41–50 of 194 posts
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 can't use Mullvad for several banks in the UK with IPv4 - if I switch to IPv6 in the app settings I sometimes can, but often I have to just disable it completely...
I can't use Youtube anonymously (i.e. without logging in) within the last month or so either, as Youtube very often won't play content due to my IP as well...
FWIW - 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.
I worked on the set of an electric shaver commercial once. I’m wouldn’t say out loud that the production team were up themselves, but in addition to the regular crew there was a second director on set making a “making of” documentary about the production process. For a shaver commercial.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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 still allow The Guardian to run a campaign on shadowy organisations funding politics.
Conflating them is done, i feel by those who run companies... i dunno, like VPN's, for the purposes of viral marketing and generating outrage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Yet. Give this administration a little time and they’ll solve that problem too.
(They’ve already addressed it to some degree by intimidating the press.)
And how much "surveillance" does a VPN prevent anyway? This is a regulatory & legislative problem and I don't see how any public VPN is part of the solution.
> 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…
Broad censorship has largely become normalized in the UK and EU. It's happening fast and it's terrifying.
> 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…
FWIW - 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. […
> way they gave a real gift to the marketing team
A gift to us in how dishonest marketing can be, yeah.
> "irrelevant to the average consumer’s experience with a VPN"
Clearcast doesn't like snake oil, it'd seem.
FWIW - 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. […
you can see what mullvad, the company selling a product here, say what the reasoning was.
As i say, smacks of marketing campaign. Did clearcast give the marketing team a gift, or did the marketing team invent it? All we have is Mullvads word, but my word they have been running an extensive campaign in london for a while now.
Step 1: cryptically warn people that their rights are under attack.
Step 2: tell people that you have been banned from saying any more.
Step 3: Conveniently make no mention of the fact that this highly controversial 'banned' ad is absolutely watchable, in the UK, on youtube, with links to it from traditional media adverts.