Privacy

4077 readers

197 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) (9 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?

load more comments (7 replies)