It's not the only use. VPNs can be used to access local servers remotely, for example your jobs server while WFH.

First: VPNs are also used by businesses to allow access for remote workers and sites to the company's internal network. In fact, this used to be their most common use and maybe still is.

Second: what's stopping a foreign VPN provider from offering a VPN service to UK customers without forcing them to identify themselves? If such a company doesn't have UK owners, workers or assets all that the UK authorities could do to enforce a court judgement against them is force British ISPs to block the IP addresses of that provider's VPN servers, which would easilly turn into an a whack-a-mole situation, more so if VPS providers started selling "easy personal VPN server setup" facilities for their virtual personal servers which would make that an insane whack-a-mole situation.

The "VPN server on a rented VPS" situation could easilly turn trully insane to try to block - there are A LOT of VPS providers outside the UK selling pretty cheap services good enough to run a personal VPN server and even without the VPS providers leaning into it by providing an out-of-the-box option (and merelly supporting Turnkey Linux images means having two linux server images that work as VPN servers out of the box), step by step instruction of how to make it work with normal server distros will soon emerge and become common knowledge amongst Britons with even just basic technical skills.

In summary, the UK is a pigmy trying to look like a giant when it comes to how much their laws will influence foreign VPN providers in a market which is pretty competitive and were there is no one dominant market participant which can be pressured to have an implementation "for UK customers only", and even if they found a way to enforce that law on all foreign VPN providers, that's not enough at a technical level to stop people altogether from having access to no-authentication VPN service since anybody can rent a VPS anywhere and run their own VPN server in it.

Not necessarily. I would argue the primary intent of commercial VPNs is to obscure web traffic data from your ISP.

what’s the point in even using a VPN, if you have to identify yourself just to use it?

Having to identify doesn't mean they can see inside the tunnel or that your VPN IP can be traced back to you.

I don't use a VPN for anonymity, I use it for privacy.

A lot of websites have already done that. A lot of image hosting sites. If I forget to turn the VPN on my feed looks about 30% like this

They have to fast track the mandatory ID laws now because the Epstein files is rapidly making people realize what their true intentions are

Unless you're based in or have some kind of presence in those countries there's no reason to even ban them. Banning by geolocation isn't exactly trivial or reliable. Let them figure out a way to ban you instead.

The deepstate is real. Its Right here cumming for your porn.

To get a little more serious about it look into Who is buying our media outlets and who is buying our financial outlets (visa/mastercard).

This is almost always being pushed by a rightwing cult. Sorry "thinktank".

newspapers owned by foreign billionaires and shitty childrens authors that give epstein tickets to her play for children

Would Mullvad even legally need to comply with UK laws if they don't have a server in the UK? Maybe they could allow UK user but just not operate out of UK?

or just roll your own vpn

Sure but, connected to where?

I've always wondered why we aren't buying/hacking info about politicians that support anti-privacy legislation from these databrokers and leaking it to the public. If I had the knowledge that's what I'd be doing. I can't think of anything that would be more effective.

Cameras everwhere they are and following them everywhere, always on recording of their means of communication, all free to access by anybody at any time.

Surely those politicians "have nothing to hide"?

Oi, you got a loicense for that session?

a-yup

so is tor, i2p, snowflake

Performance wise it isn't going to be great. I'm not sure about censorship resistance.

Any examples?

It's to move to a risk management based society. Look at the sociology behind all of this and you would see a counter example. this was already being accelerated the first step was facial recognition years ago. Surveillance states are defaults in risk management societies. In a nutshell if we treat everyone like a criminal then its only a matter of time before we catch someone is their consciousness going forward.

Australia pressed it, as a result of parents who have genuine concerns about social media addiction in kids (but who aren't willing to do anything about it themselves).

And there's also this which explains why the implementation is the most annoying way possible. If I had my way age-verification would be solely tied to the addictive features of social media, but if that were the case the big tech companies would just lose users and wouldn't be able to insert themselves as an age-verification middle-man.

Orwell was a British police officer in Myanmar, crushing independence movements and worker organizations, during the early parts of his career.

He wrote these books from lived experience. As propaganda tools to antagonize against the USSR, they were brilliant expressions of the very Doublespeak his most famous book coined. Using fear of the foreigner to rally people into the Two Minute Hate sessions he ostensibly pillared.

Many scholars would say that country was Burma

Full Circle