@ret @mullvadnet Mullvad's own account is here.

there's nothing to complain to the ASA about - the ad was rejected by the TV companies' own (private, joint-owned) pre-vetting body, and mainly on grounds of quality and clarity.

@mewsleah thanks, I hadn't seen that. Disappointing.

@mullvadnet It's a great ad.

@mullvadnet WOW. Guess they're using 1984 as a playbook and not a warning.

@mullvadnet Strong words for neither being Banned nor Censored

@mullvadnet
I like the ad. Consider uploading it to peertube so we can share it here?

@lostgen

Which instance would you suggest? I looked at Odysee but I am not sure it is a good alternative to YT.

@Gargron

and then and then and then and then and then and then and then and then and then and then and then and then and then and then and then and then and then and then and then and then and then and then and then and then

@mullvadnet
> the TV ad “And Then?” […] was banned on British television.
Source?

@jbjrkng
I have no experience with public instances unfortunately.

@mullvadnet ah, so reading more it wasn’t accepted by the TV advertisers. Which is not exactly surprising given they hate technology like VPNs. I know you wanted to make a stink but this just looks silly.

@ret @mullvadnet it wasn’t banned. A private company didn’t clear it for broadcast. Mullvad didn’t try to make it compliant because it suits their commercial interests to claim it was banned. They get more free publicity this way and get to present themselves as the underdog. https://mullvad.net/en/and-then/uk

@mullvadnet i saw this ad at least a dozen times on tv in sweden over christmas. Not sure if my mom got the message

@mullvadnet

File won't play, says it's corrupt.

@mullvadnet
For example, a public statement from the agency responsible

@mullvadnet If this passes our checks, weʼd be delighted to show it on our little corner of the web.

@mullvadnet Was a reason given why it was banned? I’m so curious how they’d rationalize that.

Good ad, BTW.

Every time a government says 'we need backdoor access for safety' what they actually mean is 'we want to break encryption for everyone including the criminals we claim to be targeting'

Because here is the thing: backdoors do not check IDs. If the UK government can use it, so can hackers, hostile states, and the exact people they say they want to stop

You cannot build a door that only opens for the good guys. That is not how doors work

@light@noc.social @mullvadnet@mastodon.online it doesn't seem to have been reported on yet*, but here's their actual article: https://mullvad.net/en/and-then/uk

Excerpt:

When we wanted to make our voice heard and criticise mass surveillance in the UK, 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 (“we don’t write the rules – we just make sure they’re followed”, as stated on their website). The arguments were many, but among other things they wrote:

- “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.”
- “Several examples (e.g., paedophiles, rapists, murderers) risk causing serious offence and could imply that the VPN facilitates criminal activity.”
- “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.”

Quick aside to Mullvad: Loading this page nearly crashes my phone, please make it less heavy!

* apart from by a single journal talking about similar troubles they had with the EU some months ago?

@mullvadnet This kind of misinformation makes me rethink resubscribing to your services in the next week. Dont try to play the bad kids your a fucking company.