161–170 of 194 posts
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.
When will the UK citizens stand up against the regime?
Strange ad for a VPN. Without the controversy, would people get it?
But a general sense of paranoia comes through quite strongly.
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…
Several hundred people actually.
To be clear, you could protest the genocide as much as you wanted, what you couldn't do was support the specific group "Palestine Action" who had some members who had committed (IMHO) some property crimes against defence contractors which the government decided to classify as terrorism and proscribe the whole group. When thousands of people continued to support the group, the police continued to arrest them by the hundred. It's a clusterfuck
Thankfully the UK government has recently lost its court battle on the proscription of Palestine Action, though there are ongoing hearings as to what happens next with all the people who were arrested and who are now awaiting a court date on (presumably) terrorism charges.
So this -
> If you were to protest killing entire families, targeting health workers and sniping children, you'd end up in prison.
Is not quite right. Or quite wrong.
The curtailment of the right to protest is worrying in all sorts of places. This specific case is muddied by the direct-action wing of a specific organisation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Conflating 'Advertising' with 'Speech' doesn't really work here i feel. It is possible to restrict one without the other. The UK, can quite easily stop an advert from saying things like: >> A paid-for Meta ad and a website listing for an online clothing company misleadingly claimed they were established and owned by armed forces veterans and that they donated a share of profits to PTSD support organisations. And stil…
> still allow That's the thing: the idea that one must be allowed . No; you publish it, and the most the government can do is stop you from repeating it and punish you for having done so. Note that I'm not defending the US system as perfect, or even necessarily good in all places and at all times. But it is a system that has benefits.
Soooo.... if I approach a US tv network with an ad that explicitly shows naked people doing cocaine, and carries the message that drugs are amazing, and ask for it to be scheduled during the kids tv peak slot, the networks are going to say "Hey, cool, yeah we'll do that"?
This seems very unlikely to me. It seems much more likely their internal compliance departments will look at it and say "Nope". So much for "you publish it".
Because that's basically what's happened here - the UK networks have outsourced checks on advertising to a third party they own, which itself gets its advertising code of conduct from an industry association the networks are part of. The third party makes decisions about whether an ad is OK. If it's not OK then the networks won't usually want to air it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
In Germany, ads are not subject to prior government approval, as that would violate the constitution's prohibition of prior restraint. However, advertising is heavily regulated, especially in areas like medicine, gambling, and tobacco. 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…
In theory they could still broadcast it if they wanted to, but in general if it fails their checks, they won't.
It's not so much permission as risk evaluation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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" despi…
I said you can't say whatever you want without consequence. Giving the example of shouting fire. You responded pointing out it has to be believable, ie real harm done. I brought it back full circle showing that adverts can 'lie' if it isn't believable. I am pointing out you are reinforcing my original point, not detracting from it.
Mullvad becoming popular with huge ad campaigns is very sus. Either way I don't use it anymore because its ip ranges are banned on most websites.
I am a Proton user now, mostly because I finally realized VPN came with the email service I was already paying for. No complaints.
> 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).
You can’t say free Palestine or refer to murder on much social media, yet companies are free to lie in advertising or sue to prevent criticism.
When I compare both countries both are lacking but neither seems more free than the other. Americans seem not to understand how little access to free speech they have.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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,…
> And Mullvad is likely an entity outside of your home country, hence more difficult to coerce than your ISP 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…
Everything is possible, of course, but in no world is it > That's your assumption, not an assertion Mullvad makes?
IDK what they have to say about it, but the ISP has a hardware line to my home, my name on a contract and recurring card payments. Mullvad has some money with no clear source and an ID with 3-4 people on it that jump ID every other month. I can't change my ISP every other month so one has a single big ass log for my home in a folder with my name on it and my payments while the other has multiple logs they have to bring together and no name on the payments.
They can absolutely parse things and follow me across IDs to put me in a big log and maybe do some data magic to tie it to my person but:
1- It's extra work for them to get to the ISP starting point
2- That starting point is actually still worse since possible mistakes in that process can be argued in court.