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...
Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]
21–30 of 194 posts
Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had no idea it was this blatant though. We can even see it being justified in replies to this very thread .
what very thread would you rather we justified it in?
I'm just surprised to see it being so passionately defended amongst this technical audience. That's all
Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]
#23> 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…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearcast
They're a private company functioning as industry self-regulation, not a government department.
Broadcasters sign up to the code, Clearcast pre-clears ads against the code.
Ofcom is the regulator in this space, Clearcast appears to be an industry effort to pre-empt Ofcom by making sure things comply before they've gone out. Broadcasters want Clearcast's seal of approval before broadcast so they know they're OK to broadcast it.
Entirely private sector, I'm not sure there's a lot that's wild about it.
Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]
#24Strange ad for a VPN. Without the controversy, would people get it?
I saw the ads on the tube and was very confused. I knew about Mullvad, but it never crossed my mind they were trying to get me to search for "and then".
Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]
#25> 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 down votes really reflect the groupthink here. American implementation of 1A is not perfect - tyrants still get around to suppressing speech they dislike.
But it's so much better than these alternatives.
Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]
#26FWIW - I don't think this ad has been banned. But i stand to be corrected
https://www.asa.org.uk/codes-and-rulings/rulings.html?q=mull...
This smacks of viral campaign to me.
Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]
#27Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]
#28Earlier 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).
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".
I'd be cool fining Meta 1% of global revenue for every fraudulent ad on their platform.
Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]
#29> 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 down votes really reflect the groupthink here. American implementation of 1A is not perfect - tyrants still get around to suppressing speech they dislike. But it's so much better than these alternatives.
The downvotes might also represent people downvoting those who are uninformed - Clearcast is a private body owned and operated by the broadcasters, not a government body.
Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]
#30> 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 down votes really reflect the groupthink here. American implementation of 1A is not perfect - tyrants still get around to suppressing speech they dislike. But it's so much better than these alternatives.
On the contrary, the recent developments of America have made it very clear what the problem with "freedom to lie" and "freedom to smear" is. Especially when we're talking about adverts, which aren't exactly an important part of the discourse universe and are a potential vector for fraud.
(wait until the Americans understand what the rules for political TV broadcasts are in the UK, they will absolutely lose their minds. And the spending rules. And how little money is involved in UK elections.)
There's more serious concerns about UK libel law, and things like the proscription of Palestine Action, but generally I would say that if what you have to say is both true and important you can get your message across. Despite the newspapers and broadcasters.