• then_three_more@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Yeah even the reasons mullvard put on their own site seen very reasonable objections.

    • 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.”

    • “Several examples (e.g., paedophiles, rapists, murderers) risk causing serious offence and could imply that the VPN facilitates criminal activity.”

    • “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.”

    • Hiro8811@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I think they made the video to expose the dangers of surveillance and then turned parts into ads.