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

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Ad content & reception

  • Linked 4‑minute ad is widely described as powerful but also long, confusing, and niche.
  • Some viewers didn’t understand the “and then?” teaser posters in the London Tube even knowing Mullvad.
  • Style is compared to political stunt campaigns; some expected a more direct, “Led By Donkeys”-style critique.
  • Several note the dystopian vibe of surveillance imagery set against the London skyline.

Clearcast rejection, “ban,” and free‑speech debate

  • Clearcast (industry-owned pre‑clearance body) rejected the TV ad as unclear and “inappropriate/irrelevant” to average VPN users, especially references to serious crimes and sensitive groups.
  • Big debate over whether this is censorship:
    • One side: prior approval (especially when tied to statute) is de facto government‑mandated censorship and dangerous “prior restraint.”
    • Other side: this is broadcaster self‑regulation to prevent misleading or harmful ads, similar to standards in many countries; not remotely like political censorship under dictatorships.
  • US vs UK/EU perspectives collide:
    • US‑leaning voices emphasize the First Amendment, opposition to pre‑approval, and worry about speech “freezing.”
    • European voices stress that advertising isn’t normal discourse, that lies can cause damage, and that freedom of expression always has legal limits.
  • Some see the “banned on TV” framing as a deliberate viral marketing angle; others accept Mullvad’s account at face value. The extent of any formal “ban” is unclear.

Advertising ethics vs. regulation

  • Arguments over whether misleading ads should be:
    • Pre‑screened and stopped,
    • Punished after the fact with scaled fines or forced corrective ads,
    • Or both, with harsher penalties for intentional political or commercial lies.
  • Broader concerns raised about normalization of censorship in UK/EU and, conversely, about “freedom to lie” in the US.

Mullvad’s marketing strategy & brand perception

  • Some praise Mullvad’s strong privacy stance but dislike the loud, stunt‑driven campaigning; they want a “quiet” utility service.
  • Others think the rejection is a “gift” enabling Mullvad to market a “banned ad” narrative.

Effectiveness and limits of VPNs

  • Skepticism that VPNs meaningfully solve mass surveillance, which is framed as a legislative/regulatory problem.
  • Supporters argue VPNs at least shield activity from ISPs and make tracking harder, especially with easy account rotation and non‑traceable payments.
  • Counterpoints note EU legal frameworks and international cooperation can still compel VPN providers, including Mullvad, to comply with law‑enforcement requests.

Product- and ecosystem-related issues

  • Complaints about Mullvad dropping port forwarding, seen as hurting legitimate file‑sharing but acknowledged as abuse‑prone.
  • Practical problems: Mullvad IP ranges are increasingly blocked by banks, YouTube, and other sites; some switched providers over speed or accessibility.
  • One user worries Mullvad’s rapid growth and heavy ad spend feel “sus,” though this is subjective and unsubstantiated in the thread.