Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 194 posts

Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]

#61

Post by wasfgwp »

youngNed wrote: post #17
Mystery-Machine wrote: post #13

Earlier 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".

No. You avoid having companies, who can swallow the bill, making whatever claims they like without having to much to worry about other than a slap on the wrist - Their claims are already out. J&J, P&G, Unilever et al - you may trust them to do the right thing, i don't.

That’s a solved problem, though? Just adjust the fine based on the company’s revenue

Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]

#62

Post by Hnrobert42 »

youngNed wrote: post #50
whywhywhywhy wrote: post #40

Earlier 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…

It's smacks of a marketing campaign because...it is a marketing campaign.

Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]

#63

Post by rschiavone »

MrCzar wrote: post #57
youngNed wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 surv…

With people like grandparent you can never be right.

Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]

#65

Post by macintux »

chuckadams wrote: post #52
macintux wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Flood the zone.

Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]

#66

Post by devilbunny »

youngNed wrote: post #43
devilbunny wrote: post #37

Earlier 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.

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.

Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]

#67

Post by sunaookami »

dizzy9 wrote: post #64

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?

Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]

#68

Post by pickleglitch »

ignoramous wrote: post #46

Place a giant video ad in tourist places in London to sell adblock? 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.

They aren't selling adblock. That's not the purpose of a vpn.

Re: Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]

#70

Post by vintermann »

wrboyce wrote: post #8
petcat wrote: post #6

> 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).

Advance censorship is typically forbidden, for good reason. It's one thing to go after someone for lying, another thing to sit there all the time and try to make sure no lies are ever heard.
Post reply on HN