Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 194 posts

Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]

#141

Post by JCattheATM »

dv_dt wrote: post #53
petcat wrote: post #6

> 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…

The US has other active vectors with similar objectives of expanding government mandated controls over online activity - see the discussion on California age verification law https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47181208 . So maybe I'm seeing things in my pattern matching - but it seems like a broad push to attack online freedoms into centrist left and right legislatures coming from some internationally coordinated e…

> So maybe I'm seeing things in my pattern matching - but it seems like a broad push to attack online freedoms into centrist left and right legislatures coming from some internationally coordinated effort.

I doubt there is any conspiracy or global cooperation, I think it's just monkey see monkey do.

Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]

#142

Post by subscribed »

Hizonner wrote: post #116
pjc50 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, so like CBS.

If you're expecting me to say that the Trump administration isn't literally fascist, openly evil, and aggressively anti-free-speech, or that plenty of previous administrations in the US haven't done indefensible things (even while being qualitatively better than Trump II), you may have to wait a very long time...

Well, but so is British administration for almost two decades now, it just has a more posh accent and doesn't routinely deport brown people yet.

The language of hate coming straight from the front bench or most important ministers, the harassment of the vulnerable and the utter evisceration of the right to assembly and free speech.

Maybe you heard of the Hyde Park - it has this place called Speaker's corner where free speech open-air public speaking, debate and discussions are allowed. It's dated to 1800's during the protests re: administration.

Sounds wild, right?

And you wouldn't be even half right.

A man holding an empty placard during the protest was threatened with arrest.

Several people were jailed for attending a zoom call (planning a nonviolent protest) for several years each. Almost 100 people were jailed for protesting the Genocide and the illegal proscribing of the protest group.

You read that right: if you were on the protest encouraging a genocide, you would be free to walk the street. If you were to protest killing entire families, targeting health workers and sniping children, you'd end up in prison.

Few years ago a man was detained for shouting "not my king!".

And this is far from all.

We're catching up

Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]

#143

Post by nailer »

wrboyce wrote: post #8
petcat wrote: post #6

> 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).

That sounds like a Chinese perspective - having an authority determine what is true or not true.

- Ricky Gervais' "Welcome to London, I hope you bought your stab vest"

- An athletic girl advertising protein powder.

We're also rejected because someone determind that poking fun at London crime and conventionally attractive women were offensive.

Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]

#144

Post by nailer »

youngNed wrote: post #17
Mystery-Machine wrote: post #13

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".

No. You avoid having companies, who can swallow the bill, making whatever claims they like without having to much to worry about other than a slap on the wrist - Their claims are already out. J&J, P&G, Unilever et al - you may trust them to do the right thing, i don't.

> J&J, P&G, Unilever et al - you may trust them to do the right thing, i don't.

Would the UK government actually stop any of these advertisers? It seems more likely they would stop people critcising the UK government.

Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]

#145

Post by nailer »

4ndrewl wrote: post #33
petcat wrote: post #6

> 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…

Clearcast is a private company, nothing to do with the government, so you might need to rethink that.

Regarding the tube:

> TfL owns the advertising spaces and maintains its own Advertising Policy, which sets stricter standards than general UK advertising rules (enforced by the Advertising Standards Authority, or ASA, and the Committees of Advertising Practice, CAP). All ads must comply with both the ASA/CAP codes and TfL's specific guidelines, which cover issues like offence, sexual content, violence, political advertising, health claims, and more (e.g., restrictions on high-fat/sugar/salt food ads since 2019).

Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]

#146

Post by nailer »

subscribed wrote: post #142
Hizonner wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're expecting me to say that the Trump administration isn't literally fascist, openly evil, and aggressively anti-free-speech, or that plenty of previous administrations in the US haven't done indefensible things (even while being qualitatively better than Trump II), you may have to wait a very long time...

Well, but so is British administration for almost two decades now, it just has a more posh accent and doesn't routinely deport brown people yet. The language of hate coming straight from the front bench or most important ministers, the harassment of the vulnerable and the utter evisceration of the right to assembly and free speech. Maybe you heard of the Hyde Park - it has this place called Speaker's corner where fre…

I think your genocide claim (if you mean the IDF action against Hamas) is provably false but I share your concerns.

Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]

#147

Post by benj111 »

godelski wrote: post #140
benj111 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go to a theatre and start shouting "fire" Free speech isn't about saying whatever you want without consequence. And this is a bloody ad on the TV.

You can shout fire in a theater all you want. What you can't do is shout it in a way that makes people believe there is legitimate danger AND your actions cause subsequent panic. The crime isn't so much about the speech as it is about the damage that that speech causes. It's a subtle distinction, but an important one.

And can we agree that there are lies that companies tell on adverts that can cause damage?

Carlsbergs tag line is still "probably the best beer in the world" despite it probably being not.

So the comparison works.

Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]

#148

Post by godelski »

benj111 wrote: post #147
godelski wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can shout fire in a theater all you want. What you can't do is shout it in a way that makes people believe there is legitimate danger AND your actions cause subsequent panic. The crime isn't so much about the speech as it is about the damage that that speech causes. It's a subtle distinction, but an important one.

And can we agree that there are lies that companies tell on adverts that can cause damage? Carlsbergs tag line is still "probably the best beer in the world" despite it probably being not. So the comparison works.

  > And can we agree that there are lies that companies tell on adverts that can cause damage?
Yes, and very often those companies get sued. I'll agree no often enough. But I'll also note that the outrage leading up to the lawsuit is far more visible than the results of that legal action. I'll also agree that that legal action is often too slow.

  > Carlsbergs tag line is still "probably the best beer in the world" despite it probably being not.
The lie has to be believable and cause damage. Was the unclear from my comment?

Even if they remove "probably" they could still get away with it because it isn't going to be believable and I doubt you could show damage. Just in the same way so many cafes have "Best coffee in X" and how frequently you see mugs like "Best Dad in the world." No one is getting sued over those because they aren't believable. I agree they're deceptive and in bad taste, but I think if you take some time to sit down and think about it you'll realize that to make statements like those illegal you're going to have a lot of unintended consequences.

Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]

#149

Post by tt24 »

kuerbel wrote: post #105
hrimfaxi wrote: post #84

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.

This is censorship by definition. Just say you’re pro censorship

I can say that the moon is made of cheese, and if you punish me for doing so, you’re engaging in censorship, despite my claim being untrue.

Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]

#150

Post by jasomill »

direwolf20 wrote: post #71
Mystery-Machine wrote: post #13

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.

Quoting Wikipedia[1] quoting the US Supreme Court,

The thread running through all these cases is that prior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights. A criminal penalty or a judgment in a defamation case is subject to the whole panoply of protections afforded by deferring the impact of the judgment until all avenues of appellate review have been exhausted. Only after judgment has become final, correct or otherwise, does the law's sanction become fully operative.

A prior restraint, by contrast and by definition, has an immediate and irreversible sanction. If it can be said that a threat of criminal or civil sanctions after publication "chills" speech, prior restraint "freezes" it at least for the time.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint#Judicial_view

Post reply on HN