Privacy

They legislated an antifascist org a terrorist org (Palestinian action).

Conservative fascisms tentacles are deeply embedded in the UK, from surveillance state to political corruption. That's why Brexit happened, and they remain among the most susceptible to fascism among the developed world.

Nomnomnom satans cock is delicious 

Both can and will

Political advertising is banned on TV and radio.

What client are you using? Plays in Voyager fine.

plays fine on ecosia on iphone, what are you using?

If your vpn uses Wireguard then it should be a minimal difference. You can always split tunnel if you need full speed but wireguard is plenty fast in my experience.

Any time I use the internet, regardless of what connection, I basically always keep it on. I may swap servers in some most likely ineffective way of keeping myself safer from tracking, but otherwise it normally stays on. Only other exception is when flarpak isn't allowing updates to come through.

I use airvpn 24/7 and get full speeds even when I had gigabit fibre. Was always limited by a single server connection for a service capping out whether on vpn or not

Never slow for me with Mullvad.

That's probably pointless. You should only use it for piracy, bypassing content filters, regional blocking, and things like that. Otherwise you're just wasting money/hurting your internet speed for zero benefit.

A VPN only offers marginal protection from tracking, since it only hides your IP address. Most tracking happens in the browser, via cookies and fingerprinting techniques. The only reliable way to protect yourself against that is Tor, and you should not use Tor with a VPN.

I like Mullvad and I am a happy customer, but this misleading advertising is kind of a bad look IMO. It's good to raise awareness of this serious issue, but they're clearly trying to profit off of consumers who don't understand the product they're selling.

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.)

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."

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?