Hacker News Reader

Comment by willvarfar | Hacker News Reader

> as the NRA is trying to get in on your ad spots and that's not something we can really prevent.

Eh, surely snapchat can prevent it?

I mean division and policy wise. I'm sure most media organizations vet certain ads during certain broadcasts to prevent issues like this, but I also think that's something they may have learned the hard way. That there's a separation between divisions and one is prevented from interfering with the other in certain ways that are too rigid isn't super hard for me to believe, but neither is someone playing up that rigidity to their own benefit.

Personally, I think the most likely scenario is a little of both. Policies existed, but management would obviously have stepped in if they were alerted, but someone used the policies for personal gain within the company by quoting them and figured they could fall back on them if called out on it by management. If that's the case, the bad PR this may result in may mean that protection is moot. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, as Saliterman's actions may have been poorly thought out, and traded a small short-term company (and personal) gain for a much greater longer-term risk (which we might be seeing now).

Of course they can. Major TV ad networks are highly selective [1]. Why would it be any different for Snapchat?

[1] http://corporate.findlaw.com/law-library/i-have-a-great-comm...

And surely they could just make a call to not run ads against a community/non-profit story?

Is it not unlike Microsoft donating product as sponsorship? (e.g., $100k non-profit sponsorship turns out to be in-kind provision of MS Office licenses.) That's often viewed critically by many on HN.

To be fair, the NRA is a non-profit and does have a significant interest in gun safety. Their approach to the problem is different, but every bit as valid as a gun control group. It would actually be disingenuous to not allow the NRA a seat at the table.

Running an ad from Glock during the event -- now that would problably be a bit ridiculous.

I challenge this.

NRA has an interest in everyone being able to have guns. Politically they "have to" align to gun safety, because who doesn't like "safety"?

They're not a group that has an interest in "safety above all", because that wouldn't include guns.

Their priorities are:

1) Guns.

2) Safety, as long as it doesn't infringe on 1).

> Politically they "have to" align to gun safety, because who doesn't like "safety"

NRA membership is large enough that they also conform to similar values as the general public.

As such, they also want weapons to be as safe as possible, while still remaining effective weapons.

An anti-gun member of the public doesn't want guns to be 'weapons', they want them to be 'hobby tools' which would allow you to compromise effectiveness to an extreme just to get safety.

To me the anti-gun lobby is disingenuous by framing gun ownership as a "hobby". Why in the world would there be a constitutional amendment about a hobby? This is like writing a constitution where the 2nd line talks about the rights to own basketballs.

The question the rest of the world asks is why a country would unquestionably abide to a 200 year old piece of paper, whereas the rest of the worlds countries are old enough to understand that things become obsolete.

But I guess it's the same with religion, and that's global.

OK, but why should they? Prioritising one customer over another isn't good business sense, you're likely to lose the less loved customer.

In this particular case, you don't have a choice. If you run an NRA ad in Everytown's campaign, Everytown is the less-loved customer.

Why is that? Is Everytown's message so shoddy that it can't hold its own against a ten second NRA ad?

Basically, yes.

Why do you say that?

Numbers have been crunched and conclusions have been drawn.

> Basically, yes.

Maybe you should visit their site: http://everytown.org/who-we-are/

It makes no difference one way or the other. The idea is that customer A doesn't want their campaign paired with ads from customer B. I don't care whether they're right or wrong in feeling that way -- they clearly do feel that way. So if you do it anyway, you are absolutely making a clear choice that you favor customer B.

That's my only point. There's no way to abstain and keep the goodwill of everyone.

Because you're dealing with sensitive subject matter. Many news sites switch off or minimise advertising on controversial stories. There's no reason Snapchat can't do the same.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com