[HN Gopher] VPN providers in France ordered to block pirate spor...
___________________________________________________________________
VPN providers in France ordered to block pirate sports IPTV
Author : gasull
Score : 105 points
Date : 2025-06-06 15:31 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (torrentfreak.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (torrentfreak.com)
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| Thanks, I was looking for a list of pirated sports broadcasts.
| kinow wrote:
| I believe that's similar to what was done in Spain (for quite
| some time).
|
| https://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2025/02/19/cloudflare-takes-...
|
| (Article from 2025, but last year it was already happening here)
| theturtletalks wrote:
| La Liga has such pull in Spain, they literally cripple the
| internet when games are going on so people can't pirate. This
| is because the VPN companies refused to comply.
| retrodaredevil wrote:
| When these VPN providers comply with these court orders, do they
| only implement blocking at the DNS level? Couldn't you still use
| these VPNs, but use a DNS provider that isn't censored?
| stuffoverflow wrote:
| I assume it will be implemented on DNS level and yeah it is
| possible to use a different DNS.
| space_firmware wrote:
| Most likely they will be forced to implement IP level firewall
| rules. IE: Traffic from French users is not allowed to go to
| <list of destination IPs>. This is one of the things the local
| ISPs already have to do.
| retrodaredevil wrote:
| It seems that the list of destination IPs would then be
| determined by whatever the domains listed resolve to (I
| assume). Since it's trivial to update DNS records, I wonder
| if they could lead to automated blocking of whatever IP those
| domains point to.
|
| With that in place, I wonder if that could ever be abused by
| these pirate sites. Imagine temporarily pointing your pirate
| site domain name at a valid IP address. When you do that, in
| theory ISPs (and now VPNs) would automatically block
| perfectly valid IPs.
|
| This would only happen if the owners of the pirate site
| domains actually try to do something malicious like that, but
| I know there are instances in the past of ISPs blocking
| cloudflare IPs (which is a separate issue, but the scenario I
| just made up reminds me of it).
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| Couldn't a VPN provider just start updating their DNS
| entries to respond with IPs of the French government around
| the time the block goes into place? So the ISPs would be
| forced to block access to the French government websites?
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| If they wanted to troll better they'd point them at the
| websites of the official streaming service.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| Yeah, good point. That could work as well.
| numpad0 wrote:
| That's called domain fronting. CDNs already switch between
| virtual hosts with headers on HTTP requests and HTTPS TLS
| SNI, so this even passively happen sometimes.
|
| Now, HTTP headers and SNI are both unencrypted, so
| oppressive governments abuse these. Obvious fix is to
| make'em encrypted by enforcing HTTPS everywhere and
| upgrading SNI to ESNI with DoH-obtained per-server public
| keys.
|
| Some of offensive side fixes to the defensive side fix are:
| blocking ESNI, blocking DoH, forcing use of MITM proxy,
| just blaming strawman terrorist groups for having to block
| affected IPs. etc.
| GHanku wrote:
| Won't many be behind cloudflare's IP?
| fifteen1506 wrote:
| People tend to assume workarounds will be found. They will -- no
| doubt.
|
| But in time, it will be as easy as installing Linux on a PS5.
|
| I just hope unverified operating systems won't be blocked on
| similar grounds.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| You're talking about two different things.
|
| One is, you want to install Linux on your PS5. A PS5 is
| basically just a PC, so what are you getting out of that when
| you could much more easily just install Linux on a normal PC?
| The incentive to find a way to do it is low. Meanwhile the PS5
| is manufactured by a company that doesn't want you to do it, so
| they make it take effort to do it.
|
| The other is, people want to watch sports. Huge incentive. And
| they can use any device or service they want, not just one made
| by an adversarial company. Preventing this is basically having
| an effective censorship apparatus. The internet is an effective
| anti-censorship apparatus, because it connects everybody to
| everybody, and any single path through the network is enough to
| defeat censorship.
|
| "We'll just block this path they're using over here" is like
| installing a single fence post in the middle of the ocean. Or
| worse than that, because that single fence post causes
| collateral damage to random innocent people (e.g. blocking
| Cloudflare IPs) which then gives those innocent third parties
| the incentive to start developing better anti-censorship tech.
| mrshadowgoose wrote:
| > You're talking about two different things.
|
| No, you've actually missed his point entirely.
|
| He is alluding to the fact that over the last decade or so,
| consumers have unwittingly slid down the slope of "not having
| true control over personal electronic devices". Iphones are
| already there, Android devices are a few years behind, as are
| most desktop PCs.
|
| Once there's critical mass, it would not be a stretch for
| ISPs to only deliver internet to endpoints that have a secure
| element that attests to the integrity of the internet-con
| ected device. This will of course be done under the guise of
| "fighting the spread of malware" and such.
|
| Piracy effectively ends at that point.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| iPhones have always been able to access web pages. Web
| pages run on general purpose computers, and basically have
| to, because they're made of site-specific content and site-
| specific code. To get rid of "piracy" you would not only
| need to prevent users from having access to their own
| _phones_ , you would need to make it impossible for anybody
| to have their own web page.
|
| That level of dystopia is the sort of thing that could
| never last very long because enough people would rather
| burn it to the ground while still inside of it than allow
| it to continue to exist.
| hinata08 wrote:
| when you try to connect to some commercial streaming
| websites in France, you already have to upload your ID,
| film yourself with your camera, and enable biometrics, as
| the government forced them to do that "to protect
| children" (even as they're in the middle of a scandal
| about silencing children when things went south in some
| institutions up to 20 years ago).
|
| last time I checked, China didn't force users to give in
| their IDs and turn on webcams to authenticate themselves
| on the internet. France does.
|
| dystopia is never far away in France, and ppl always
| agree
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > dystopia is never far away in France, and ppl always
| agree
|
| Isn't the entire premise here that people are instead
| using pirate services that presumably don't require you
| to upload your ID and film yourself with a camera?
| space_firmware wrote:
| Really great that European courts have created all the legal
| tools for authoritarian control of the internet in the future, to
| prevent the scourge of watching sports streaming without paying.
|
| Before this, it was much easier for ISPs / DNS providers / VPN
| providers to push back against governments wanting to censor the
| internet because the companies wouldn't have the tools installed
| to do this kind of blocking. The companies can then argue it is a
| burden to be forced to implement the tools. That is no longer the
| case in Europe, and the use of these tools is likely to expand
| outside the sports domain.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Copyright law has always been the most powerful force on the
| Internet. Which is why its collision with AI companies who
| pirate the whole Internet is very interesting.
| ainiriand wrote:
| Collusion one might say.
| LunaSea wrote:
| There won't be any collision. Some companies will get some
| cash, the same way that Google paid to make Google Search the
| default search engine and the issue will die down.
| Imustaskforhelp wrote:
| when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object
|
| One must only imagine the outcome.
| rusk wrote:
| Copyright is long overdue a check but I don't think AI is
| going to be what does it somehow. I can see an opportunity
| for copyright holders to seek retrospective damages for AIs
| that mimic their work.
| ta1243 wrote:
| The already rich get richer and more powerful
| ranger_danger wrote:
| If AI training is piracy then all art made by humans is also
| piracy... we cannot create anything without drawing
| inspiration from something else.
|
| The question is exactly _how much_ is copied, and how obvious
| it is.
| rusk wrote:
| No because fair use is for humans not machines
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > If AI training is piracy then all art made by humans is
| also piracy
|
| That would only be true if human mental impressions were
| "fixed media" and therefore (potentially infringing) copies
| ubder copyright law the way data stored in electronic media
| in the course of AI training is.
| hulitu wrote:
| > If AI training is piracy
|
| If it is not, can I install a pirated Windows or Offiice
| version ? (I use it to train "AI")
| tim333 wrote:
| Copyright law struggles against information wanting to be
| free. You can get almost anything in contravention of it by
| typing the odd magic word like libgen or pirate bay or
| scihub. I imagine even if the French crack down on the big
| VPNs there will be offshore ones that ignore the French
| courts.
| isodev wrote:
| Is it just Europe though? Have you tried uploading something on
| YouTube including a remote semblance of a melody from a song?
| Or accessing porn in some parts of the US? And then there are
| the App Stores and walled gardens regulating apps, content and
| really every aspect of one's digital life.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| How about making access to the games fairly priced and easily
| accessible?
|
| Streaming services have dramatically reduced piracy by making it
| way easier and way cheaper than ever before to consume content.
|
| I don't live in Europe, but if it is like US sports, you need to
| jump through hoops, pay through the nose, and have 14 different
| accounts to watch all the sports you want.
| yousif_123123 wrote:
| Also just more accessibility in terms of being able to pay for
| it. As a viewer in Canada, there was no service whatsoever that
| was showing the Real Madrid vs Barcelona Spanish cup final a
| few months ago (Copa del Rey). I had to signup on a Spanish
| state tv website and use a VPN to access it for free.
|
| I would have gladly paid, but there was no opportunity.
|
| Content fragmentation and some sports rights not being bought
| and resold by anyone is also a big problem.
| Beijinger wrote:
| "Content fragmentation and some sports rights not being
| bought and resold by anyone is also a big problem."
|
| I dont watch soccer. But if you want to watch soccer with a
| decent exposure (national league, Champions league etc.) in
| some EU countries you pay easily 100 Euros. And for Europe,
| this is a lot!
| rpdillon wrote:
| I still believe Gabe Newell was right when he said that piracy
| is a service problem. This case doesn't seem to be any
| different.
| SpecialistK wrote:
| It's entirely true. I've canceled all of my streaming
| services because of the fragmentation and poor quality of the
| apps compared to my own Plex server. A few years ago I was
| happy to just pay $10 or $20 a month for nearly everything I
| wanted to watch.
| freedomben wrote:
| Same (though s/plex/jellyfin/g). I was a long time
| subscriber to CBS (now Paramount+) and many others, but
| I've slowly cancelled them all as their quality is utter
| shit, and now they've started rolling ads even at the high
| paid tier. Using an unmodded Chromecast w/ Google TV on a
| stock TV, I couldn't get Paramount+ to stream any of the
| newer Star Trek without falling back into a horrifically
| obnoxious constant shift in color tone that the internet
| informed me is a "feature" of their DRM to sabotage the
| quality if somebody is trying to record it. I was just
| trying to watch it, after paying for the damn service!
| Absolutely nothing in my setup was modded or sus in any
| way. Guess what, I still ended up watching it, but after
| cancelling their service and figuring out a way outside of
| their system.
|
| The only streaming service I have left now is Netflix,
| which does work remarkably well, though how long they stay
| "ad free" remains to be seen. The first time they show me
| an ad, will also be the last time they show me an ad.
| SpecialistK wrote:
| I probably would have moved to Jellyfin if they had an
| Xbox app available at the time (I see they re-launched it
| a month and a half ago now...) but alas, the main thing
| is that my media is mine to enjoy when and how I wish
| without needing to jump through any DRM hoops or ads or
| multiple services.
|
| I still have Prime as a "bonus", though I wouldn't pay if
| it was removed because I only use it for The Grand Tour.
| Netflix was the first to go, as it was where I found the
| removal of content most annoying. It also decided to
| geoblock me on a 2019 trip to Japan: I had downloaded
| some shows, on my Canadian wifi, to my unrooted phone
| with a Canadian SIM card, with Canadian taxes paid on the
| subscription, and it still blocked access as soon as I
| was in Japan. That will never be an issue with self-
| hosting.
|
| Disney+ is the one I'd like to cancel next - it's my
| partner's account and has just blocked her dad's access,
| but there's a lot of content I would need to self-host.
| I'm inspired to by a really annoying quirk of their app:
| if you put on a show, then fall asleep, reopen the app
| and the top choice will be "continue watching" which
| takes you straight back to playing where the app paused
| with the "are you still watching?" message. So to get
| back to the episode list, you need to fast forward
| through the entire episode and then choose "back to
| episode listing" in the 15 seconds before it goes to the
| next ep. Why the "continue watching" button doesn't just
| bring up the episode list is a mystery to me.
| epanchin wrote:
| That's what it's like in the UK now. Legal streaming is much
| more complicated than satellite back in the day.
|
| As a consequence people have gone back to illegal streams where
| you can find all the sports on one menu.
| jaoane wrote:
| Not defending them or what they are doing, but if you can't
| afford to watch football you always have the option of not
| watching it. I don't know why this is always framed as "make it
| cheap or it's right to pirate it"
| geodel wrote:
| Exactly right.
|
| Behind all these _reasonably priced_ or _easily accessible_
| arguments for digital goods is the plain threat "Give it to
| me on my terms or else I simply take it for free"
| redundantly wrote:
| This goes well beyond just an affordability issue. They're
| price gouging, forcing customers into one-off subscription
| services that are deliberately hard to cancel and make it
| difficult to get a refund, even when one is clearly
| warranted.
|
| They want people to pay to watch, and that's fair. But if
| they make it too difficult, too expensive, or outright
| exploitative, they should fully expect that people will find
| ways to watch without paying them directly.
| ta1243 wrote:
| In the 90s I used to download star trek episodes in the UK
| the night after US broadcast. They simply weren't available.
| It's not a cost problem - when they were eventually released
| in the UK I spent the modern equivalent of $20 per episode to
| buy on VHS.
|
| If you're unwilling to sell it, then someone else will.
| donalhunt wrote:
| Still happening in 2025. :/
|
| One well-known US show started airing the current season in
| the UK (on a streaming service) -- 7 weeks after it started
| airing in the US.
| teeray wrote:
| > you need to jump through hoops, pay through the nose, and
| have 14 different accounts to watch all the sports you want.
|
| It's not even that. Just to watch the games for one sport and
| one team requires this. "Remember, next week's game is
| available exclusively on ShitStreamTV." Of course, ShitStreamTV
| is a Brand New Streaming Network that you've never heard of and
| need yet another subscription for. Then they can't actually
| handle the traffic and crash halfway through the game. Trying
| to get your $24.99 back? Impossible. "Terms of Service mumble
| mumble blah blah."
| cgh wrote:
| Yes, NHL blackouts are a great example. You want to watch your
| home team? Great, you have to subscribe to what they refer to
| as your "RSN" (regional sports network, usually a regular tv
| channel).
|
| But the RSN doesn't show all the games across the league, nor
| will it show playoff hockey. So you need to also subscribe to a
| big streaming service like Sportsnet.
|
| It gets worse: your RSN may not offer a streaming service. So
| you need an old-fashioned cable package to get it. The cost
| becomes ridiculous, just to watch hockey.
| vel0city wrote:
| I'm so glad Diamond Sports Group imploded from their
| excessive debt load and now Dallas Stars and Texas Rangers
| are available on Victory+ for free.
| eloisant wrote:
| They will have to confirm it in a Swiss court if they want
| ProtonVPN to comply.
| sschueller wrote:
| Now worries, the US will try again to force Switzerland to
| change its copyright laws so we can no longer legally download
| movies. /s
|
| All this to protect some industry that is falling appart
| because they can't produce decent films or music anymore.
| Everything is calculated for profit and creativity is out the
| door. Meanwhile the small actual talented creators aren't
| protected and ripped off by the same industry that wants all
| the protections.
| GHanku wrote:
| French leaders are lunatics though, they didn't file to Dubai
| for Telegram...
| mitkebes wrote:
| Does double VPN get around these kind of blocks? My understanding
| is the VPNs are expected to block the websites for french users,
| but it sounds like people could use VPN #1 to appear as a non-
| french user to VPN #2. VPN #2 can then allow the user to access
| the blocked websites, because the law only applies to french
| users.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| Is there some reason they wouldn't just use a VPN that isn't in
| France and therefore isn't subject to laws in France? There
| have to be VPNs in some other jurisdiction.
| netsharc wrote:
| I don't think e.g. NordVPN has any offices in France, but in
| theory the French authorities could tell French ISPs to block
| access to nordvpn.com (and all other Nord domains), though
| I'm not sure if the law applies to "secondary services"
| (instead of ordering ISPs to block domains that offer pirated
| sports streams, they'd be told to block domains that offer a
| service to circumvent the block).
|
| I believe Russia is doing it like this, trying to connect to
| a VPN provider's website will fail - interestingly NordVPN's
| app uses SSO to login, so blocking their main site would
| block the app's ability to log in.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| Every VPS provider is "a service to circumvent the block"
| because you can configure one as a VPN in around 30
| seconds, and these are all just legitimate foreign
| companies many of which use Cloudflare or other shared IP
| services for their own websites. Are you going to block AWS
| and Azure and everything on them because US-region
| instances don't implement French website blocks? You've
| gone from blocking a couple of pirate sites to blocking
| >95% of the internet.
| netsharc wrote:
| > Are you going to block AWS and Azure and everything on
| them because US-region instances don't implement French
| website blocks
|
| *French shrug*
|
| I guess their idea is to just make it obnoxious enough
| for casual users. At the moment a French resident wanting
| to watch these games without paying can just install VPN,
| connect to it, and watch the pirate streams. If the VPN
| providers are forced to comply, having a VPS is still a
| viable option, but for a casual user it's complicated
| enough that it might be enough to significantly reduce
| the number of pirate-stream watchers.
|
| Then again, because of Internet censorship in e.g. China,
| Iran and Russia, there are several services designed for
| a 1-click install of a personal VPN on a VPS...
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > I guess their idea is to just make it obnoxious enough
| for casual users.
|
| This is always the excuse, but how does that ever work?
| People want to be able to do it, technical people know
| how to do it, non-technical people ask them to do it for
| them. If the number of non-technical people is large, a
| single one the technical people will make a one-click
| installer to automate it so they don't have to keep doing
| it manually for people, and then the inconvenience is
| gone for everyone.
|
| The companies peddling this stuff are desperate to
| rationalize that it can do any good. A million games will
| have DRM and their customers will _hate it_ and they 'll
| collectively lose billions of dollars by inconveniencing
| legitimate customers or have people pirating their stuff
| out of spite when they would have actually bought it.
| Then some game doesn't get cracked for a while because
| it's a statistical anomaly or it's just not very popular
| and nobody bothers and they get to congratulating
| themselves without ever considering how many of the
| people who didn't pirate that game actually bought it
| instead of just pirating a different one, or if the
| number of people who bought it is smaller than the number
| of sales they lost through destruction of goodwill -- for
| not only that game but also all the games that were
| cracked right away.
|
| And then they double down with this kind of website
| blocking overreach where they're unapologetically causing
| collateral damage to innocent people as if to demonstrate
| just how little they care about anything but the dubious
| pretense that it was worth it.
| miki123211 wrote:
| I think it's more likely they put pressure on Visa,
| Mastercard and French banks. If their choice is severing
| the relationship with Nord VPN versus the entirety of
| France, they'll choose the former. Losing Visa access would
| be very bad for Nord's business, so I think they'd rather
| comply.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| The VPN provider could obviously just accept
| cryptocurrency from users in France, so is the theory
| that France is going to threaten Visa with not accepting
| Visa anywhere in France if Visa doesn't block foreign VPN
| providers in foreign countries from accepting Visa from
| foreign users? How would even that be effective, since
| you would only need one VPN service to choose "stop
| accepting Visa"?
| eitally wrote:
| Does this mean a VPN company that doesn't have a legal nexus
| in France, or just a VPN provider that lets you use VPN
| servers not in France? If the latter, I do that anyway to
| watch region-locked cycling, frequently connecting to SBS in
| Australia, but also sometimes different European countries
| where streaming is (has been in the past) free.
| viktorcode wrote:
| Just use a VPN that's not on the list. It is also will be
| useful to learn other ways to get around internet censorship
| which people use in the countries like China and Russia
| Szpadel wrote:
| this isn't explicitly stated but from context I understand that
| this is just DNS block.
|
| so using vpn provider with some other DNS provider should be
| enough
|
| there is also tor that is free and cannot be controlled in this
| way
| MentatOnMelange wrote:
| I'm not a big sports fan but I know several people who are. I
| don't think there's another industry on earth whose customers are
| so willing and eager to spend money as fans watching their teams.
| And there's probably no industry on earth that tries as hard to
| _prevent_ people from buying their services.
|
| The link between piracy and hypothetical profits has never been
| hard science, but when it comes to televized/streaming sports, a
| lot of this pirating seems to happen because people aren't
| allowed to watch it legally in their area.
|
| This is a self-inflicted problem.
| JohnMakin wrote:
| Huge swaths of Los Angeles are completely unable to watch
| Dodgers games on TV because of the way the cable companies have
| packaged and delivered the content. You know, one of the most
| valuable sports franchises in the world, makes total sense.
| add-sub-mul-div wrote:
| What do you mean, the cable companies block Dodger games from
| being on cable? That doesn't make sense.
| slashink wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackout_(broadcasting)
| add-sub-mul-div wrote:
| If I'm understanding that right then the games are
| available to watch legally, it's a problem self-inflicted
| by the customers who choose not to get the service
| they're available on. Because it's not their preferred
| service.
| JohnMakin wrote:
| Are you aware that in many areas of Los Angeles, and I'm
| sure other areas too, you often only have a single choice
| of cable/phone/internet provider? So no, you couldn't be
| further off.
| toast0 wrote:
| Yes, the games are available to watch legally, and you
| have choices. You can choose to watch the game in person
| (seats are available or they wouldn't have a local
| blackout), or travel out of the area where you'll be able
| to watch it on TV.
| vel0city wrote:
| Cable companies have monopolies. For a lot of people,
| they couldn't even choose to pay for the cable operator
| who owned the station. For a long time only 30% of the
| market could even get the channel if they wanted to. Now
| it's only slightly better because theoretically one can
| stream it on DirecTV's stupid expensive streaming service
| or get it on one satellite provider but not any of the
| others.
| tonyhart7 wrote:
| it does make sense if certain companies pays certain money
| that prevent other companies buying the same services
|
| aka Exclusivity right
| rascul wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Baseball_blackout.
| ..
| JohnMakin wrote:
| It's not even just this - some areas only offer spectrum,
| other areas cox, etc. And your provider may not get all or
| any of the games.
| bwb wrote:
| This, I've given up so many times wanting to watch a soccer
| game and found no way to do it. It is incredibly frustrating. I
| don't understand how the current system works as it is
| impossible to figure out how to watch games.
| amarcheschi wrote:
| The link between privacy and hypothetical profits has been
| studied by the European commission (or parliament don't
| remember rn). The study was hidden and revealed only later when
| pirate mep Felix read digged in about it
| calmbonsai wrote:
| It never fails to astonish how poorly the larger sports leagues
| cater to their biggest fans. Local blackouts are treating your
| most loyal fanbase to the worst service. I shouldn't have to
| VPN for anything. Sports has a global audience.
|
| Every league should offer something akin to a season ticket
| "firehose" (all games streamed live with hosted replays) like
| MLS does on Apple TV or Gallagher rugby on the Rugby Network.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| Exactly. I'm in Norway, and here, to watch the English Premier
| League legally, the price this latest season was over $70 per
| month. Keeping in mind the fact that most people will maybe
| watch one game(their team's game) a week, the prices are just
| getting absurd. There's no way to buy single games, subscribing
| to games for a single team, etc. To watch the 38 games your
| team will play last season, the only available option was to
| buy access to all 760 games. The company holding these rights
| is struggling financially, layoffs and all. Because their
| subscription numbers have plummeted
|
| They've already crossed the threshold where this is no longer
| profitable. The next licencing deal will likely be so
| expensive, no Norwegian or Scandinavian company could possibly
| be able to turn a profit from it.
|
| Of course, the CEO of the company has been in the media talking
| about how IPTV funds criminal networks and such nonsense*,
| calling for bans, yadda yadda. They're not listening to the
| market at all. Just using illegal streaming as a scapegoat. And
| I've decided, as long as this is how it's gonna be, they're not
| seeing a single dime of my money.
|
| * I find the concept absurd. No matter where we spend our
| money, some of it ends up with criminals and various other
| despicable people, who will use it for evil. No one has the
| ability to prevent this. There's no reasonable expectation in
| current societal and economic structures for the consumer to
| somehow keep track of all their money once it leaves their
| wallet. This is no more the case for IPTV than it is when I buy
| a burger from some hole in the wall, which unbeknownst to me is
| a money laundering front. Or when I buy some chocolate and most
| of the money ends up with some white rich guy and not the
| children in Africa who harvested the cocoa. The whole argument
| is so intellectually dishonest and morally pathetic it pisses
| me off. And I don't even pay for IPTV.
| Disposal8433 wrote:
| I don't like watching sports on TV but it's hilarious that the
| courts said that you are forbidden to go to _aliezstream.pro_ ,
| and that _Mullvad_ is not on the forbidden list. You MUST NOT
| combine both because it 's very naugthy!
|
| Meanwhile Facebook stole all the books on the planet and it's not
| forbidden at all. It's very hard for me to take them seriously.
| Beijinger wrote:
| People here are very fond of Mullhad VPN. I have mixed
| experiences with NordVPN, especially under Linux.
|
| If you look for something cheap, AirVPN hast a sale going on:
| https://airvpn.org/ It works okay for me or my current needs.
|
| https://expatcircle.com/cms/privacy/vpn-services/
| tim333 wrote:
| If you want a free vpn, veepn is pretty good.
| Technetium wrote:
| Can't ever trust a free VPN. If it's free, then you are the
| product being sold!
| tim333 wrote:
| I'm not sure I trust any VPNs but for the stuff I use if
| for I'm not really bothered - random US news sites saying
| not available in Europe, the cafe blocking The Onion
| because it's naughty etc.
| tryauuum wrote:
| VPNs are cool but governments are always stronger.
|
| There's no good outcome if people don't fight for their
| internet freedom. In Russia the providers block OpenVPN and
| wireguard already. In China it's probably so much worse
| aunty_helen wrote:
| Interesting isn't it, everyone heres favourite vpn doesn't make
| the list. The one vpn that seems to tick every box that you
| could want, suspiciously absent.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-06-06 23:01 UTC)