81–90 of 194 posts
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?
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…
> 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
There are quite a few countries which consistently score higher than the US on democracy, overall freedom and press freedom indices, despite not having these absolutist freedom of speech provisions in their constitutions (if they even have constitutions). Because it's not about the piece of paper or what's written on it, is it? It's about the society and what it allows their government to get away with. If the US eve…
> 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).
I'm sure the process allows for any citizen to review all of the rejected material in full, right? And you've done your part to do that, right? You take responsibility for the restrictions you want, right?
> 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 socia…
> 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> the most the government can do is stop you from repeating it and punish you for having done so.
Yes - and, because of this, Clearcast exists with a sort of "TSA pre-clear" role. If Clearcast pass it, it's very unlikely to result in subsequent legal action.
TV stations are in principle free to broadcast unrestricted ads live and deal with the consequences. Obviously, they have no interest in doing that.
Earlier 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).
Well, then, you'd better make sure that's what your bureaucrats are actually keeping off the air. I'm sure the process allows for any citizen to review all of the rejected material in full, right? And you've done your part to do that, right? You take responsibility for the restrictions you want, right ?
(there are perhaps valid questions about UK broadcasting restrictions, but since the internet this has become much, much less important. All the really absurd stuff like Gerry Adams lies in the 20th century)
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.
For the universal right to choose whether or not to block ads and trackers,
Mullvad VPN
https://mullvad.net/en/blog/how-set-ad-blocking-our-app / https://archive.vn/cfyPe