111–120 of 194 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Censorship is not a solution. Instead, companies, whose messages are misleading, could pay a fine for their misleading message. Otherwise, you end up in 1984...sorry, I mistyped "UK in 2026".
That's literally censorship though. If you get fined for saying a thing, you are being censored.
Free speech isn't about saying whatever you want without consequence.
And this is a bloody ad on the TV.
> Mullvad was rejected by Clearcast, the organization responsible for approving all TV ads in the UK and ensuring they comply with the rules set by the authorities > “The overall concept lacks clarity.” “It is unclear why certain examples are included, who the ‘speaker’ represents, and the role of individuals depicted in the car.” > "Referencing topics such as: Paedophiles, Rapists, Murderers, Enemies of the state, J…
Do US TV networks have any rules about what can be shown in ads? Because I somewhat doubt that a company could submit whatever they want and the network has to air it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When will the UK citizens stand up against the regime?
Mass surveillance and living in a police state is an ingrained part of British culture. It is no wonder to me that police procedurals are the most popular genre of TV shows in UK by quite a margin. They really are high-quality, but it does really feel like thinly-veiled propaganda (often commissioned by the BBC) portraying the State and police as the good guys in their endless quest against the baddies. Thank god the…
None of this is unique to the UK. I'm old enough to remember 24, the show that whitewashed torture while people were getting renditioned by the CIA.
I'd be more surprised if there was a country where this kind of thing didn't happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like the RSF press freedom index, which ranks multiple countries in the top 10, where you can be jailed for expressing your earnest belief that something didn't happen? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Holocaust_denial
I'm German. Punishing people for holocaust denial is exactly the right thing to do. There is no reason to deny that the holocaust has happened, because it has happened. We don't see this as censorship, it's a safeguard against an ideology that destroyed democracy.
> Mullvad was rejected by Clearcast, the organization responsible for approving all TV ads in the UK and ensuring they comply with the rules set by the authorities > “The overall concept lacks clarity.” “It is unclear why certain examples are included, who the ‘speaker’ represents, and the role of individuals depicted in the car.” > "Referencing topics such as: Paedophiles, Rapists, Murderers, Enemies of the state, J…
My British perspective: I don’t want advertisers free to lie as much as they want. I’ve had ads taken off the TV for being clearly misleading (anyone can raise a complaint to the ASA - the Advertising Standards Agency).
There is also industry self-regulation through bodies like the German Advertising Standards Council, which reviews complaints and can issue public reprimands.
So the system is not "you must get permission before speaking," but rather "you are free to publish, but you are accountable if you violate clear legal standards."
I’m also skeptical of pre-approval mechanisms in principle. I think the German mechanism works really well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When the government threatens the private sector into doing something, the result is not entirely private sector.
Ah, so like CBS.
Sadly, it's Mullvad VPN itself which may be banned in the UK. VPNs will require identify verification. Not a problem for companies which require credit cards for payment, but Mullvad famously allows anonymous cash payments through the post.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Clearcast is a private body owned by the broadcasters. The BCAP code is issued by the Advertising Standards Authority which, despite the name, is an industry self-regulation body. It appears to be established in law that Clearcast is an assistance service, and approval doesn't seem to be sufficient or necessary by law to ensure advertising is legal. It establishes risk, rather than making a legal finding. If Mullvad'…
Not sure how an HOA is relevant here? Communities vote to form an HOA for themselves, new owners buying into an HOA community know up-front what the restrictions are. Not remotely the same as a cabal of media conglomerates getting together to agree on their own rules about how they are going to interpret and enforce government-mandated censorship in society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm German. Punishing people for holocaust denial is exactly the right thing to do. There is no reason to deny that the holocaust has happened, because it has happened. We don't see this as censorship, it's a safeguard against an ideology that destroyed democracy.
What about in the cases of satire? I make a joke about the holocaust not happening in a comedy club in Berlin, is that illegal? I think with it being such a slippery slope is why Americans take the stance they do.
The decisive factor is whether the joke attacks the ideology or reinforces it. So if a comedian in Berlin says "the Holocaust didn’t happen" as a punchline, and it comes across as actual denial or trivialization, that can be illegal.
Place a giant video ad in tourist places in London to sell adblock? And how much "surveillance" does a VPN prevent anyway? This is a regulatory & legislative problem and I don't see how any public VPN is part of the solution.
> And how much "surveillance" does a VPN prevent anyway? Changing your acc number every other month and paying anonymously is much easier on Mullvad than on the ISP level. You can also get multiple people on the number very easily. And Mullvad is likely an entity outside of your home country, hence more difficult to coerce than your ISP. In my eyes ISPs are compromised by default so the aim is to guard against them,…
This is not true in the EU or for the signatories of the Lugano Convention (the EU, Switzerland, Iceland, and Norway). Mullvad is very explicit that they'll abide by all EU laws. For instance, see the e-Evidence Regulation specifically written for "network-based services" like "proxy services": https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A...
> Mullvad is also as compromised it's more difficult for them to track me across account numbers
That's your assumption, not an assertion Mullvad makes?
> even if they do, my data is then in another country, which worries me less than it being local
There exists international treaties on intel sharing (including for "cyber") at every level: The UN, The European Council, the EU, the NATO states, and so on.
> I'm not important enough to warrant international action
Your government can demand action of other governments and businesses via various treaties it may have in place. Mullvad, since it says it'll abide by all EU / Swedish laws, is not a hurdle for your local LEA you think it might be.