And this is rather an anemic take. The (proposed) UK VPN ban that was recently discussed here have a definition on what exactly is a "VPN" for the purposes of the ban (basically "VPNs generally advertised to normal consumers") but a lot simply shouted "ssh go brr" (and definitely did not read the proposed law). These "let's go techical" thinking never flies with the poeple who makes such legislation, and in (probably unpopular!) opinion we should talk to them in terms that they can understand. Yes, we don't want that law, but having a purist take would probably alienate regular people.
It doesn't really matter that a single person has found a loophole because many, many other people don't have such a luxury, and that's what the lawmakers are aiming for.
I have worked for fintech companies that mandate VPN use as a security measure.
It's going to be interesting when the majority of the UK accesses the internet via VPN because of the increasingly ridiculous hoops that the UK makes them go through, and the government tries to stop them while also allowing VPNs to be used by the tech sector.
I agree, these are two separate legal processes powered by the same technology. But the internet doesn't have any awareness of legality (thankfully) so we're stuck with only the technical meaning.
It doesn't really matter that a single person has found a loophole because many, many other people don't have such a luxury, and that's what the lawmakers are aiming for.