The United Kingdom is escalating its censorship and mass surveillance.
-
The United Kingdom is escalating its censorship and mass surveillance. When Mullvad tried to criticise this with the TV ad “And Then?”, it was banned on British television.
@mullvadnet Strong words for neither being Banned nor Censored
-
The United Kingdom is escalating its censorship and mass surveillance. When Mullvad tried to criticise this with the TV ad “And Then?”, it was banned on British television.
@mullvadnet
I like the ad. Consider uploading it to peertube so we can share it here? -
@mullvadnet
I like the ad. Consider uploading it to peertube so we can share it here?Which instance would you suggest? I looked at Odysee but I am not sure it is a good alternative to YT.
-
@mullvadnet It's a great ad.
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
-
The United Kingdom is escalating its censorship and mass surveillance. When Mullvad tried to criticise this with the TV ad “And Then?”, it was banned on British television.
@mullvadnet
> the TV ad “And Then?” […] was banned on British television.
Source? -
Which instance would you suggest? I looked at Odysee but I am not sure it is a good alternative to YT.
@jbjrkng
I have no experience with public instances unfortunately. -
@mullvadnet say what? Tell us more of this more please!
@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.
-
@mullvadnet do you have some more information about the "ban" here? I'd like to write to the ASA to complain about that decision if possible. I can't see a ruling entry for it on the ASA site.
@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
-
The United Kingdom is escalating its censorship and mass surveillance. When Mullvad tried to criticise this with the TV ad “And Then?”, it was banned on British television.
@mullvadnet i saw this ad at least a dozen times on tv in sweden over christmas. Not sure if my mom got the message
-
The United Kingdom is escalating its censorship and mass surveillance. When Mullvad tried to criticise this with the TV ad “And Then?”, it was banned on British television.
File won't play, says it's corrupt.
-
@mullvadnet
> the TV ad “And Then?” […] was banned on British television.
Source?@mullvadnet
For example, a public statement from the agency responsible -
The United Kingdom is escalating its censorship and mass surveillance. When Mullvad tried to criticise this with the TV ad “And Then?”, it was banned on British television.
@mullvadnet If this passes our checks, weʼd be delighted to show it on our little corner of the web.
-
The United Kingdom is escalating its censorship and mass surveillance. When Mullvad tried to criticise this with the TV ad “And Then?”, it was banned on British television.
@mullvadnet Was a reason given why it was banned? I’m so curious how they’d rationalize that.
Good ad, BTW. -
The United Kingdom is escalating its censorship and mass surveillance. When Mullvad tried to criticise this with the TV ad “And Then?”, it was banned on British television.
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
-
@mullvadnet
> the TV ad “And Then?” […] was banned on British television.
Source?@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:
Quick aside to Mullvad: Loading this page nearly crashes my phone, please make it less heavy!
- “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.”
* apart from by a single journal talking about similar troubles they had with the EU some months ago? -
The United Kingdom is escalating its censorship and mass surveillance. When Mullvad tried to criticise this with the TV ad “And Then?”, it was banned on British television.
@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.
-
@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 and they are not the underdog??!!
-
@mullvadnet hold up! Mullvad wasn't censored. that word has a particular, specific meaning, and unlike most private organisations that might deny someone a platform, Clearcast has a judicial review ruling saying that it's a private, non-governmental body:
had Mullvad's ad been banned by the ASA, that would have been censorship - and indeed, since the ASA also monitors billboard ads, that might still happen... but what happened here was that nobody who broadcast the ads would broadcast Mullvad's, which is probably not terribly surprising given that they're all owned by companies with a vested interest in not letting VPNs get a foothold.
moreover, it was just that ad that was rejected. not Mullvad as a whole.
And then? And then Mullvad was censored in the UK.
UK ramps up censorship & surveillance. Mullvad's critical TV ad "And Then?" was banned. Watch it here.
Mullvad VPN (mullvad.net)
@mewsleah @mullvadnet disagree partially. An ad being banned by the ASA does not automatically equate to censorship unless the reason is the ad being within the rules/law but being banned solely on the message being unacceptable for "reasons".
-
@mullvadnet and they are not the underdog??!!
@whatevs @mullvadnet not really the point but no, they’re no more underdog than anyone else who has to abide by the advertising rules.
-
The United Kingdom is escalating its censorship and mass surveillance. When Mullvad tried to criticise this with the TV ad “And Then?”, it was banned on British television.
@mullvadnet at the end should have added: Why don't we just monitor everybody and everything? Except the politicians, for safety reasons, of course.
