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.
Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]
31–40 of 194 posts
Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]
#32> 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…
Ofcom and Clearcast are tasked with enforcing the UK Broadcast Advertising Code (BCAP Code). Which came about from the Communications Act of 2003.
It is 100% government mandated censorship.
Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]
#33> 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.
Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]
#34> 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…
[deleted]
Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]
#35> 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).
>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.
Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]
#36> 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…
> Maybe it's just from an American perspective
Imagine a world where the “AI” peddlers would be forced to make realistic claims about their “product” instead of the American advertising style lies were being spammed with everywhere…
Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]
#37> 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…
it is absolutely wild to me that you would allow companies to air adverts without pre-approval. Then when you add in the ability to advertise prescription drugs? Well, what could go wrong?
... that's the tension, right? The US, for good or ill, does not "do" pre-approval for speech.
It's also nigh-impossible for a libel suit to succeed. And the government can't stop the New York Times from publishing the Pentagon Papers.
You can make strong arguments either way, but at the very least you have to acknowledge that it's not all downsides.
Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]
#38Strange ad for a VPN. Without the controversy, would people get it?
I was a customer before they started advertising.
I saw the ads saying "and then?" and still didnt get it.
I like the product but i think their ad campaigns suck. If they want exposure and controversy i think they should run adverts to kill new proposed laws, target privacy hating politicians, etc.
Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Ofcom and Clearcast are tasked with enforcing the UK Broadcast Advertising Code (BCAP Code). Which came about from the Communications Act of 2003. It is 100% government mandated censorship.
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's ad was 'banned' by Clearcast, what happened is that their ad didn't meet the standards that the industry has set for itself and the broadcasters didn't want to touch it.
(edit - does this make it 'better'? I don't know. It seems to me a bit like the situation in the US with HOAs, which heavily restrict what you can and can't do with your property, but aren't exactly government either. But I favour accuracy over emotion when talking about this stuff, which is why I wanted to point out the actual structure of the system here.)
Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]
#40FWIW - 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.
It was Clearcast that rejected it you can see the reasoning here [0], seems to be mostly that it implies VPNs facilitate criminal activity and "irrelevant to the average consumer’s experience with a VPN". Either way they gave a real gift to the marketing team in rejecting it. Every person in advertising dreams of having to write the phrase "our banned ad" even more perfect when the ad was about tracking/censorship.
[0]: https://cybernews.com/news/and-then-mullvads-anti-surveillan...