4 ms·
My 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
by wrboyce 7mo ago
My 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 7mo agoDoubleplusgood, comrade, carry on the fine work.
- Mystery-Machine 7mo 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 7mo 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 7mo agoThen, make them pay for an ad apology where they retract their previous one, and which runs for at least the same time.
- youngNed 7mo 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 7mo agoThat’s a solved problem, though? Just adjust the fine based on the company’s revenue
- ryandrake 7mo agoIt's only "solved" if the solution is actually happening.
- nailer 7mo 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 7mo agoI'd be cool fining Meta 1% of global revenue for every fraudulent ad on their platform.
- kspacewalk2 7mo agoDitto for Alphabet with scammy and malicious Youtube ads.
- direwolf20 7mo agoThat's literally censorship though. If you get fined for saying a thing, you are being censored.
- benj111 7mo 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 7mo 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 7mo 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 7mo 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 7mo 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 7mo agoNot any private company, but Sky and Warner Bros Discovery.
- ascorbic 7mo 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 7mo 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 7mo 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 7mo agoWhat's the difference? Efficacy in preventing lies from being aired?
- john_strinlai 7mo 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 7mo agoSee my https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47233675 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47233675 on pre-clearance.
- cbdevidal 7mo 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 7mo 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 7mo 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 7mo 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 7mo 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 7mo 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 7mo 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 7mo 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 7mo 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 7mo agoLies are not protected by the 1A.
- extraduder_ire 7mo 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 7mo agoLying is only ok if it is done by the BBC and funded by tax money.
- MrSkelter 7mo 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.