if your threat model is three letters agencies, vpns and tor are a fig leaf
if your threat model is three letters agencies, vpns and tor are a fig leaf
This is one of the use cases for why you might want a VPN, if you trust a VPN company more than your ISP.
A VPN is just paying for putting your trust in a VPN brand rather than an ISP brand. I don't see why that's such an offensive business to so many HN users.
Because the assertion VPNs - apparently unlike every other ISP - do not log or monetize your data is simply laughable, especially as so many are based in third-world countries, set up by shell entities and have almost no accountability for any of their claims.
When express has their servers seized in turkey, there was no usable data on them.
I know you are super paranoid, but that still doesn't make my point wrong, or using a VPN wrong. Again, if you trust a vpn more than your ISP, that's pretty legitimate in many countries.
I certainly wouldn't trust my life to an unaudited VPN, but I think your two main points are pretty compelling -- 1) the business model is of large VPN companies is based on trust. They have very explicit, business interest in not violating that trust. 2) in one case we know of, when seized, the servers didn't have actionable information on them.
Does that mean every VPN company is trustworthy? Of course not. Does it mean that things could change at any time? Of course.