I'd guess that this is to ensure one abusive user doesn't get every other user blocked from a large service (say, Google) for botting over the VPN and constantly rotating IPs.

It's a practical measure, but definitely has a privacy cost though.

I imagine there are a bunch of things on the internet that break if you start trying to connect to them from varying IP addresses. Things like the various CAPTCHA schemes and rate limiting etc, IP reputation etc.

> Exit IPs are a public information.

Yes, obviously.

> VPNs are snake oil

Huh?

VPNs are not snake oil. They transfer the trust of your internet activity from a place of low-trust, your ISP, to a place of high-trust, ideally a trustworthy VPN like Mullvad, IVPN, or Proton. Among other benefits. If you don't like your ISP creating a profile of you and selling it to target ads to you, you should use a VPN.

>Should I use a VPN?

Yes, almost certainly. A VPN has many advantages, including:

1. Hiding your traffic from only your Internet Service Provider.

2. Hiding your downloads (such as torrents) from your ISP and anti-piracy organizations.

3. Hiding your IP from third-party websites and services, helping you blend in and preventing IP based tracking.

4. Allowing you to bypass geo-restrictions on certain content.

(https://www.privacyguides.org/en/basics/vpn-overview/)

> VPNs are snake oil

The most generous way of reading that would be the fact that every YouTube pushing for a VPN as an essential tool just to use the internet outside of your house without getting hacked is a big exaggeration or fear mongering but there's good reasons for using a VPN for a lot of reasons and it's not snake oil.

I was just talking to a friend who believes that the feds poison privacy communities by spewing nonsense like this. I don't think wg0 is a fed, and my friend didn't have any proof for his claim. My feeling is that it is probably people acting like regular humans. They hear things, they have opinions and they don't provide proof or adhere to community norms. Eternal september or something. Regardless of if it's federal agents disrupting the discussion or human nature, the response should be the same—push back with proof, and demand proof and avoiding logical fallacies.

>Also. This is how they ruined any meaningful talks about privacy

There is so much noise

"Use braive. Don't use braive. Use vpn. Don't use vpn"

Then the debate spreads to all other aspects password managers, emails and etc

Doesn't matter much as long as it is a pseudonymous identity