these kind of low effort recommendations. I really can’t see a reason not to implement such a restriction. I would also simply encourage users not to engage with such posts, as that essentially solves the problem. --- ## Post 5 by @Gavin — 2025-01-05T18:56:21Z Hopefully users are smart enough not to fall for these shady VPN services scams. Should only be using trusted services like Mullvad VPN or IVPN. Or any other companies similar that have been around for at least 2 years. --- ## Post 6 by @fria — 2025-01-05T18:58:33Z I personally think eventually VPNs will become obsolete as a privacy technology and we’ll move on to something better. So maybe when that happens we can reject VPN suggestions but it feels a bit heavy handed for now. --- ## Post 7 by @anon80779245 — 2025-01-05T18:58:40Z > [@anon29374801](#): > > question whether there has been an actual “trend” here as there have been very few VPN tool suggestions in recent history. I feel that there has been. Some or many of those posts might now be unlinked, which makes an objective assessment hard. > [@anon29374801](#): > > could see the argument for doing something like this for the tool suggestions category (not sure id support that) but to disallow new users to asks questions or post at all, even about “shady VPNs”, without mod approval seems unwarranted. > > This feels like a step towards becoming r/privacy with their draconian rules. We could maybe have some rules, like any recommendation or product question would be subject to approval, while the rest wouldn’t need. I don’t know r/privacy well (expect it’s basically dead) but many forums have some mechanism where either users need to comment and like to gain enough ‘karma’ to post (something I dislike) or the first post needs mod approval, which I think is a fair rule. Some other forum also require one to introduce themself, but that is not really realistic for a privacy forum. --- ## Post 8 by @anon80779245 — 2025-01-05T19:00:04Z > [@Gavin](#): > > Hopefully users are smart enough not to fall for these shady VPN services scams. > > Should only be using trusted services like Mullvad VPN or IVPN. Or any other companies similar that have been around for at least 2 years. @fria why not add an automated response in any VPN thread that Privacy Guides only recommemds Mullvad, IVPN and Proton? --- ## Post 9 by @fria — 2025-01-05T19:03:18Z Seems a bit annoying and spammy, and there are other good VPNs outside of what we recommend depending on your threat model. Cloudflare WARP is one I use just because it actually speeds up my connection, even though from a privacy perspective it’s one of the worst options. --- ## Post 10 by @Gavin — 2025-01-05T19:03:18Z Well its stated that services not directly endorsed by privacy guides are well. Not endorsed. And should be taken as such. I don’t think any need for a automatic response is needed. As it would just add more clutter and disrupt actual discussion. Babying to users is not a ideal solution. --- ## Post 11 by @anon29374801 — 2025-01-05T19:08:59Z > [@anon80779245](#): > > I feel that there has been. Some or many of those posts might now be unlinked, which makes an objective assessment hard. Can you share some recent examples of these types of posts? You are saying there is a trend, show me. > [@anon80779245](#): > > like any recommendation or product question would be subject to approval, while the rest wouldn’t need. My main issue with this, is I don’t necessarily think its bad for users (new or old) to post or suggest “shady” or bad products. I think it helps people who are researching to find those threads and see dozens of comments about why PG and others would not recommend or use them. > [@anon80779245](#): > > I don’t know r/privacy well (expect it’s basically dead) it has 1.4 million members. You are going to have to explain what you mean by dead. > [@anon80779245](#): > > but many forums have some mechanism where either users need to comment and like to gain enough ‘karma’ to post (something I dislike) or the first post needs mod approval, which I think is a fair rule. I just disagree with this. I think things like karma and “trust level” are mostly arbitrary and easy to get around. do the [requirements](https://blog.discourse.org/2018/06/understanding-discourse-trust-levels/) for trust level 1, really make a user more trustworthy then a new user? > - Entering at least **5** topics > - Reading at least **30** posts > - Spend a total of **10** minutes reading posts --- ## Post 12 by @anon80779245 — 2025-01-05T19:09:59Z > [@fria](#): > > Seems a bit annoying and spammy, and there are other good VPNs outside of what we recommend depending on your threat model. Cloudflare WARP is one I use just because it actually speeds up my connection, even though from a privacy perspective it’s one of the worst options. Respectfully, you are wrong. Individually you might recommend other VPNs, and so can every PG team member, but PG as a whole only recommends what is listed on the website. And I don’t believe it is “spammy”, on each of those post, we just have to repeat that PG only recommends 3 VPN, so this would save time. --- ## Post 13 by @anon80779245 — 2025-01-05T19:12:31Z > [@anon29374801](#): > > Can you share some recent examples of these types of posts? You are saying there is a trend, show me. There has been [About VyprVpn](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/about-vyprvpn/23750) and a post about NordVPN (delisted). This is just in the past week. > [@anon29374801](#): > > it has 1.4 million members. You are going to have to explain what you mean by dead. Last time I checked, the threads weren’t very lively. --- ## Post 14 by @anon29374801 — 2025-01-05T19:14:59Z It seems like most of your argument is based on feelings and not anything objective. The VyprVPN thread ~~is a post asking about a VPN. Its a legitimate thing to do on this forum. Its not an endorsement or recommendation.~~ is a recommendation from a user that likes that VPN. Its a legitimate post. I can’t speak for the NordVPN one as I can’t find it (which basically solves your issue with it anyway). I don’t see how this constitutes as a trend for “recommending untrustworthy VPNs” as your original post suggests. As @phnx put it > [@phnx](#): > > simply encourage users not to engage with such posts, as that essentially solves the problem. This seems like the best solution. EDIT: the Vypr one is a tool suggestion so it is a recommendation. I thought it was a question but must of misread the catagory --- ## Post 15 by @anon80779245 — 2025-01-05T19:19:47Z > [@anon29374801](#): > > ![](https://forum-cdn.privacyguides.net/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/c0322f/48.png) anon42475305: > > > simply encourage users not to engage with such posts, as that essentially solves the problem. > > This seems like the best solution. This is worst as no response would lead some users to trust the product > [@anon29374801](#): > > The VyprVPN thread is a post asking about a VPN. Its a legitimate thing to do on this forum. Its not an endorsement or recommendation. I can’t speak for the NordVPN one as I can’t find it (which basically solves your issue with it anyway). If it is a question then why there is argument why it’s good and is under “Tool Recommendations”? --- ## Post 16 by @anon29374801 — 2025-01-05T19:21:54Z > [@anon80779245](#): > > If it is a question then why there is argument why it’s good and is under “Tool Recommendations”? I see that and edited the post. I still don’t see it as anything that requires some new rule. We have veteran users recommending [NordPass](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/nordpass-password-managers/22705) so I don’t see why new users should be subject to some new rule to prevent “shady” products being recommended. I will say that the tool suggestion [form should be more robust](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/tool-suggestions-should-start-with-a-standard-form/22091) and posts that do not take the time to fill the form out properly should be more aggressively moderated. --- ## Post 17 by @anon42475305 — 2025-01-05T19:23:49Z > [@anon80779245](#): > > This is worst as no response would lead some users to trust the product Understanding that posts here do not represent the views of Privacy Guides is just about the most fundamental thing that users here need to understand. I disagree that many people would trust a recommendation by a brand new account with no interaction on their post. --- ## Post 18 by @AnotherBloodyUsername — 2025-01-06T10:24:13Z Blimey, That’s a bold prediction. What technology is there now or in development that could replace vpns? --- ## Post 19 by @fria — 2025-01-06T10:42:21Z Multi-Party Relays. I wrote a blog post about it: > **[Where are all the Multi-Party Relays?](https://www.privacyguides.org/articles/2024/11/17/where-are-all-the-mprs/)** > > Privacy Guides is the most popular & trustworthy non-profit privacy resource to find privacy tools and learn about protecting your digital life. --- ## Post 20 by @ph00lt0 — 2025-01-06T17:03:35Z 2 posts were merged into an existing topic: [Where are all the Multi-Party Relays?](/t/where-are-all-the-multi-party-relays/22511/7)