4 ms·
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 Wikip
by 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 agoWith people like grandparent you can never be right.
- dpatterbee 7mo agoHere'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 agowhat does the surveillance in the US have to do with a Swedish company and UK tv ads?
- SparkyMcUnicorn 7mo agoThis is whataboutism. It doesn't address any of the points made above.
- dpatterbee 7mo agoThe 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.
- SparkyMcUnicorn 7mo ago> By providing an example of similar articles about other locations I was showing that this alone is not particularly strong evidence. How does linking similar articles help demonstrate that? That doesn't seem like very strong (counter?)evidence.
- dpatterbee 7mo agoIf only one country has an article about something you'd probably think it's an outlier. If every country has the article then you'd more likely think it's just part of life. I didn't make an assertion, I'm not providing evidence. I don't even disagree with the post, I just don't like seeing shallow dismissals where someone could've actually put effort in to make a point. So I did the same.