7 ms·
> 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 authorit
by petcat 8mo ago
> 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
> “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.”
> "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."
Maybe it's just from an American perspective, but this is absolutely wild to me. Even just the concept of a government-mandated pre-approval body for advertisement seems like a completely pants-on-head concept [1].
I think the American First Amendment would obliterate this government body and probably the whole institution if it was ever tried.
[1] Yes the FCC has limited authority after-the-fact to impose fines for things like indecency.
- wrboyce 8mo agoMy British perspective: I don’t want advertisers free to lie as much as they want. I’ve had ads taken off the TV for being clearly misleading (anyone can raise a complaint to the ASA - the Advertising Standards Agency).
- observationist 8mo agoDoubleplusgood, comrade, carry on the fine work.
- Mystery-Machine 8mo agoCensorship is not a solution. Instead, companies, whose messages are misleading, could pay a fine for their misleading message. Otherwise, you end up in 1984...sorry, I mistyped "UK in 2026".
- tw04 8mo agoA fine doesn’t undo a lie that’s already made it around the world. Although given Brexit I’d question how useful the ASA actually is. It seems Russian funded politicians were free to spew endless lies at the average citizen with no repercussions.
- LtdJorge 8mo agoThen, make them pay for an ad apology where they retract their previous one, and which runs for at least the same time.
- youngNed 8mo agoNo. You avoid having companies, who can swallow the bill, making whatever claims they like without having to much to worry about other than a slap on the wrist - Their claims are already out. J&J, P&G, Unilever et al - you may trust them to do the right thing, i don't.
- wasfgwp 8mo agoThat’s a solved problem, though? Just adjust the fine based on the company’s revenue
- ryandrake 8mo agoIt's only "solved" if the solution is actually happening.
- nailer 8mo ago> J&J, P&G, Unilever et al - you may trust them to do the right thing, i don't. Would the UK government actually stop any of these advertisers? It seems more likely they would stop people critcising the UK government.
- pjc50 8mo agoI'd be cool fining Meta 1% of global revenue for every fraudulent ad on their platform.
- kspacewalk2 8mo agoDitto for Alphabet with scammy and malicious Youtube ads.
- direwolf20 8mo agoThat's literally censorship though. If you get fined for saying a thing, you are being censored.
- benj111 8mo agoGo to a theatre and start shouting "fire" Free speech isn't about saying whatever you want without consequence. And this is a bloody ad on the TV.
- godelski 8mo agoYou can shout fire in a theater all you want. What you can't do is shout it in a way that makes people believe there is legitimate danger AND your actions cause subsequent panic. The crime isn't so much about the speech as it is about the damage that that speech causes. It's a subtle distinction, but an important one.
- benj111 8mo agoAnd can we agree that there are lies that companies tell on adverts that can cause damage? Carlsbergs tag line is still "probably the best beer in the world" despite it probably being not. So the comparison works.
- godelski 8mo ago> And can we agree that there are lies that companies tell on adverts that can cause damage? Yes, and very often those companies get sued. I'll agree no often enough. But I'll also note that the outrage leading up to the lawsuit is far more visible than the results of that legal action. I'll also agree that that legal action is often too slow. > Carlsbergs tag line is still "probably the best beer in the world" despite it probably being not. The lie has to be believable and cause damage. Was the unclear from my comment? Even if they remove "probably" they could still get away with it because it isn't going to be believable and I doubt you could show damage. Just in the same way so many cafes have "Best coffee in X" and how frequently you see mugs like "Best Dad in the world." No one is getting sued over those because they aren't believable. I agree they're deceptive and in bad taste, but I think if you take some time to sit down and think about it you'll realize that to make statements like those illegal you're going to have a lot of unintended consequences.
- pydry 8mo ago>My British perspective: I don’t want advertisers free to lie as much as they want. Not exactly what happened here is it? A private company which somehow gets to approve ads rejected an advert complaining about a dystopian lack of privacy under a government that is actively trying to kill off privacy.
- actionfromafar 8mo agoNot any private company, but Sky and Warner Bros Discovery.
- ascorbic 8mo agoThe private company "somehow" gets to approve ads because it's owned by the TV networks that air the ads. Better than needing separate approval from each network.
- pydry 8mo agoAnd yet still far worse than a publicly owned body that is accountable to voters rather than shareholders. You might as well argue that it's better for visa to regulate the financial sector "because you wouldnt want the banks doing it individually". Or that you should be happy with a punch in the face because a kick in the teeth is worse.
- vintermann 8mo agoAdvance censorship is typically forbidden, for good reason. It's one thing to go after someone for lying, another thing to sit there all the time and try to make sure no lies are ever heard.
- kspacewalk2 8mo agoWhat's the difference? Efficacy in preventing lies from being aired?
- john_strinlai 8mo agowhen censored in advance, the governing body can prevent whatever they want and simply claim it was prevented because of lying. how are you going to know?
- pjc50 8mo agoSee my https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47233675 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47233675 on pre-clearance.
- cbdevidal 8mo agoWhat troubles me about using the word “lie” is it becomes up to a body of bureaucrats to determine what is true. Instead, fight misinformation with superior information.
- Hizonner 8mo agoWell, then, you'd better make sure that's what your bureaucrats are actually keeping off the air. I'm sure the process allows for any citizen to review all of the rejected material in full, right? And you've done your part to do that, right? You take responsibility for the restrictions you want, right?
- pjc50 8mo agoWhy would I do that? I run an adblocker, I don't want to watch any adverts at all. (there are perhaps valid questions about UK broadcasting restrictions, but since the internet this has become much, much less important. All the really absurd stuff like Gerry Adams lies in the 20th century)
- alamortsubite 8mo agoFor those unfamiliar with the idiotic BBC ban from the late 80's, the New Yorker recently put out a great short about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EG-4qhre8k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EG-4qhre8k
- kuerbel 8mo agoIn Germany, ads are not subject to prior government approval, as that would violate the constitution's prohibition of prior restraint. However, advertising is heavily regulated, especially in areas like medicine, gambling, and tobacco. There is also industry self-regulation through bodies like the German Advertising Standards Council, which reviews complaints and can issue public reprimands. So the system is not "you must get permission before speaking," but rather "you are free to publish, but you are accountable if you violate clear legal standards." I’m also skeptical of pre-approval mechanisms in principle. I think the German mechanism works really well.
- Nursie 8mo agoIn the UK there is also no prior government approval. Clearcast is a private company owned by the networks, who pass advertising through checks to ensure it meets their commitments and guidelines. In theory they could still broadcast it if they wanted to, but in general if it fails their checks, they won't. It's not so much permission as risk evaluation.
- godelski 8mo agoBut that has nothing to do with pre-approved. In America there's definitely things you're not allowed to put on TV. Obviously you can't just put hardcore porn on, but you also aren't allowed to directly lie. Though I'm sure what the standards are for lying are different. There's laws against false advertising, libel, and so on. But pre-approved is very different. And honestly, if you're making calls to get misleading ads taken off TV then is the pre-approved system even working? How do you know they're not just filtering out things they don't like? It's a pretty difficult type of restriction on speech. As an example, are they preventing ads running talking about the UK's relationship to Epstein? Or calls to release their files? Every country has files, not just the US. Given the response to Mullvad I'd assume you couldn't place those types of ads on TV.
- orf 8mo ago> Obviously you can't just put hardcore porn on Isn’t the thing that actually stops you from doing this just an ad-hoc, informally specified and bug-ridden implementation of Clearcast?
- nailer 8mo agoThat sounds like a Chinese perspective - having an authority determine what is true or not true. - Ricky Gervais' "Welcome to London, I hope you bought your stab vest" - An athletic girl advertising protein powder. We're also rejected because someone determind that poking fun at London crime and conventionally attractive women were offensive.
- nubg 8mo agoLies are not protected by the 1A.
- extraduder_ire 8mo agoYes they are. There is case law about this. You may be thinking of defamation or fraud, both of which require more than lying.
- pibaker 8mo agoLying is only ok if it is done by the BBC and funded by tax money.
- MrSkelter 8mo agoAsa dual national the USs version of free speech protected under the first ammendment seems totally inadequate to me. You can’t say free Palestine or refer to murder on much social media, yet companies are free to lie in advertising or sue to prevent criticism. When I compare both countries both are lacking but neither seems more free than the other. Americans seem not to understand how little access to free speech they have.
- mondomondo 8mo ago[dead]
- VWWHFSfQ 8mo agoBroad censorship has largely become normalized in the UK and EU. It's happening fast and it's terrifying.
- youngNed 8mo agoApproval for advertisments has been in place since 1961.
- petcat 8mo agoI had no idea it was this blatant though. We can even see it being justified in replies to this very thread.
- youngNed 8mo agowhat very thread would you rather we justified it in?
- petcat 8mo agoI'm just surprised to see it being so passionately defended amongst this technical audience. That's all
- youngNed 8mo agoCan i ask: Why do you think its been banned?
- vintermann 8mo agoMullvad says it is, they're more credible than Ofcom or Ofcom's fans. The trick of strong-arming all providers of a certain medium to "self"-censor in order to implement advance censorship is an old trick.
- anthk 8mo agoNot unlike the US with... nudity, curse words, owning a social media account and being BigBrothered in the airport, the Epstein files themselves...
- youngNed 8mo agoit is absolutely wild to me that you would allow companies to air adverts without pre-approval. Then when you add in the ability to advertise prescription drugs? Well, what could go wrong?
- devilbunny 8mo ago... that's the tension, right? The US, for good or ill, does not "do" pre-approval for speech. It's also nigh-impossible for a libel suit to succeed. And the government can't stop the New York Times from publishing the Pentagon Papers. You can make strong arguments either way, but at the very least you have to acknowledge that it's not all downsides.
- youngNed 8mo agoConflating 'Advertising' with 'Speech' doesn't really work here i feel. It is possible to restrict one without the other. The UK, can quite easily stop an advert from saying things like: >> A paid-for Meta ad and a website listing for an online clothing company misleadingly claimed they were established and owned by armed forces veterans and that they donated a share of profits to PTSD support organisations. And still allow The Guardian to run a campaign on shadowy organisations funding politics. Conflating them is done, i feel by those who run companies... i dunno, like VPN's, for the purposes of viral marketing and generating outrage.
- devilbunny 8mo ago> still allow That's the thing: the idea that one must be allowed. No; you publish it, and the most the government can do is stop you from repeating it and punish you for having done so. Note that I'm not defending the US system as perfect, or even necessarily good in all places and at all times. But it is a system that has benefits.
- kspacewalk2 8mo agoThere are quite a few countries which consistently score higher than the US on democracy, overall freedom and press freedom indices, despite not having these absolutist freedom of speech provisions in their constitutions (if they even have constitutions). Because it's not about the piece of paper or what's written on it, is it? It's about the society and what it allows their government to get away with. If the US ever becomes an authoritarian dictatorship, it'll have the exact same constitution and reverence for Founding Fathers, plus a few extra Supreme Court decisions.
- tw04 8mo ago>I think the American First Amendment would obliterate this government body and probably the whole institution if it was ever tried. I think this is exactly the kind of thing Trump is trying to slow walk us into while everyone is distracted by his war in Iran. First consolidate the networks into the hands of a few loyal supporters (you don’t need a body to ban a commercial The networks refuse to air), then use the FCC to clean up the remaining opposition. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/03/trump-fccs-equal-time-crackdown-doesnt-apply-equally-or-at-all-to-talk-radio/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/03/trump-fccs-equal...
- Nursie 8mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearcast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearcast They're a private company functioning as industry self-regulation, not a government department. Broadcasters sign up to the code, Clearcast pre-clears ads against the code. Ofcom is the regulator in this space, Clearcast appears to be an industry effort to pre-empt Ofcom by making sure things comply before they've gone out. Broadcasters want Clearcast's seal of approval before broadcast so they know they're OK to broadcast it. Entirely private sector, I'm not sure there's a lot that's wild about it.
- VWWHFSfQ 8mo agoOfcom and Clearcast are tasked with enforcing the UK Broadcast Advertising Code (BCAP Code). Which came about from the Communications Act of 2003. It is 100% government mandated censorship.
- Nursie 8mo agoClearcast is a private body owned by the broadcasters. The BCAP code is issued by the Advertising Standards Authority which, despite the name, is an industry self-regulation body. It appears to be established in law that Clearcast is an assistance service, and approval doesn't seem to be sufficient or necessary by law to ensure advertising is legal. It establishes risk, rather than making a legal finding. If Mullvad's ad was 'banned' by Clearcast, what happened is that their ad didn't meet the standards that the industry has set for itself and the broadcasters didn't want to touch it. (edit - does this make it 'better'? I don't know. It seems to me a bit like the situation in the US with HOAs, which heavily restrict what you can and can't do with your property, but aren't exactly government either. But I favour accuracy over emotion when talking about this stuff, which is why I wanted to point out the actual structure of the system here.)
- petcat 8mo agoNot sure how an HOA is relevant here? Communities vote to form an HOA for themselves, new owners buying into an HOA community know up-front what the restrictions are. Not remotely the same as a cabal of media conglomerates getting together to agree on their own rules about how they are going to interpret and enforce government-mandated censorship in society.
- prasadjoglekar 8mo agoThe down votes really reflect the groupthink here. American implementation of 1A is not perfect - tyrants still get around to suppressing speech they dislike. But it's so much better than these alternatives.
- Nursie 8mo agoThe downvotes might also represent people downvoting those who are uninformed - Clearcast is a private body owned and operated by the broadcasters, not a government body.
- pjc50 8mo agoOn the contrary, the recent developments of America have made it very clear what the problem with "freedom to lie" and "freedom to smear" is. Especially when we're talking about adverts, which aren't exactly an important part of the discourse universe and are a potential vector for fraud. (wait until the Americans understand what the rules for political TV broadcasts are in the UK, they will absolutely lose their minds. And the spending rules. And how little money is involved in UK elections.) There's more serious concerns about UK libel law, and things like the proscription of Palestine Action, but generally I would say that if what you have to say is both true and important you can get your message across. Despite the newspapers and broadcasters.
- fidotron 8mo agoIf you've seen analytics from stuff hitting the front page here in the last few years you'd see why, by which I mean the US tech industry is much less of the audience on here than you might think. Now that we've all gone through a Discord allergy phase I wonder where all that has really landed.
- 4ndrewl 8mo agoClearcast is a private company, nothing to do with the government, so you might need to rethink that.
- nailer 8mo agoRegarding the tube: > TfL owns the advertising spaces and maintains its own Advertising Policy, which sets stricter standards than general UK advertising rules (enforced by the Advertising Standards Authority, or ASA, and the Committees of Advertising Practice, CAP). All ads must comply with both the ASA/CAP codes and TfL's specific guidelines, which cover issues like offence, sexual content, violence, political advertising, health claims, and more (e.g., restrictions on high-fat/sugar/salt food ads since 2019).
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- nottorp 8mo ago> Maybe it's just from an American perspective Imagine a world where the “AI” peddlers would be forced to make realistic claims about their “product” instead of the American advertising style lies were being spammed with everywhere…
- estimator7292 8mo agoRead up on the rules surrounding tobacco and alcohol advertising in the US. Make sure you're sitting down, because I fear this may come as a huge shock to you.
- pjc50 8mo agoAnother US special: https://www.britannica.com/story/a-brief-history-of-food-libel-laws https://www.britannica.com/story/a-brief-history-of-food-lib... (slightly ambiguous conclusion that none of them have prevailed in court, but the laws can still be used to intimidate food critics)
- dv_dt 8mo agoThe US has other active vectors with similar objectives of expanding government mandated controls over online activity - see the discussion on California age verification law https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47181208 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47181208. So maybe I'm seeing things in my pattern matching - but it seems like a broad push to attack online freedoms into centrist left and right legislatures coming from some internationally coordinated effort.
- JCattheATM 8mo ago> So maybe I'm seeing things in my pattern matching - but it seems like a broad push to attack online freedoms into centrist left and right legislatures coming from some internationally coordinated effort. I doubt there is any conspiracy or global cooperation, I think it's just monkey see monkey do.
- dv_dt 8mo agoI don't think its a close knit conspiracy either but its more like billionaire monkey see billionaire monkey do
- akimbostrawman 8mo agoFree speech does not exist in the UK or EU. At most there are vague free opinion laws with many grey areas that boil down to "keep them to yourself" if you like to keep your door hinged.
- YeGoblynQueenne 8mo agoI'm sorry to say but that's ignorant bullshit. Freedom, not only of speech, but of expression and information, is enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the major legal document of the EU; whence I quote: Article 11 - Freedom of expression and information 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. 2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected. https://fra.europa.eu/en/eu-charter/article/11-freedom-expression-and-information https://fra.europa.eu/en/eu-charter/article/11-freedom-expre... The link above clarifies that this article corresponds to article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights (a legal document of the Council of Europe, a different body than the EU, whose members are a strict subset of the members of the CoE). Article 10 delimits restrictions to the right of expression, as follows: 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary." And as the article points out, those restrictions apply to article 11 freedoms also, acting as an upper bound: Pursuant to Article 52(3) of the Charter, the meaning and scope of this right are the same as those guaranteed by the ECHR. The limitations which may be imposed on it may therefore not exceed those provided for in Article 10(2) of the Convention, without prejudice to any restrictions which Community competition law may impose on Member States' right to introduce the licensing arrangements referred to in the third sentence of Article 10(1) of the ECHR. In other words, yes, there is freedom of "speech", a.k.a expression, in the EU and it, and its limits, are enshrined in law. I hate to make assumptions but there are a few public figures from the US that have argued that "Europe" has no freedom of speech like the brave US, like Paul Graham and Elon Musk, but they're talking out of their backsides.
- ollybee 8mo agoIt's not government mandated. It's a defacto requirement as all commercial broadcasters require it but that their commercial choice not government. What's actually illegal in law to broadcast is very different from what you practically cant due to the theoretically voluntary codes. Even that guidance is broad but hard to argue with "Advertisements must contain nothing that could cause physical, mental, moral or social harm to persons under the age of 18." No reasonable person would argue you should be allowed to do that.
- Hizonner 8mo agoNo reasonable person could argue that the system you describe should be allowed to decide that.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- dwroberts 8mo agoDo broadcast standards and practices for TV networks in the USA not extend to advertising? It would be very strange for them to e.g censor certain kinds of drug references in the programmes they produce and air, but then permit them in adverts, no?
- prasadjoglekar 8mo agoThere are rules. Networks have entire departments called Standards and Practices. But only because broadcasters don't pay for spectrum. Cable has laxer rules and almost none on anything streaming. Across all of these, if any government or pseudo government body attempts to restrict advertising because of the content, they will get sued. Any advertiser making materially false claims will likewise also get sued.
- ascorbic 8mo agoThis isn't a government body. It's owned by the TV networks, and makes it easier for companies to get ads pre-apporoved without needing to submit them individually to each network. Do US TV networks have any rules about what can be shown in ads? Because I somewhat doubt that a company could submit whatever they want and the network has to air it.
- OJFord 8mo ago> Maybe it's just from an American perspective, but this is absolutely wild to me. Even just the concept of a government-mandated pre-approval body for advertisement seems like a completely pants-on-head concept [1]. British perspective: the volume of your ads, the quickly spoken disclaimer, and the 'look at this cool prescription drug - ask your doctor!' are completely knickers-on-head.
- jorams 8mo ago> I think the American First Amendment would obliterate this government body and probably the whole institution if it was ever tried. This is not a government body, Ofcom is the relevant government body, like the US has the FCC, which you are aware of. The FCC has broadcasting rules. Your supreme court upheld their ability to issue sanctions for violations. This has lead to broad self-censorship by US broadcasters in much the same way the UK has Clearcast, to the point that censorship of stuff like swearwords is a recognizable trait of quite a few TV shows exported from the US. In the past year there have been multiple cases of censorship in response to threats from the FCC and other government bodies, much worse situations than banning an ad. The first amendment has done nothing to stop this. I'm not here to defend the UK, they have some extremely scary laws on the books, but the US is really not notably different on this front.
- shafyy 8mo agoAre you kidding me? In the US, you are not even allowed to say the word fuck or display female top nudity.