Live data from Hacker News

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

youtube.com

91–100 of 194 posts

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

#91
post #23

Earlier 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…

When the government threatens the private sector into doing something, the result is not entirely private sector.

Ah, so like CBS.

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

#92
post #8

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).

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.

See my https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47233675 on pre-clearance.

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

#93
What I have wanted for a very long time for America:

1. The government cannot ban any speech in advance of publication (eg verbally making the statement; or airing; or publishing etc).

2. If proven in Court that the statement maker: (a) knew the statement was false; (b) made the statement for the purpose of influencing public opinion regarding a law or government policy or election; or for the purpose of marketing a product for sale to the public; then the penalty upon conviction is...:

here is the secret sauce: super severe penalty such as: imprisonment without chance of parole or pardon for 10 years unless you are an elected official or candidate for office, in which event life in prison; or loss of 50% of your assets; or something similar

In other words, keep freedom of speech but if you are intentionally lying to the public for the purpose of impacting government affairs or the sale of a product - then you are going to suffer an incredibly punitive penalty.

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

#94
post #23

Earlier 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.

I guess it depends on how you perceive "censorship". I wouldn't think of banning a misleading ad as censorship. My country, Greece, was under a military dictatorship for a few years in the 1960's and 70's, and censorship involved e.g. pre-approving all music, including not just song lyrics but also the music scores. Works by the two major Greek composers, Theodorakis and Hatzidakis [1] were banned outright and could not be played anywhere under pain of pain [2]. Obviously everything anyone wanted to publish in the press had to be pre-approved by state censors and any criticism of the regime, either written or simply spoken out loud, was punishable... you get the gist.

Not allowing advertisers to lie to advertise their product is I think not a kind of "censorship" one really needs to be worried about. They're free to advertise their product otherwise, they're just not free to lie to do it.

I feel silly making this elementary point, but freedoms can't ever be absolute in a society of more than one humans. Even in the US I bet you're free to drive, but you're not free to drive drunk. You're free to have sexual relations, but not with a minor. You're free to walk anywhere you like but not in other peoples' property and not on the streets with the cars (which btw is perfectly fine in Europe and it's rules about jaywalking that are "pants on head" for us).

These are rules. Societies have rules. They should have them. There's no problem with that.

And now my 16-year old self is very disappointed that I've grown up to be a conservative, establishmentarian fossil.

___________

[1] Coincidence. We're not all called something-akis.

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_whipping

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

#95
post #8

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).

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.

What troubles me about using the word “lie” is it becomes up to a body of bureaucrats to determine what is true.

Instead, fight misinformation with superior information.

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

#96
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ?

Why would I do that? I run an adblocker, I don't want to watch any adverts at all. (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)

For those unfamiliar with the idiotic BBC ban from the late 80's, the New Yorker recently put out a great short about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EG-4qhre8k

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

#97
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?

not gonna happen, the issue is very deeply rooted already, you can't change that without force

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

#99
post #57

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…

Here's a wikipedia article about mass surveillance in the United States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_Unite.... It's longer.

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

#100
post #8
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).

Doubleplusgood, comrade, carry on the fine work.
Post reply on HN