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.
NOW you can.
In 2024, you couldn’t, because his previous admin, as bullshit-filled, corrupt and dishonest as it was, DID do some good things (mostly in a bad way - if it was all good, it was usually by accident). The anti-trust stuff was some of those good things.
And don’t get me wrong - I know full well that Trump never intended any of that stuff to benefit the “Average Joe”. I’m willing to bet my life’s savings that he and his admin did it to show “who’s the boss” to all the “tech bros” (who were famously anti-Trump at the time). I guess you could say it worked, considering how they all sided with him now.
But, again, we NOW know what the true intentions were. In 2024, looking at the first term, you COULD honestly say that Trump did some good in a fight against Big Tech.
And, again, all Yen said was that appointing someone known for being anti-Big Tech into such a high position in the DOJ was a good move, and stated the obvious (at the time) fact, that Dems were very much siding with Big Tech, which did not benefit the average citizen.
From a purely tribal (“us vs them”, “Republicans vs Democrats”) perspective (“anything they do is wrong and evil, anything we do is correct and good”) - yes, you’re right. From a more saner perspective of just looking at facts of life (anti-trust work, the appointment to the DOJ, Dems’ stance on Big Tech), I don’t see any disrespect at all.
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 “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?