Blaze
Funky_BeakIt wasnt banned. Theybdidnt meet the advertisment requirments. Its false outrage to generate clicks. Its quite disappointing of them.
Aren’t advertising requirements that constrain subject matter effectively a mechanism for banning content?
One of the reasons given for rejection was:
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.
That doesn’t seem to me like the sort of criteria that a rule-enforcement agency should be using for determining whether something should air. (For what it’s worth, refusing to air this in the US would absolutely be considered a freedom of speech issue.)
Did every one forget that uk was a aristocracy with democracy tecked on?
It isn’t the first time that the advertising requirements were used to chill speech. It doesn’t matter whether there was a ban; what matters is whether speech was effectively prevented. “There is no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”
Wouldnt surprise me that it was. Its what its liekly designed to do. Doesnt mean mullvad werent aware of it and took advantage.
As someone who isn’t familiar with the UK advertising laws, is this en.wikipedia.org/…/Advertising_Standards_Authorit… what you mean?
I think one of the big ones is the video referencing saying ‘pedophiles’ in the first 5 seconds. Possibly wasnt within the guidelines. Watch the video its extremely clear why it wasnt fit for broadcast and was never intended to be.
Let’s just settle in the obvious that there was no way this video was over going to pass and they were going to find any means necessary to sack it.
Isnt that what i said?