Residential Proxies are the most emblematic technology of our era- a group of people looked at something that used to be considered a crime (botnets) and realized that if they just did it openly, no one would ever punish them.
Well, one party gives away free walls if you agree to fill your castle with surveillance cameras you don't control.
It doesn't matter if page 42 of the Terms and Condition "clearly states it." This does not constitute informed consent.
Highly unethical but the way the internet is going they're the last anti-hero of a somewhat open internet
They're most useful for getting information from the cloud hosted sites that hoarde most of humanity's output today like Youtube and Reddit.
The article was called "The one we're commenting on"
Does that sound like your typical self-hosted blog?
When compared to
> They're most useful for getting information from the cloud hosted sites that hoarde most of humanity's output today like Youtube and Reddit.
yes, absolutely.
unethical yes but really raises the question as to what we see is real or not
No they really don't, dishonest founders do that.
You're one with the lower case shibboleth so I have no doubt you surround yourself with dishonest founders, but faking users is pretty damn low on the usecases for residential proxies.
I said they're unethical because they tend to be hidden in innocuous seeming apps or sprung on unwitting individuals via clickwraps on their smart devices.
but ive never seen one raise $4.5m for an ai agent startup built around pulling fresh web data, then openly cheer the unethical proxy infrastructure used to evade consent and blocks
then inventing a fantasy about who i associate with instead of answering that conflict is an unusually loud form of projection
> Many providers build their proxy pools by partnering with device owners who agree to share their bandwidth, while others use embedded SDKs in free apps or VPNs.
WTF. That's just botnets.
Source: https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/cyber/alerts/2026/evading-re...
If they have consent, they're not really botnets. Botnets involve infecting devices without the owners knowing.
With consent, it wouldn't be much different from e.g. open WiFis at restaurants and hotels, companies using a single ISP and single public IPv4 address for all their employees, and most VPN services.
There must be countless individuals all over the world who suddenly can't log into their Gmail or create any new accounts because a fraudster sent spam from their IP. I wonder: has anyone has tried to quantify that problem?
Places with open WiFi like hotels and restaurants would be having the same problem. People on CGNATs would be having the same problem. An IP doesn't correspond with a single user.
“I'm tiny and only run little personal stuff. I just block vast IP address blocks.”
“Apologies. :( Since you say you've never visited the website before, then that means you're either in one of the countries or in one of the residential IP ranges that I've had to block.”
Almost nobody is on a static IP. ISPs have an interest to keep their customers connected and not affected by other customers, so they'd probably use as large address pools as possible for their dynamic IP rotations. "Did something bad once" is short-lived unless address ranges are large.
Tech companies like Google are interested in being global monopolies to dominate markets and also having as good and large-sampled statistical data as possible from everyone. Blocking thousands of users for each bad user that can likely easily switch to another block if they really want to doesn't seem effective. It would also affect their reputation. Who wants to rely on an email service that may block you because of other users on your IP block? Having a reputation for being reliable is important for businesses.
With small personal sites/blogs like the ones you mentioned, they can just block most of the planet without a problem. There's not as much reason to be as reachable as possible (some may be satisfied with an audience of a handful of people), and they're also more budget conscious.
In the case of Google blocking an Apple service, they not blocking users; they're blocking Apple. The users can just not use Apple's service.