• Gamma@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    I feel like the opening sentences explained the reasoning behind the article sufficiently, even when there are plenty of valid use cases for them. This was mostly a response to manipulative marketing tactics:

    Virtual Private Networks, or VPNs, are popular services for (supposedly) increasing your security and privacy on the internet. They are often marketed as all-encompassing security tools, and something that you absolutely need to keep hackers at bay. However, many of the selling points for VPNs are exaggerated or just outright false.

    They’re not the only ones pointing this out, either. Tom Scott released a video on the topic a few years ago to explain his thoughts VPN sponsorships

    • mateomaui@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Your comment in no way negates my observation. If the clickbait title of the article was “You probably don’t need a VPN to avoid market tracking” or something similar, you’d have a point.

      • Gamma@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        I was simply adding information your comment had left out, it wasn’t negating information at all. So congrats on getting the point, not everyone is trying to argue 🎉

        • mateomaui@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          You may want to reconsider your phrasing then if you don’t want it to appear to be argumentative.

          • ConstableJelly@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            Neutral party here, I read it naturally as a supplement to your comment, not an opposition. I don’t detect an argumentative tone personally.

            • mateomaui@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              11 months ago

              You’re welcome to your opinion but these phrases

              I feel like the opening sentences explained the reasoning behind the article sufficiently,

              They’re not the only ones pointing this out, either.

              are oppositional in tone.

                • mateomaui@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  I didn’t ask you. I didn’t ask the other neutral guy either. Not my issue that you have a problem with me suggesting the original respondent check his phrasing to make his intention clear, or pointing out the specific phrases that make it unclear.

                  • cygnus@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    “Everybody on this highway is driving in the wrong lane! What a bunch of idiots!”