The whole ad is vague slop tbh, I can see why it wasn't allowed to air, also I don't know why people fixate on CCTV when the vast majority of it is used by private companies and the government doesn't have access to it without a request, there isn't any mass surveillance in this case just business owners managing risk and monitoring for crimes on their property
Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]
51–60 of 194 posts
Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
... 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.
> And the government can't stop the New York Times from publishing the Pentagon Papers. 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.)
The solution for that is to commit a Pentagon Papers worth of atrocities every single day, so that people get worn out from reading about it and just come to expect it as normal.
Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]
#53> 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 effort.
Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. […
In what world does rejection mean a ban? > 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.
In what way is a VPN a snakeoil? not to mention that Mullvad does a lot more than just that.
Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]
#55> 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…
Free speech does not exist in the UK or EU. At most there are vague free opinion laws with many grey areas that boil down to "keep them to yourself" if you like to keep your door hinged.
Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]
#56If we're going to ban ads, just ban them all.
Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 the reasoning here 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…
You are being pedantic.
> Step 1: cryptically warn people that their rights are under attack.
They are, UK is heavy surveillance, there is an article on Wikipedia dedicated just to this subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_Unite...
> Step 2: tell people that you have been banned from saying any more.
They said their ad is "banned from TV" because they offer a way to circumvent internet surveillance.
> 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.
Because it is about TV... what does YouTube have to do with this? It says on the damn Ad "Banned on TV".
Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]
#58> 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's not government mandated. It's a defacto requirement as all commercial broadcasters require it but that their commercial choice not government.
What's actually illegal in law to broadcast is very different from what you practically cant due to the theoretically voluntary codes. Even that guidance is broad but hard to argue with "Advertisements must contain nothing that could cause physical, mental, moral or social harm to persons under the age of 18." No reasonable person would argue you should be allowed to do that.
Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]
#59Earlier 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".
A fine doesn’t undo a lie that’s already made it around the world. Although given Brexit I’d question how useful the ASA actually is. It seems Russian funded politicians were free to spew endless lies at the average citizen with no repercussions.
Then, make them pay for an ad apology where they retract their previous one, and which runs for at least the same time.
Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]
#60> 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…
Read up on the rules surrounding tobacco and alcohol advertising in the US. Make sure you're sitting down, because I fear this may come as a huge shock to you.
Another US special: https://www.britannica.com/story/a-brief-history-of-food-lib...
(slightly ambiguous conclusion that none of them have prevailed in court, but the laws can still be used to intimidate food critics)