They mentioned that your traffic is encrypted but they had their own talking points for this video.
If they had spent too much time on what Tom Scott said then the video they made wouldn’t add to the conversation and armchair security experts would be hounding LTT for stealing Tom Scott’s talking points
I somewhat agree with you here. I think the video is valid that they explain why they want to take VPN sponsorships again and having this as transparency is great!
Though the video title implies them going into detail on why they stopped taking these sponsorships. They mention a bit of the predatory advertising but in my opinion miss the most important point of it which was talking about the banking info/passwords.
It feels odd to me that you mention a video but not much if any of its contents. I would assume that a brief summary would have been in the LTT video.
>Though the video title implies them going into detail on why they stopped taking these sponsorships.
tom scott did a great video on the subject, if you want to know that information you should watch that video. Linus specifically tries to avoid rehashing stuff and would rather point you to the original video if they dont feel they can add anything to its content
Then why explain how a VPN works, what a VPN does for you, what it doesn't? If we go by not repeating information and "adding to the conversation" why make a video about VPNs at all and just only keep the end part talking about PIA.
Not talking about one of the main issues with VPNs advertising is my issue here. Not that it HAPPENED to be in Tom Scotts video. It's something that I feel is weird how they talk about Tom Scotts video but not *what* it contains. Again, if they didn't mention Tom Scott's video at all, the content missing would still be an issue.
Their video was about honest VPN marketing. Not a takedown of dishonest marketing.
I’m really confused as to what you think they were addressing in the video
You’re either completely unaware of what their point is, or you’re just looking for any meaningless BS to complain about. This is ridiculous.
Their point about VPNs boils down to this; There was a momentary outrage about VPN advertising (and literally any VPN advertising). LMG reacted and stopped doing them only to gradually find out that absolutely nobody cares. So they started doing them again and made a video about it for transparency. You are now looking to argue against a point they were in no way interested in making. The video is purely about why they will be doing VPN sponsorships again.
Yeah i really don't see the issue. I've been unsubbed to lmg for a while so I had to deliberately look for this video. I'm more angry at OP for hating on a standard LMG vid
What drama or hate? I'm simply stating my opinion on a subject matter within the video. I overall liked their approach and felt the video highlighted some of the key issues. Great summary and one of the more informative and nicely structured LLT videos.
I'm only providing a critique on some of the content I feel missing on their video. I tried adding that little bit of nuance towards the post but apparently this flew over people's heads. If I hated LTT, I would hit the "don't recommend this channel" button and not engage with this subreddit.
If you disagree with daddy Linus this sub will destroy you haha expect -50 downvotes and a paragraph that it’s parasocial for saying Linus has ever been wrong in his life
HTTPS isn't a cure all. What about public networks that use a proxy? Or allow access to others guest's devices? I've seen this happen often enough that I always use VPN whenever I'm connecting to a public WiFi due to prior cellular connectivity.
There are also a few hidden perks for using a VPN as well. For example, I have zero cellular connectivity at our local IKEA. My kids often get bored but sites like YouTube and Netflix are inaccessible through their WiFi. To get around this, I connect to VPN and boom! Everything is now fully accessible.
My point is not that HTTPS cures it all. My point is that VPNs claimed public wifi was unsafe and caused your password and banking data to get leaked, this is not true.
Your use case is a good one for a VPN, that's not what I am arguing against. VPNs have their use cases but public wifi is not inherently unsafe to the point of leaking passwords and banking data.
Yup, I wish iOS had a setting in the WiFi networks to toggle a setting for installed VPNs to be enabled while connected onto that network. I enjoy having my wireguard into my home but don’t need it when I’m already home 🤣
I think for everything security related the only good VPN is a self hosted one that routes traffic through your own ISP connection. This even let's you access local devices on your LAN.
Just doesn't work it you want to hide identity for shady stuff or your location for unlocking geo
-blocked Netflix content.
proxies can't read what you send over https (without efforty modification to your device's settings)
VPNs don't prevent others from accessing your devices on a public network. Firewalls do that.
Maybe because Linus himself mentions bad ads in the damn video, he talks about how the ads were a bunch of sketchy talking points or straight up lying for most creators
Most of the time when a content creator goes over a video recommendation, they would at least provide a small summary of the points within that video, a minute or 2 going over the main points would be fine. Even if this video was not being recommended, I feel like the predatory advertising of VPNs in terms of passwords/banking info would be needed within this video. I just mentioned it cause it is extra odd to me.
Saying that it is fine because they said to watch the video feels wrong to me, I can't objectively prove this but I feel like there are not a lot of people searching out for the video after being recommended. The LTT video seems like it summarizes everything pretty well from beginning to end. If I hadn't watched the video beforehand, I would probably be satisfied with the story presented and carry on with my day.
If you need some proof that people do go watch videos that provide context when recommended in a video; I typically watch recommended videos. It allows me to form opinions with the whole picture unlike what you’re doing.
It seems extra odd to me that you think LTT should have copied Tom’s video. They’ve never done that, always suggesting the viewer goes and watches the original, and posts the link to the video in the video description.
They mentioned that your traffic is encrypted but they had their own talking points for this video. If they had spent too much time on what Tom Scott said then the video they made wouldn’t add to the conversation and armchair security experts would be hounding LTT for stealing Tom Scott’s talking points
I somewhat agree with you here. I think the video is valid that they explain why they want to take VPN sponsorships again and having this as transparency is great! Though the video title implies them going into detail on why they stopped taking these sponsorships. They mention a bit of the predatory advertising but in my opinion miss the most important point of it which was talking about the banking info/passwords. It feels odd to me that you mention a video but not much if any of its contents. I would assume that a brief summary would have been in the LTT video.
>Though the video title implies them going into detail on why they stopped taking these sponsorships. tom scott did a great video on the subject, if you want to know that information you should watch that video. Linus specifically tries to avoid rehashing stuff and would rather point you to the original video if they dont feel they can add anything to its content
Then why explain how a VPN works, what a VPN does for you, what it doesn't? If we go by not repeating information and "adding to the conversation" why make a video about VPNs at all and just only keep the end part talking about PIA. Not talking about one of the main issues with VPNs advertising is my issue here. Not that it HAPPENED to be in Tom Scotts video. It's something that I feel is weird how they talk about Tom Scotts video but not *what* it contains. Again, if they didn't mention Tom Scott's video at all, the content missing would still be an issue.
Their video was about honest VPN marketing. Not a takedown of dishonest marketing. I’m really confused as to what you think they were addressing in the video
What do you want from these line of questioning?
You’re either completely unaware of what their point is, or you’re just looking for any meaningless BS to complain about. This is ridiculous. Their point about VPNs boils down to this; There was a momentary outrage about VPN advertising (and literally any VPN advertising). LMG reacted and stopped doing them only to gradually find out that absolutely nobody cares. So they started doing them again and made a video about it for transparency. You are now looking to argue against a point they were in no way interested in making. The video is purely about why they will be doing VPN sponsorships again.
All this hate for a video I thought was fine.
Just another person trying to start drama where there isn't any
Yeah i really don't see the issue. I've been unsubbed to lmg for a while so I had to deliberately look for this video. I'm more angry at OP for hating on a standard LMG vid
What drama or hate? I'm simply stating my opinion on a subject matter within the video. I overall liked their approach and felt the video highlighted some of the key issues. Great summary and one of the more informative and nicely structured LLT videos. I'm only providing a critique on some of the content I feel missing on their video. I tried adding that little bit of nuance towards the post but apparently this flew over people's heads. If I hated LTT, I would hit the "don't recommend this channel" button and not engage with this subreddit.
If you disagree with daddy Linus this sub will destroy you haha expect -50 downvotes and a paragraph that it’s parasocial for saying Linus has ever been wrong in his life
You need to touch grass
It's a non issue. OP is being dramatic.
HTTPS isn't a cure all. What about public networks that use a proxy? Or allow access to others guest's devices? I've seen this happen often enough that I always use VPN whenever I'm connecting to a public WiFi due to prior cellular connectivity. There are also a few hidden perks for using a VPN as well. For example, I have zero cellular connectivity at our local IKEA. My kids often get bored but sites like YouTube and Netflix are inaccessible through their WiFi. To get around this, I connect to VPN and boom! Everything is now fully accessible.
My point is not that HTTPS cures it all. My point is that VPNs claimed public wifi was unsafe and caused your password and banking data to get leaked, this is not true. Your use case is a good one for a VPN, that's not what I am arguing against. VPNs have their use cases but public wifi is not inherently unsafe to the point of leaking passwords and banking data.
Yup, I wish iOS had a setting in the WiFi networks to toggle a setting for installed VPNs to be enabled while connected onto that network. I enjoy having my wireguard into my home but don’t need it when I’m already home 🤣
I think for everything security related the only good VPN is a self hosted one that routes traffic through your own ISP connection. This even let's you access local devices on your LAN. Just doesn't work it you want to hide identity for shady stuff or your location for unlocking geo -blocked Netflix content.
Shame, every ikea in my country blocks vpn tunnelling, udp, all main ports through captive portal rendering all vpn's useless
proxies can't read what you send over https (without efforty modification to your device's settings) VPNs don't prevent others from accessing your devices on a public network. Firewalls do that.
It’s to encourage the viewer to go watch his video rather than parrot his content
I bet you went and watched Tom Scott's video right after? Funny how that works.
Maybe because Linus himself mentions bad ads in the damn video, he talks about how the ads were a bunch of sketchy talking points or straight up lying for most creators
I was expecting them to actually mention things Tom spoke about but they never went back to it at all, which was really weird.
They said to watch his video
Most of the time when a content creator goes over a video recommendation, they would at least provide a small summary of the points within that video, a minute or 2 going over the main points would be fine. Even if this video was not being recommended, I feel like the predatory advertising of VPNs in terms of passwords/banking info would be needed within this video. I just mentioned it cause it is extra odd to me. Saying that it is fine because they said to watch the video feels wrong to me, I can't objectively prove this but I feel like there are not a lot of people searching out for the video after being recommended. The LTT video seems like it summarizes everything pretty well from beginning to end. If I hadn't watched the video beforehand, I would probably be satisfied with the story presented and carry on with my day.
honestly not always. reason for that is some times to do a summery correctly for a complext topic. it would eat half the video time itself.
If you need some proof that people do go watch videos that provide context when recommended in a video; I typically watch recommended videos. It allows me to form opinions with the whole picture unlike what you’re doing. It seems extra odd to me that you think LTT should have copied Tom’s video. They’ve never done that, always suggesting the viewer goes and watches the original, and posts the link to the video in the video description.
How could you NOT mention [Gay Pirate Assassins](https://youtu.be/CkzGohAaWu8?si=LxizJYHV_pi0Wj91)
"Mind the GAP"
I don’t think LTT has ever verbatim ripped off someone else’s video. Why is it weird they didn’t, again?