121–130 of 194 posts
During WW2 that was used by the Ministry of Information, and it inspired Orwell's description for the building of the Ministry of Truth. His wife Eileen worked in the building for the Censorship Department.
Personally I find the advert a bit confusing, even with an understanding of what they are trying to achieve and their business. Was expecting something along the lines of Led By Donkeys...
>Mass Surveillance is a slippery slope. It does not belong in Free and Open Societies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Advance censorship is typically forbidden, for good reason. It's one thing to go after someone for lying, another thing to sit there all the time and try to make sure no lies are ever heard.
What's the difference? Efficacy in preventing lies from being aired?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>My British perspective: I don’t want advertisers free to lie as much as they want. Not exactly what happened here is it? A private company which somehow gets to approve ads rejected an advert complaining about a dystopian lack of privacy under a government that is actively trying to kill off privacy.
The private company "somehow" gets to approve ads because it's owned by the TV networks that air the ads. Better than needing separate approval from each network.
You might as well argue that it's better for visa to regulate the financial sector "because you wouldnt want the banks doing it individually".
Or that you should be happy with a punch in the face because a kick in the teeth is worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They aren't selling adblock. That's not the purpose of a vpn.
For the universal right to choose whether or not to block ads and trackers, Mullvad VPN https://mullvad.net/en/blog/how-were-knocking-down-ads-and-t... / https://archive.vn/TMnG6 https://mullvad.net/en/blog/how-set-ad-blocking-our-app / https://archive.vn/cfyPe
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are being pedantic. > Step 1: cryptically warn people that their rights are under attack. They are, UK is heavy surveillance, there is an article on Wikipedia dedicated just to this subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_Unite... > Step 2: tell people that you have been banned from saying any more. They said their ad is "banned from TV" because they offer a way to circumvent internet surv…
Here's a wikipedia article about mass surveillance in the United States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_Unite... . It's longer.
> 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 broadcast standards and practices for TV networks in the USA not extend to advertising? It would be very strange for them to e.g censor certain kinds of drug references in the programmes they produce and air, but then permit them in adverts, no?
Across all of these, if any government or pseudo government body attempts to restrict advertising because of the content, they will get sued. Any advertiser making materially false claims will likewise also get sued.
> 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…
British perspective: the volume of your ads, the quickly spoken disclaimer, and the 'look at this cool prescription drug - ask your doctor!' are completely knickers-on-head.
> 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…
This is not a government body, Ofcom is the relevant government body, like the US has the FCC, which you are aware of. The FCC has broadcasting rules. Your supreme court upheld their ability to issue sanctions for violations. This has lead to broad self-censorship by US broadcasters in much the same way the UK has Clearcast, to the point that censorship of stuff like swearwords is a recognizable trait of quite a few TV shows exported from the US. In the past year there have been multiple cases of censorship in response to threats from the FCC and other government bodies, much worse situations than banning an ad. The first amendment has done nothing to stop this.
I'm not here to defend the UK, they have some extremely scary laws on the books, but the US is really not notably different on this front.