[HN Gopher] Kape Now Owns ExpressVPN, CyberGhost, PIA, Zenmate, ... ___________________________________________________________________ Kape Now Owns ExpressVPN, CyberGhost, PIA, Zenmate, and VPN "Review" Sites Author : walterbell Score : 129 points Date : 2021-10-13 19:16 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (restoreprivacy.com) (TXT) w3m dump (restoreprivacy.com) | ucha wrote: | Yet Sven Taylor recommended ExpressVPN for years despite the fact | that its ownership was quite suspect (secret). We've never fully | known who was behind it and from where it was truly operated. | | The ranking of best VPNs on the site is mostly a ranking of VPNs | that offer the largest referral fees [1]. | | One of the largest, most honest and transparent VPN, Mullvad, | does not have an affiliate program. And guess what, it's not even | reviewed on Restore Privacy! | | [1] https://onemorecupof-coffee.com/best-vpn-affiliate-programs/ | fuddle wrote: | Yes Mullvad is one of the best options! | cliftonk wrote: | Mullvad is wireguard based with extremely easy to use apps. | Highly recommended. | ouEight12 wrote: | > The ranking of best VPNs on the site is mostly a ranking of | VPNs that offer the largest referral fees [1]. | | Can't we replace "VPNs" with pretty much any service at this | point though? | | I haven't trusted 'review/ranking' sites in ages, because after | see the same top 5 "best hosting providers ever!" lists one 3 | sites, you kind of get a hint. | ohashi wrote: | As someone who has been working on an honest web hosting | review site for a decade now. You're totally right. I see the | same pattern in this article talking about fake review sites. | The biggest offender in hosting was Endurance International | Group who owned so many major brands and gobbled them up. | You'd often find any ranking full of the brands they owned | (BlueHost, HostGator, iPage, JustHost, Site5, Arvixe, etc, | etc, etc). | | Since you're really skeptical, I'd love to hear your take on | what I've done (and been doing) in terms of trying to create | an honest system. | | The gist is, I scrape Twitter data, filter out spam, | affiliate links, etc, and use sentiment analysis to see which | brands people actually like. My hypothesis was that reviews | are fundamentally a weird human behavior. The real 'reviews' | are embedded in normal conversation when you talk to people. | With enough data of these signals, you can get a much better | picture of what people really think. The results seem to line | up basically like an NPS measurement. | | https://reviewsignal.com/webhosting/compare has all my data | if you want to see how the rankings actually look. Not every | company has an affiliate program. Many smaller companies | aren't listed because I can't get enough data. | ucha wrote: | I don't know how accurate your ranking method is - NLP is | tricky - but the idea is very very cool! | bellyfullofbac wrote: | Paid reviews seem easy enough to spot, they hype up the | product/service too much, I'd read a VPN review, notice | those canned phrases, and sigh because in my view the | review site just scammed me of my time... | | Maybe a bot that collects reviews and detect similar | sentences can also rate those bullshit "review sites".. | truetraveller wrote: | Mullvad it is! I'm potentially a new customer. | consumer451 wrote: | If I was in charge of intel ops for any country with a decent | budget, first thing I would do is build or buy a VPN company. | | You have a self-selected group of people with something to hide. | What could be more ideal to gather kompromat? | bryanrasmussen wrote: | most often though the thing they're hiding is watching movies | and shows they couldn't get in their country otherwise. | | But the great thing about the vpn is some people leave it on | and forget about it. | | So then you invest in a free porn service. | consumer451 wrote: | > most often though the thing they're hiding is watching | movies and shows they couldn't get in their country | otherwise. | | Sure, but the .0001% of users who use grindr while trying to | hide their preferences, and hold a position of influence in | government or a corporation make the whole effort worthwhile. | | As a bonus, the op is actually profitable because the | 99.9999% of people you don't care about, and don't have to | spend man-hours on, are actually paying for all the man-hours | that you spend on the people of interest! | | The intel flywheel is up and spinning! | | edit: this is all conjecture. | rodgerd wrote: | Isn't this the outfit associated with the "Emperor of Korea" who | took over Freenode? | dragonwriter wrote: | > Isn't this the outfit associated with the "Emperor of Korea" | who took over Freenode? | | "Crown Prince"; the would-be Emporer who named him is still | alive. | chuckee wrote: | Shouldn't some kind of anti-trust agency forbid such mergers, or | break them up after the fact? At least in an alternate world | where anti-trust law was still enforced. | tablespoon wrote: | > Shouldn't some kind of anti-trust agency forbid such mergers, | or break them up after the fact? At least in an alternate world | where anti-trust law was still enforced. | | Even without anti-trust, it should be illegal to own or buy a | "review site" for something you sell. That kind of thing is | very counter to consumer interests and a blatant conflict of | interest. | ortusdux wrote: | I frequently encounter 1-off review sites that are owned by | the #1 product on the list. Many are transparent about it, | and some even do a good job listing their competitors and | describing them in a fair light. I think they are mostly a | response to Google's algorithms prioritizing reciently | published blog style top-10 lists. | | Here is the first result when I google "best free youtube | downloader" | | https://www.gihosoft.com/hot-topics/best-free-youtube- | downlo... | xboxnolifes wrote: | I feel like this should fall under advertising laws. Maybe it | does and I'm not familiar with the area. Does the review site | need to disclose the fact of ownership? | tablespoon wrote: | > I feel like this should fall under advertising laws. | Maybe it does and I'm not familiar with the area. Does the | review site need to disclose the fact of ownership? | | Even if they do, they can probably satisfy the requirement | with disclosure where no one would actually notice it. | | The only kind of disclosure I'd be happy with is if at the | top of the page and next to any self-endorsement they would | have to show a garish warning banner with a legally | mandated design that called out their conflict of interest | in blunt terms. It would be easier and better to just ban | the practice. | SahAssar wrote: | That sort of rule would quickly become very hard to untangle. | For example news papers are often the only good source of | reliable, in-depth book reviews and for historical reasons | the companies that sell books and sell news papers are often | owned by the same parent company. | | In the Kape case I think it is clearly dishonest, and the | same can be said for the online order mattress space among | others. Most online direct to consumer spaces (for example | gaming and anti-virus) probably has some actor that is | dishonestly setting up or buying review sites. | | But it is not exactly clear how you would in a legal sense | draw the line. | tablespoon wrote: | > That sort of rule would quickly become very hard to | untangle. For example news papers are often the only good | source of reliable, in-depth book reviews and for | historical reasons the companies that sell books and sell | news papers are often owned by the same parent company.... | | > But it is not exactly clear how you would in a legal | sense draw the line. | | You could probably address that problem by permitting | common ownership in cases where the company could prove to | a court that it's implemented effective and rigorous | firewalls, such that the reviews are independent and not | affected by the common ownership and do not show evidence | or tampering of bias. My understanding is those kinds of | firewalls are de rigueur in the newspaper industry. | SahAssar wrote: | Sure, but it'd be extremely hard to prove if that bias | has penetrated that firewall or if it hasn't. I think the | reason it has (mostly) worked for journalistic | institutions is that it is a profession that are taught a | set of ethics as a part of their education and it has a | history of adhering to those ethics. | | Proving a non-bias for what is your own actual financial | interest seems almost impossible. I'm not saying it can't | be done ever, but I would not want to have to argue | either side of that. | | I said this in a comment below but I think it is relevant | here too: | | Restricting speech is in general hard, what would be much | easier is to require clear and obvious disclosure. Since | journalistic ethics already requires that it should only | require changes for dishonest actors. | | EDIT: To clarify: those firewalls are often in the | journalistic institutions currently but it becomes a | whole other ballgame when something needs to be proven in | court. The suggestion to make them legally mandated is | where I think we run into problems. | mjw1007 wrote: | Newspaper book reviews certainly can have the suggested | problem. | | The Times would arrange for positive reviews of | HarperCollins books by giving them to a reviewer who they | knew would provide one. | SahAssar wrote: | It'd be interesting to see a source for that although I | don't doubt that similar things have happened. I'm just | saying that such a rule would not just untangle Kape, but | would also unravel most larger media companies. | | Depending on how it would be written things like a | youtuber reviewing a pixel phone or one TV show talking | about a different TV show might be illegal. | | Restricting speech is in general hard, what would be much | easier is to require clear and obvious disclosure. Since | journalistic ethics already requires that it should only | require changes for dishonest actors. | donmcronald wrote: | The story of Sleepopolis changed the way I think about review | sites. | | https://www.fastcompany.com/3065928/sleepopolis-casper- | blogg... | SahAssar wrote: | Anti-trust is meant to protect competition against monopolies, | not everything against anything evil. At least that's how I've | understood it. | | It'd be hard to argue that Kape is even close to becoming a | monopoly. | nitrogen wrote: | AIUI antitrust also covers cartels, e.g. this one from the | early 20th century controlling lightbulbs: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel | SahAssar wrote: | Isn't a cartel a type of threat to competition via | monopoly? The wikipedia first-line definition of a cartel | is "A cartel is a group of independent market participants | who collude with each other in order to improve their | profits and dominate the market". The monopoly in that case | is by the group. | nitrogen wrote: | It seems like a cartel can form without having a | collective monopoly. It's the collusion that's | problematic, not the combined percentage. | missedthecue wrote: | Right. There are dozens of different VPN providers and | switching costs are pretty low. | killingtime74 wrote: | I studied competition law and I think the regulators would | probably struggle to even understand what a VPN is | GekkePrutser wrote: | They don't even have to though. All they have to know is that | it's a market. | mig39 wrote: | I just signed up for 3 months of Mullvad a few weeks ago. So far | so good. Didn't even need my name or anything. I paid | anonymously. | | It's super fast with wireguard. | | No affiliate links, no special discounts, no special sales | prices. No coupon codes. Just privacy. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-10-13 23:00 UTC)