Re:Conde Nast refuses to run Prop 19 ads on reddit
by jsz0 on Friday August 27, 2010 @04:14PM
(#1640092)
I'm not familiar with Conde Nast's publications. Do they traditionally avoid political issue ads? If so I don't see any good reason why Reddit would be an exception. It sounds like they want to avoid the issue entirely and won't run anti Prob 19 ads either. I don't think that's unreasonable. I also have to question the value of any pro Prob 19 group spending money to advertise on Reddit. They'd be better off targeting the mainstream voter.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Conde Nast refuses to run Prop 19 ads on reddit
by lreeves on Friday August 27, 2010 @04:22PM
(#1640113)
There's actually quite a few ads on Reddit that I've seen about "Avoiding the Obama Homesexual Agenda" (not to mention Scientology), so it seems more like Conde Nast is protecting their specific interests. Or at least, not allowing ads that oppose their views.
Re:Conde Nast refuses to run Prop 19 ads on reddit
by mrkurt on Friday August 27, 2010 @06:42PM
(#1640544)
To be fair, those are all served by Google, they're not direct sales (like the Prop 19 ones seemed to be). We (not reddit) spent lots of time blocking Scientology and other moronic adwords ads back when we were running adsense. They sprout up like weeds.
Re:Conde Nast refuses to run Prop 19 ads on reddit
by smallblacksun on Friday August 27, 2010 @04:43PM
(#1640198)
No, they are avoiding ads that they think will cost them money.
Re:Conde Nast refuses to run Prop 19 ads on reddit
by tptacek on Friday August 27, 2010 @11:02PM
(#1641042)
Conde Nast publishes The New Yorker and Vanity Fair, both of which are associated with "northeastern liberalism". The Prop 19 thing isn't an issue because it clashes with their portfolio; it doesn't.
Re:Conde Nast refuses to run Prop 19 ads on reddit
by riffic on Saturday August 28, 2010 @01:22AM
(#1641251)
I wouldn't be so quick to assume that. there is a deep entrenchment in the establishment to oppose hemp, for purely economic reasons.
the war on <s>drugs</s> cannabis is way too profitable for the so-called "northeastern liberalismists" to turn away from it.
Re:Conde Nast refuses to run Prop 19 ads on reddit
by tptacek on Saturday August 28, 2010 @01:33AM
(#1641267)
Uh, what?
Re:Conde Nast refuses to run Prop 19 ads on reddit
by riffic on Saturday August 28, 2010 @05:16AM
(#1641518)
I don't know, do you have any objections or are you trying to appeal to ridicule?
Re:Conde Nast refuses to run Prop 19 ads on reddit
by tptacek on Saturday August 28, 2010 @04:02PM
(#1642305)
I literally don't know what you're talking about. A conspiracy to suppress hemp?
Re:Conde Nast refuses to run Prop 19 ads on reddit
by riffic on Saturday August 28, 2010 @04:13PM
(#1642318)
Yes. I'm not surprised, to be honest. There is so much propoganda on this subject that most people are completely unaware of this plant's historical significance.
I apologize about the appeal to ridicule statement, your initial reply was unclear as to what you were implying.
I'll link some wikipedia articles to point you in the general direction, but do your own research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories#Dru...
Re:Conde Nast refuses to run Prop 19 ads on reddit
by tptacek on Saturday August 28, 2010 @07:21PM
(#1642616)
I think you're getting downvoted because these sources you're citing are pretty silly. Hemp is produced throughout the industrialized western world. Why hasn't it revolutionized Europe, where non-psychoactive hemp crops are legal?
Re:Conde Nast refuses to run Prop 19 ads on reddit
by riffic on Saturday August 28, 2010 @11:58PM
(#1643095)
Okay, here is a source that argues that while the hemp conspiracy might be overblown, the racist underpinnings of prohibition are still in place.
http://cannazine.co.uk/hemp/hemp-products/debunking-the-hemp...
I'd like someone to point out how this isn't true.
Re:Conde Nast refuses to run Prop 19 ads on reddit
by tptacek on Sunday August 29, 2010 @01:44AM
(#1643235)
On a similar note, here are some cute pictures of kittens:
Re:Conde Nast refuses to run Prop 19 ads on reddit
by riffic on Sunday August 29, 2010 @02:25AM
(#1643277)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule
no apologies this time =(
Re:Conde Nast refuses to run Prop 19 ads on reddit
by maw on Friday August 27, 2010 @05:33PM
(#1640355)
The ones I'm familiar with are the New Yorker (respectable, and I was a subscriber when I lived in the US) and Wired (not so much, and no effin way), but I have a hard time imagining typical readers of either getting bent out of shape by marijuana use. (I mean, the New Yorker isn't the Atlantic!)
Less sure about their other rags, though.
Re:Conde Nast refuses to run Prop 19 ads on reddit
by tptacek on Friday August 27, 2010 @11:03PM
(#1641045)
The Atlantic is pretty liberal too, and to whatever extent it isn't, it's libertarian.
Re:Conde Nast refuses to run Prop 19 ads on reddit
by riffic on Saturday August 28, 2010 @01:19AM
(#1641246)
too late, they've already ran anti-prop 19 ads:
http://www.reddit.com/r/prop19/duplicates/cx665/no_on_19_ad_...
Re:Conde Nast refuses to run Prop 19 ads on reddit
by tomjen3 on Friday August 27, 2010 @04:24PM
(#1640118)
Condo is a company that exist for one single reason - to make as much money as possible for their share holders. That is their legal requirment, so if they don't do that and leave money on the table they open the self up to liability from their share holders.
Re:Conde Nast refuses to run Prop 19 ads on reddit
by tullius on Friday August 27, 2010 @04:30PM
(#1640142)
They are a private company owned by the Newhouse family. They can do what they want.
Re:Conde Nast refuses to run Prop 19 ads on reddit
by staunch on Friday August 27, 2010 @05:19PM
(#1640313)
Public or not the officers still have a fiduciary responsibility to those shareholders. Not that there's any concrete way to argue that this issue has anything to do with fiduciary responsibility.