4 ms·

It was Clearcast that rejected it you can see the reasoning here [0], seems to be mostly that it implies VPNs facilitate criminal activity and "irrelevant to th

It was Clearcast that rejected it you can see the reasoning here [0], seems to be mostly that it implies VPNs facilitate criminal activity and "irrelevant to the average consumer’s experience with a VPN". Either way they gave a real gift to the marketing team in rejecting it. Every person in advertising dreams of having to write the phrase "our banned ad" even more perfect when the ad was about tracking/censorship. [0]: https://cybernews.com/news/and-then-mullvads-anti-surveillance-tv-ad-blocked-in-the-uk/ https://cybernews.com/news/and-then-mullvads-anti-surveillan...

ignoramous 7mo ago
In what world does rejection mean a ban? > way they gave a real gift to the marketing team A gift to us in how dishonest marketing can be, yeah. > "irrelevant to the average consumer’s experience with a VPN" Clearcast doesn't like snake oil, it'd seem.
- whywhywhywhy 7mo ago
  It doesn't but it's a gift to marketing because they can claim it was a ban, which was my point. Yeah turns out marketing people lie and stretch the truth.
- akimbostrawman 7mo ago
  In what way is a VPN a snakeoil? not to mention that Mullvad does a lot more than just that.
- edgyquant 7mo ago
  The word ban has taken on the meaning of “not allowed in certain places”
youngNed 7mo ago
> you can see the reasoning here you can see what mullvad, the company selling a product here, say what the reasoning was. As i say, smacks of marketing campaign. Did clearcast give the marketing team a gift, or did the marketing team invent it? All we have is Mullvads word, but my word they have been running an extensive campaign in london for a while now. Step 1: cryptically warn people that their rights are under attack. Step 2: tell people that you have been banned from saying any more. Step 3: Conveniently make no mention of the fact that this highly controversial 'banned' ad is absolutely watchable, in the UK, on youtube, with links to it from traditional media adverts.
- MrCzar 7mo ago
  You are being pedantic. > Step 1: cryptically warn people that their rights are under attack. They are, UK is heavy surveillance, there is an article on Wikipedia dedicated just to this subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_Unite... > Step 2: tell people that you have been banned from saying any more. They said their ad is "banned from TV" because they offer a way to circumvent internet surveillance. > Step 3: Conveniently make no mention of the fact that this highly controversial 'banned' ad is absolutely watchable, in the UK, on youtube, with links to it from traditional media adverts. Because it is about TV... what does YouTube have to do with this? It says on the damn Ad "Banned on TV".
  - rschiavone 7mo ago
    With people like grandparent you can never be right.
  - dpatterbee 7mo ago
    Here's a wikipedia article about mass surveillance in the United States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_Unite.... It's longer.
    - john_strinlai 7mo ago
      what does the surveillance in the US have to do with a Swedish company and UK tv ads?
    - SparkyMcUnicorn 7mo ago
      This is whataboutism. It doesn't address any of the points made above.
      - dpatterbee 7mo ago
        The point I was replying to used the existence of a Wikipedia article as proof that there is a problem in the UK regarding surveillance. By providing an example of similar articles about other locations I was showing that this alone is not particularly strong evidence. It certainly wasn't whataboutism, I don't even think the user I was replying to is from the US.

ignoramous 7mo ago

In what world does rejection mean a ban? > way they gave a real gift to the marketing team A gift to us in how dishonest marketing can be, yeah. > "irrelevant to the average consumer’s experience with a VPN" Clearcast doesn't like snake oil, it'd seem.

whywhywhywhy 7mo ago
It doesn't but it's a gift to marketing because they can claim it was a ban, which was my point. Yeah turns out marketing people lie and stretch the truth.
akimbostrawman 7mo ago
In what way is a VPN a snakeoil? not to mention that Mullvad does a lot more than just that.
edgyquant 7mo ago
The word ban has taken on the meaning of “not allowed in certain places”

youngNed 7mo ago

> you can see the reasoning here you can see what mullvad, the company selling a product here, say what the reasoning was. As i say, smacks of marketing campaign. Did clearcast give the marketing team a gift, or did the marketing team invent it? All we have is Mullvads word, but my word they have been running an extensive campaign in london for a while now. Step 1: cryptically warn people that their rights are under attack. Step 2: tell people that you have been banned from saying any more. Step 3: Conveniently make no mention of the fact that this highly controversial 'banned' ad is absolutely watchable, in the UK, on youtube, with links to it from traditional media adverts.

MrCzar 7mo ago
You are being pedantic. > Step 1: cryptically warn people that their rights are under attack. They are, UK is heavy surveillance, there is an article on Wikipedia dedicated just to this subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_Unite... > Step 2: tell people that you have been banned from saying any more. They said their ad is "banned from TV" because they offer a way to circumvent internet surveillance. > Step 3: Conveniently make no mention of the fact that this highly controversial 'banned' ad is absolutely watchable, in the UK, on youtube, with links to it from traditional media adverts. Because it is about TV... what does YouTube have to do with this? It says on the damn Ad "Banned on TV".
- rschiavone 7mo ago
  With people like grandparent you can never be right.
- dpatterbee 7mo ago
  Here's a wikipedia article about mass surveillance in the United States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_Unite.... It's longer.
  - john_strinlai 7mo ago
    what does the surveillance in the US have to do with a Swedish company and UK tv ads?
  - SparkyMcUnicorn 7mo ago
    This is whataboutism. It doesn't address any of the points made above.
    - dpatterbee 7mo ago
      The point I was replying to used the existence of a Wikipedia article as proof that there is a problem in the UK regarding surveillance. By providing an example of similar articles about other locations I was showing that this alone is not particularly strong evidence. It certainly wasn't whataboutism, I don't even think the user I was replying to is from the US.