FRESH

Hacker News

Home

Mullvad VPN: Banned TV Ad in the Streets of London [video]

292 points by vanyauhalin

by petcat

20 subcomments

> 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.

by youngNed

2 subcomments

FWIW - I don't think this ad has been banned. But i stand to be corrected
https://www.asa.org.uk/codes-and-rulings/rulings.html?q=mull...
This smacks of viral campaign to me.

by vanyauhalin

2 subcomments

The ad itself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPzvUW8qaWY (4min)

by dizzy9

2 subcomments

Sadly, it's Mullvad VPN itself which may be banned in the UK. VPNs will require identify verification. Not a problem for companies which require credit cards for payment, but Mullvad famously allows anonymous cash payments through the post.

by ndr

0 subcomment

At 2'58'' you can see a frame of them projecting on Senate House, London.
During WW2 that was used by the Ministry of Information, and it inspired Orwell's description for the building of the Ministry of Truth. His wife Eileen worked in the building for the Censorship Department.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_House,_London

by level87

1 subcomments

Personally I find the advert a bit confusing, even with an understanding of what they are trying to achieve and their business. Was expecting something along the lines of Led By Donkeys...

by MitPitt

2 subcomments

Mullvad becoming popular with huge ad campaigns is very sus. Either way I don't use it anymore because its ip ranges are banned on most websites.

by Coeur

1 subcomments

Mullvad's focus on privacy has been fantastic so far. But this ad made me reconsider: I want a VPN service that silently does its job in the background, not one that screams "look at me" with silly stunts and attempts at becoming viral.

by Animats

3 subcomments

Strange ad for a VPN. Without the controversy, would people get it?

by jeffwass

1 subcomments

Lol, my band (London-based) has a song and YouTube music video called "Streets Of London".
I had a minor panic/WTF moment when I saw the submission saying : "Streets of London [video] (youtube.com)".

by Telaneo

0 subcomment

If we're going to ban ads, just ban them all.

by mrweasel

0 subcomment

Maybe it's just me, but there's something extra dystopian about surveillance and privacy invasion, when presented with the London skyline in the background.

by benterix

0 subcomment

Why would I trust Mullvad VPN?

by 2OEH8eoCRo0

2 subcomments

Please bring back port forwarding

by ignoramous

2 subcomments

Place a giant video ad in tourist places in London to sell adblock?
And how much "surveillance" does a VPN prevent anyway? This is a regulatory & legislative problem and I don't see how any public VPN is part of the solution.

by tupac_speedrap

0 subcomment

The whole ad is vague slop tbh, I can see why it wasn't allowed to air, also I don't know why people fixate on CCTV when the vast majority of it is used by private companies and the government doesn't have access to it without a request, there isn't any mass surveillance in this case just business owners managing risk and monitoring for crimes on their property

by keernan

0 subcomment

What I have wanted for a very long time for America:
1. The government cannot ban any speech in advance of publication (eg verbally making the statement; or airing; or publishing etc).
2. If proven in Court that the statement maker: (a) knew the statement was false; (b) made the statement for the purpose of influencing public opinion regarding a law or government policy or election; or for the purpose of marketing a product for sale to the public; then the penalty upon conviction is...:
here is the secret sauce: super severe penalty such as: imprisonment without chance of parole or pardon for 10 years unless you are an elected official or candidate for office, in which event life in prison; or loss of 50% of your assets; or something similar
In other words, keep freedom of speech but if you are intentionally lying to the public for the purpose of impacting government affairs or the sale of a product - then you are going to suffer an incredibly punitive penalty.