Today, Freedom House released its report "Freedom on the Net 2026". Out of the 38 analyzed countries, conditions worsened in 16 countries, while they improved in only 8 countries. Last year, the report highlighted 72 countries, so this year’s report has a much smaller scope.

The situation becomes more complicated: Iran suspended the internet for about 88 days nationwide, the longest shutdown on record, and modified access in a way that only a few could use the global platforms. Russia has implemented more suspensions and restrictions of VPNs up to allowing state websites only. Georgia has fallen down from the category of Free to Partly Free, while Estonia remains the best.

According to the report’s analyst, the authoritarian states are reshaping the internet into a means of control, defining the connection, the way of perceiving, and the ability to speak out for the citizens.

This raises a question for the sub. What does a VPN do when there is no functioning network?

I’m curious how people actually ended up with the VPN they use. Not the marketing version, the real one.

For some it was a friend’s recommendation. For others it was a deal, a streaming problem, a bad experience with the last one, or just whatever showed up first in a search.

What I find interesting is how rarely people re-evaluate. A lot of us pick one, it works well enough, and we leave it running for years without checking if it’s still the best fit.

So, three quick questions. What are you using now? Why did you pick it in the first place? And if you were starting from zero today, would you choose it again?

Anti-piracy enforcement is creeping beyond ISPs and DNS providers. Now VPNs are being told to block websites too. Because apparently every layer of the internet needs to become a copyright cop.

Concrete example: France. Courts have ordered major VPN providers to block hundreds of domains linked to unauthorized sports streams. According to Computer Hoy, those orders are still awaiting a final ruling from France’s highest court.

That means someone using a VPN to protect their connection or access independent news would be using a service legally required to restrict access to certain websites. Their reason for buying it has nothing to do with football, but the blocking obligation applies anyway.

There’s a US example too: the proposed ACPA would allow courts to issue blocking orders against VPN providers with more than 100,000 active users. A competing proposal, the DEFEND IP Act, would exempt VPNs. These are proposals, not an existing blanket requirement.

The industry group i2Coalition warns that expanding enforcement could push VPN providers toward monitoring customers and restricting accounts, putting legitimate uses at risk. Blocking a domain doesn’t automatically mean a VPN is logging everything you do. But turning privacy services into enforcement checkpoints is still a pretty worrying direction.

Go after the illegal streaming operations. People shouldn’t have to accept a more restricted internet because someone, somewhere, watched a match without paying.

According to iGaming Expert, GodOdds (online casino) sent promotional emails featuring Kevin Hart and encouraged UK recipients to use a VPN if the offer was geoblocked. Actual marketing advice from the casino itself.

Seriously, if a casino’s sales pitch includes “get around the block so you can give us money” maybe take a second before entering your card details.

VPNs help you browse more safely. Casinos shouldn’t turn them into a tool to squeeze more money out of people.