all 38 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 26 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 41 points 8 months ago (9 children)

    tooo large! Resized to 360p:
    360p ver.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    A video file can never be too large. The more bits dedicated to image quality, the better.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    When there's no particular need of high definition (nothing here that is small or hard to see, nor particularly pleasing aesthetics), the gains from a big file falls away. And the upsides of a smaller video is that people with poor internet speeds can stream it more easily, and it takes less space on the servers (which are not free to run here on the fediverse).

    Worth a smaller file size imho

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    Absolutely.
    Unpopular opinion maybe, but any resolution larger than 720p is wasted on a laptop monitor and any resolution larger than 1080p is wasted on anything that is not a movie theater.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Let us know how the MOV runs on your Amiga⸮🙄

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    nice try, you can’t trick me into watching an ad

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago

    Had no idea Jonas Åkerlund directed it. There's some solid credentials there.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago*

    Good stuff! I'd watch TV again if this was available there. I will say Ring's Superbowl ad probably landed the point in a way average people would better understand it, albeit unintentionally.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago
    [+] 4 points 8 months ago (10 children)
  • [–] 13 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    I don't get why you think its awful. How would a normie evaluate this in your opinion?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    "Monitoring pedophiles in my area is probably a good thing. Wait, monitoring myself? Isn't that my choice? Wait, now protestors? That's bad, usually... Wait, graffiti artists? Well some of... Wait, women?"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    But that's the point of the ad, to convey that surveillance of a specific group of people will sooner or later be exploited to monitor anyone, no matter their involvement. Therefore you should invest in a VPN.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago

    If you think "Someone supremely high on the smell of their own farts made this," then you are part of the problem with the world today and the reason why they're able to get away with mass surveillance. This message is incredibly important, and you're writing it off as pretentious. Fucking bootlickers.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    Glad I'm not the only one who thought so. I agree with the ad exclusively because I can project my own opinions about surveillance being bad onto it, but some of it makes no sense.

    • What do the people represent? (Anybody? Hackers? A nation-state?)
    • Why do they want to monitor AI?
    • Why do they want to monitor themselves? Is monitoring yourself as bad as monitoring protesters or women?
    • How is the average viewer supposed to react to the beginning, that these people want to monitor murderers, and pedophiles first?

    And if you're able to come up with answers to all these questions, were you able to come up with all those answers in the time you were allotted to think about each mentioned group before the ad snapped to a new one?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (2 children)

    this is more nitpicky than your points (which i agree with) and i know that as they've made an advert in english they'll want to reuse it in all english speaking regions, but i'm not sure how a car full of americans talking about cilantro and president nixon is likely to endear them to UK customers

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Maybe the best thing that happened to this advertising is the fact it got banned. The ad might be incomprehensible, but it's not offensive. I'm drinking my glass of cilantro juice to the hope it got people talking.

    🍵 1
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    probably so. there may be a contingent of users who will be suspicious of flamboyant advertising for such a service (see nordvpn) but they're not the target here so mullvad will probably get their money's worth regardless. personally i'm paid up till september through mozilla so will consider what to do.

    mine's a coriander, cheers

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    Probably banned due to the language and not the actual context or the product, which is lost IMO.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (3 children)

    It's obvious right? I can't think of any ads that use this kind of language together. Whilst not cuss words it's going to be classed as sensitive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (2 children)

    Why don't you just fucking say what you find offensive and stop beating around the bush? Is it pedophile? Because that's not "sensitive language." Jesus fucking christ, stop perpetuating the thought control.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 child)

    Can't relate, I use Pakistan International Airlines where port forwarding is a guaranteed service

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 29 comments in c/privacy@programming.dev view that post
    [–] 54 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    So while grok is spitting out underage nudes, THIS is what the UK bans? Can they suck Satan's cock harder still?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 8 months ago

    They legislated an antifascist org a terrorist org (Palestinian action).

    Conservative fascisms tentacles are deeply embedded in the UK, from surveillance state to political corruption. That's why Brexit happened, and they remain among the most susceptible to fascism among the developed world.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 8 months ago

    Total Streisand effect.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    FYI, when you click the link on mobile, it immediately starts downloading a video file. I can not stress enough how much I do not want that to happen.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago*

    Just checked the video and...
    Oof! That's pretty much a political awareness video and far from an ad.

    There is no way they can risk mass political awareness regarding the new legislations that they are frantically attempting to tunnel through.
    100% ban material.


    If I were UK govt. I would be internally calling this a "National Security" issue.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    And then and then and then

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    Random question: Do you guys leave your VPN on all the time? I’ve only been using it sometimes because I’m worried it will slow down my speeds for normal use.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago

    Any time I use the internet, regardless of what connection, I basically always keep it on. I may swap servers in some most likely ineffective way of keeping myself safer from tracking, but otherwise it normally stays on. Only other exception is when flarpak isn't allowing updates to come through.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    That's probably pointless. You should only use it for piracy, bypassing content filters, regional blocking, and things like that. Otherwise you're just wasting money/hurting your internet speed for zero benefit.

    A VPN only offers marginal protection from tracking, since it only hides your IP address. Most tracking happens in the browser, via cookies and fingerprinting techniques. The only reliable way to protect yourself against that is Tor, and you should not use Tor with a VPN.

    I like Mullvad and I am a happy customer, but this misleading advertising is kind of a bad look IMO. It's good to raise awareness of this serious issue, but they're clearly trying to profit off of consumers who don't understand the product they're selling.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 8 months ago* (9 children)

    It wasnt banned. They didnt meet the advertisment requirments. Its false outrage to generate clicks. Its quite disappointing of them thought they knew better.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    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."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    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.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    As someone who isn't familiar with the UK advertising laws, is this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising_Standards_Authority_(United_Kingdom) what you mean?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 8 months ago* (2 children)

    I think one of the big ones is the actor 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments