Privacy

4077 readers

331 users here now

Icon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Ategon@programming.dev

danielintempesta@programming.dev

133

The Mullvad ad that was banned in the UK (media.mullvad.net)

submitted 3 days ago by Blaze@piefed.zip to c/privacy@programming.dev

28 comments fedilink hide all child comments

https://mullvad.net/en/and-then/uk

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Funky_Beak@lemmy.sdf.org -2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

It wasnt banned. They didnt meet the advertisment requirments. Its false outrage to generate clicks. Its quite disappointing of them thought they knew better.

[–] BatmanAoD@programming.dev 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Aren't advertising requirements that constrain subject matter effectively a mechanism for banning content?

One of the reasons given for rejection was:

Referencing topics such as: Paedophiles, Rapists, Murderers, Enemies of the state, Journalists, Refugees, Controversial opinions, People’s bedrooms, Police officers, Children’s headsets … is inappropriate and irrelevant to the average consumer’s experience with a VPN.

That doesn't seem to me like the sort of criteria that a rule-enforcement agency should be using for determining whether something should air. (For what it's worth, refusing to air this in the US would absolutely be considered a freedom of speech issue.)

[–] Funky_Beak@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Did every one forget that uk was a aristocracy with democracy taked on? Point is they knew the requirments worked outside to get it banned and then generated false outrage.

[–] BatmanAoD@programming.dev 2 points 2 days ago

What does that have to do with anything?

[–] Corbin@programming.dev 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It isn't the first time that the advertising requirements were used to chill speech. It doesn't matter whether there was a ban; what matters is whether speech was effectively prevented. "There is no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

[–] Funky_Beak@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Wouldnt surprise me that it was. Its what its likely designed to do. Doesnt mean mullvad werent aware of it and took advantage in a dishonest way

[–] ravenaspiring@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

As someone who isn't familiar with the UK advertising laws, is this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising_Standards_Authority_(United_Kingdom) what you mean?

[–] Funky_Beak@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I think one of the big ones is the actor saying 'pedophiles' in the first 5 seconds. Possibly wasnt within the guidelines. Watch the video its extremely clear why it wasnt fit for broadcast and was never intended to be.

[–] PokerChips@programming.dev 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Let's just settle in the obvious that there was no way this video was over going to pass and they were going to find any means necessary to sack it.

[–] Funky_Beak@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 day ago

Isnt that what i said?