I switched to windscribe last month because the proton CEO starting spewing politcal BS, and I wanted port forwarding that wasn’t locked behind a shitty GUI.
As far as I was concerned setup was super easy, the VPN speeds were great, and port forwarding worked really nicely. The whole price for a fixed server and port forward, + unlimited data was a bit much (at $95/year) but for the ease of use and speeds I was getting, I was happy to stick with them.
My setup is a always-on server with a 1gbps connection, where yes, I fucking seed my shit, all of it. I have about 30TB of linux ISOs and counting, and it’s rare that my combined upload speed is less than 1MBps, ever.
Which lead me to getting banned from windscribe with no notice or warning in the middle of last week. This lead to me having to spend tracker points to avoid HnR, and i’m also unable to grab any new ISOs until I find a new VPN provider that won’t ban me for actually using the service full time.
I did shoot them an email (after talking’ with their AI bot first), and they were actually helpful enough. The offered to restore support, so long as I promised to not torrent with them again (which, I honestly did promise not to. I’m not sticking with a VPN service that can’t handle me actually using it for what it’s advertised for) and they did unban the account. Whole email chain took about three days to get resolved.
My sticking point is that they still have instructions on setting up torrents on their own website, and that they specifically allow for unlimited data (with the plan i paid for) so long as it’s just one user. I did not break those rules. After clarifying that in the support email, they still said that I was using too much data (despite the unlimited data advertisement) and that torrenting was not allowed on their service.
TL:DR: Windscribe bans you if you use a lot of data, and support says torrents aren’t allowed, despite their website advertising such. Proof in the attached images.
If y’all have any other suggestions for a VPN that allow port forwarding i’d really appreciate it.
The disrespect I am referring to has nothing to do with US politics or tribalism.
It’s disrespectful because he think his customers are stupid enough to buy his ruse about “genuinely” thinking that a Trump admin would be concerned about anti-trust.
In a global context, skepticism of oligarch groups is not a “minority position”. In many countries, if you start spouting random polemics about how “Oligarch X actually cares or might do some good”, people will think you hit your head or you’re trying to launch a new career as a standup comedian with a focus on politics.
You referenced the current US admin assigning someone who is allegedly anti-trust? So what? What does this have to with anything? This is not some sort of silver bullet and it’s a bit sophomoric to claim this is of any significant importance.
This is not at all convincing. There are multiple examples of two-stage oligarch/authoritarian takeovers in flawed democracies (I can come several of the top of my head). This is not unique to the US. An oligarch regime is not going to suddenly have a massive change in heart.
What exactly were the good things? Which major company was broken up? Which executives went to jail?
Try and look at what I am saying outside the lens of internal US politics. As I said earlier, I am not even necessarily saying that the Proton CEO is a Trump supporter, that doesn’t make the situation any better.
But… He never said that?
He said that “democrats used to stand for the little guy, but tables have turned”. Again, in context he’s 100% correct - Dems went to bed with a lot of big business while Reps started a lot of anti-trust anti-BigTech moves (which, due to tribalism, Dems criticised).
He doesn’t say anything else - nothing about him “thinking the Trump admin is concerned about X”, he just states a simple fact.
And we live in a time when stating a fact makes you “the enemy of the people” because, apparently, “my feeling are more important than facts” rings true on both sides of the political divide… And that’s shameful.
Well… only just the fact that this is precisely what he was commenting on?
What do you mean “what dos that have to do with anything”?? It’s got literally the entirety of it.
DOJ Antitrust Lawsuit Against Google (2020)- Focused on Google’s deals with Apple and others to maintain default search engine status, thus harming competitors.
FTC Antitrust Lawsuit Against Facebook (December 2020)- To potentially break up Facebook by forcing it to divest those companies.
DOJ Antitrust Review of Big Tech (2019)- Laid groundwork for later actions, like the 2020 Google lawsuit.
FTC Tech Task Force (2019)- Re-examined acquisitions like Facebook’s of Instagram and WhatsApp.
Trump’s Executive Order on Section 230 (May 2020) to weaken legal protections that shield social media platforms from liability over user content and moderation decisions. - didn’t get much done as actual change would require Congressional action. But it intensified scrutiny of Big Tech.
And indirectly: Trump supported conservative-led Congressional hearings and investigations into Big Tech’s political power and influence or pushed the idea that companies like Amazon were harming small businesses and exploiting USPS.
Obviously, most of these were fuelled by his pettiness (he always complained about social media having anti-conservative bias and wanted to hurt them in retaliation), but you cannot look at these and go “all of this is shite” and not be considered either insane or a fundamentalist.
Don’t be childish. We’re not talking about completely redefining the tech landscape, we’re talking about reining a couple of “too big” companies in.
What you seem to be saying is: “he didn’t criticise Trump, therefore he went against his client-base’s belief system, and that’s a bad thing”.
Am I getting this right? Maybe elaborate on what’s your exact stance on Yen if I’m getting something confused?
As I mentioned earlier, try and look at what I am saying outside the lens of internal US politics.
I don’t buy into Yen’s (and seemingly your) statements about little guys, big guys and anti-trust. From my perspective, this makes no sense.
An oligarch gang does not engage in good faith with respect to anti-trust. This is not up for discussion as far as I concerned (remember that I said I am not American).
To try and imply otherwise (and be all high and mighty about it) is essentially mocking your customers.
The examples you cited mean nothing, if they did mean something, then you would actually highlight some real world results (can you cite an outcome not preliminary actions, I don’t believe in American polemics about their judiciary and so on). But there are none, so instead you go with calling childish.
Although I will say there is a beautiful irony in the following phrase:
Maybe you have your answer here (one that, I repeat, is not tied to internal US political matters).
I’m not from the US, I think this is how I’m looking at this.
I already said this a couple of times, but seems like I have to repeat it: nobody in the conversation (Yen included) believes Trump did anything “in good faith”. I specifically stated that I believe whatever anti-trust policies and actions Trump has made were done explicitly in bad faith, as an attempt to get back at “Big Tech” for being “anti-right-wing”.
He didn’t “imply otherwise”. Not once has he stated that he “believes in the long term mission of the Republican party to fight for the rights of the consumers”. He only said that Reps became anti-Big Tech recently and that it’s good.
Again: there are no statements of intent, ONLY statement of fact.
I’m sorry, what??
You asked “what were the good things [Reps did]”. I gave you examples. You didn’t ask “what did the attempts accomplish”, did you?
Considering it’s the US we’re talking about, and how hilariously long some court cases can take, it’d be a miracle to see ANYTHING come out of these cases before 2030 (assuming they’re not trashed now that Big Tech is back in bed with Trump, of course).
However, it is an undeniable, objective FACT that these cases are a start, that these examples show anti-Big Tech attitude, and that these are examples of Trump admin’s (accidental) fight for the betterment of the life of “the little guy”.
Did you forget about the Tik-Tok ban? Again, you asked for examples of actions, not results. Considering how fresh things are (it all started fairly late into his previous term), I don’t know why you’re expecting many examples of results, that’s just being extremely unrealistic.
Well, that’s because you still seem to be thinking in a kind of “all or nothing” way. It’s either “Trump == Hitler” or “OMG I love Trump” for you - no inbetween. It’s either “they completely obliterated Big Tech” or “absolutely nothing accomplished”. It’s like you don’t believe in small steps? I honestly am baffled by your responses so far.
This whole situation is baffling. It’s literally:
It’s just… weird to me.
Anyway, maybe read THIS comment by Yen which he made just 3 months ago, and THIS post from a day later… It sheds some more light about his stance on things.
I don’t see any malicious intent in there, do you?
I have already read the first link you posted. As I mentioned in my OP for this thread, it is not convincing or logically sound. He literally says “It is not a bad thing that Republicans have moved so far on this issue”. Zero critical thought about this.
Keep on acting obtuse. Hitler/Bitler. “You didn’t ask “what did the attempts accomplish”, did you?” Asking for outcomes on anti-trust is the same thing as “they completely obliterated Big Tech”. Small steps? What small steps are you talking about? We both know there are none and if any future action will happen it will be for show only and will never have any real impact.
This sort sleazeball rhetoric is why I don’t trust people like Yen and you.
I am done here.
Yeah, absolutely nothing’s been done (other than two court cases, one ban, and a bunch of further actions I outlined).
It’s a shame that you’re so thoroughly brainwashed into this tribal attitude, mate. You seem like a smart person, but somehow, when it comes to this “us vs them” you revert to a mindless fundamentalist no different than a Taliban blowing up statues…
I hope you find it in yourself to take a step back and look at things from a wider perspective, to see that you can applaud the good moves of a bad party, while still pointing out the bad ones.
Peace!
Appreciate the comparison to the Taliban. Makes you look very reasonable and not all unhinged.
Pro-tip: stop being a fundamentalist, and you won’t be getting compared to one.