> they are discussing restricting VPN access for 'child protection'

Just like with encryption, there will always be an idiot politician somewhere discussing banning it. Mr Google tells me, for example, that lawmakers in Michigan (US) recently proposed " Anticorruption of Public Morals Act" which contained VPN banning clauses.

Frankly, until such time as it actually NEARS, let alone BECOMES legislation, the only thing posts such as yours are doing is spreading FUD.

The clue is in the URL you post "thinktank". It not even EU parliament, let alone been through the parliament debates, let alone passed to votes, let alone passed to being implemented by member states .... its just a random idea someone wrote down.

And quite frankly, I would still much rather be in the EU's digital environment than that of the US.

▲ AlecSchueler 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Not only that but if you actually read the linked document it isn't calling for a VPN ban. It's a general report on what VPNs are and how they're perceived by various bodies. It does make reference to the UK Child Safety Commissioner's suggestion that they should be restricted to adult use only but it also talks about how essential they are for business etc. On the whole it's quite balanced and the existence of such a report seems very reasonable.

	▲	fp64 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[dead]

▲ fp64 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> its just a random idea someone wrote down.

It's a result from the "European Parliamentary Research Service", hosted on the official website of the European parliament. And it is fully inline with recent attempted and success legislation of the same parliament. I am not sure why you would call this a "random idea" and an established member of the Parliamentary Research Service as "someone".

▲ traceroute66 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> "European Parliamentary Research Service"

And if we go to the homepage for "European Parliamentary Research Service", we see:

    EPRS’ mission is to provide Members of the European Parliament, and where appropriate parliamentary committees, with independent, objective and authoritative analysis of, and research on, policy issues relating to the European Union, in order to assist them in their parliamentary work.

So a Member of Parliament asked them to conduct this piece of RESEARCH, so what ? It may or may not ever see the light of day in parliament !

Across all publication types, the "European Parliamentary Research Service" published 1034 documents in 2025 and, 486 documents so far in 2026. And for this specific publication type ("At a glance"), they published 285 in 2025 and 113 so far this year.

How many of those hundreds of documents per year of RESEARCH actually make it all the way through to legislation I don't know .... but I think you'll find its a safe bet that its a fraction.

▲ blipvert 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Research.

Not implementation.

▲

fp64 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

My understanding is that the research service is providing legislation with research to inform them on how to implement. What is your claim? That the parliamentary research service is just a bunch of people writing documents nobody cares about and if you look just long enough you will find for each of their results something that claims the opposite?

▲

AlecSchueler 2 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> My understanding is that the research service is providing legislation with research to inform them on how to implement

And do you think the research would be complete or honest if it didn't present criticisms and a comprehensive list of use cases for VPNs? It says so many positive things about VPNs and describes them as "essential" so it's really difficult to comprehend how anyone could spin it as somehow calling for a VPN ban.

▲

traceroute66 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> My understanding is that the research service is providing legislation with research to inform them on how to implement.

Dude, just go read the damn website.

The research service does not operate on its own volition. An MEP requests a piece of research to assist them in their parliamentary work because they require independent, objective and authoritative analysis of a topic.

Please stop with the damn conspiracy theories. Sheesh.

A random MEP asked for this research. The MEP may or may not ever table anything based on the research. Ergo, it may or may not ever progress into the parliamentary debate, let alone votes, let alone member state implementation.

Its just RESEARCH.

Stop with the FUD.

▲

fp64 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I am not aware I was spreading conspiracy theories, and I do not understand why you have to be so aggressive and simultaneously defensive.

An independent, objective, and authoritative analysis requested by a MEP speculates that a restriction or ban on VPN is likely. I think this is valuable information. You are saying this is worth nothing until it actually gets up to a vote. I disagree, I see your point and maybe it's fine to panic only when it actually comes to a vote, but I prefer to know what to expect, and what the Research Service considers an "independent, objective, and authoritative analysis" on this topic.

	▲	traceroute66 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> analysis requested by a MEP speculates that a restriction or ban on VPN is likely. What the hell are you on about ? There are what, 700 MEPs from 27 member states ? Do you even realise the sheer amount of work required to get it from "piece of RESEARCH an MEP requested" to "legislation enacted by member state" ? And that assumes it survives parliamentary debates and votes intact ! Just because an MEP requested a piece of RESEARCH it DOES NOT MEAN it is "likely" to become legislation. Stop with the conspiracy theories.

▲

xienze 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Trump was "researching" and not "implementing" taking Greenland by force, yet it sure did whip people up into a frenzy.

Meanwhile, "researching" chat control, VPN restrictions, etc.? "Oh it's just research, they're not actually going to do it."

	▲	AlecSchueler a few seconds ago \| parent [-]
		> Trump was "researching" and not "implementing" taking Greenland by force, No? He was making direct threats. > Oh it's just research, they're not actually going to do it." Yes, would you rather they just legislate by pure vibes?