3 ms·

C'mon, this isn't a completely user-driven process here. Everytown was engaged with the editorial division. Snapchat can clearly control what ads appear where.

by vacri 10y ago

C'mon, this isn't a completely user-driven process here. Everytown was engaged with the editorial division. Snapchat can clearly control what ads appear where. The ad division has taken something that the editorial division was doing, and engaged in a bit of light blackmail. This conversation is the email equivalent of "Hey, this is a really nice shop you have here. It would be a shame if something happened to it. I'm not saying that anything is going to happen to it, but if you pay me some money, I'll do what I can to ensure nothing happens". It's just missing the pinstripe suit and the accent. Here's the thing: it doesn't matter that Snapchat's internal divisions are at odds. 'Snapchat' was proactively working with a client and had organised a fee waiver, and then 'Snapchat' demanded blood money. Internal politics are Snapchat's problem, not their clients'. Letting them off the hook on this one merely gives them leeway for their broken internal promises. This is all independent of the actual moral issues. I'm a dyed-in-the-wool atheist, but I'd be just as disgusted if Snapchat had organised to do an editorial with a Christian group, then "what a nice shop"'d them saying 'a hostile atheist group could buy ads'.

kbenson 10y ago
> The ad division has taken something that the editorial division was doing, and engaged in a bit of light blackmail. Sure, that's definitely how it was presented. I'm just saying that we've been given a story, and very little to back it up. I'm not sure where these emails are they are referring to, and if it's possible to corroborate the story, but I think it's worth noting how little sources were cited, and how we got snippets of sentences, not even a single full email. Neither Snapchat nor Everytown are on record in the article either. Do I believe there's some truth to the story? Yes, and my other comments go into detail on that, but I don't think we should be immediately believing everything presented here without corroboration of some sort, just because it fits our current worldview.
- vacri 10y ago
  I just can't see how your explanation of "Maybe his hands are tied" plays out in the real world. It beggars belief that the editorial staff have absolutely no way of controlling advertising on the things that they run. If their advertising department really does have such brutal control, then Snapchat deserves to get a bit of a grubby reputation over it. I'm also not sure what kind of context would cast opening with 'we are also talking to the NRA about running ads within the story' in a good light. That's presented as a direct quote, not an inference. If tech.mic is inventing things out of whole cloth here, then Snapchat has grounds for a libel suit.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    > I just can't see how your explanation of "Maybe his hands are tied" plays out in the real world. I don't think that's a good characterization of my position. > I'm also not sure what kind of context would cast opening with 'we are also talking to the NRA about running ads within the story' in a good light. That's presented as a direct quote, not an inference. And quotes have never been presented out of context before? All I'm saying is that in a story where both sides have not released any sort of statement clarifying the situation or their position, and there are just emails to go by, I would feel more comfortable if I was able to see the full email when presented with the scenario in question, rather than quotes taken out of the email and presented in the narrative of the article. > If tech.mic is inventing things out of whole cloth here, then Snapchat has grounds for a libel suit. That's not the only option though. It could very well be a fairly ambiguous chain of emails, and rational people might disagree on how to interpret them. I don't like having that chance denied me, nor being told how to interpret the situation through limited releases of information. Edit: See https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/01/leaked-emails-put-spotlight-on-snapchat-sales-tactics/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/01/leaked-emails-put-spotligh... for Snapchat's statement. It's along the lines of what I figured it would be in my first comment, but that's an obvious way to reply whether true or not, and as I noted, at this point it's all in the hands of Pr departments.
- lawless123 10y ago
  >Sure, that's definitely how it was presented. It's just an implication. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yUafzOXHPE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yUafzOXHPE
  - kbenson 10y ago
    I've seen that clip before, but only recently started binge watching the series. I'm eagerly awaiting that episode. :)

by vacri 10y ago

kbenson 10y ago

> The ad division has taken something that the editorial division was doing, and engaged in a bit of light blackmail. Sure, that's definitely how it was presented. I'm just saying that we've been given a story, and very little to back it up. I'm not sure where these emails are they are referring to, and if it's possible to corroborate the story, but I think it's worth noting how little sources were cited, and how we got snippets of sentences, not even a single full email. Neither Snapchat nor Everytown are on record in the article either. Do I believe there's some truth to the story? Yes, and my other comments go into detail on that, but I don't think we should be immediately believing everything presented here without corroboration of some sort, just because it fits our current worldview.

vacri 10y ago
I just can't see how your explanation of "Maybe his hands are tied" plays out in the real world. It beggars belief that the editorial staff have absolutely no way of controlling advertising on the things that they run. If their advertising department really does have such brutal control, then Snapchat deserves to get a bit of a grubby reputation over it. I'm also not sure what kind of context would cast opening with 'we are also talking to the NRA about running ads within the story' in a good light. That's presented as a direct quote, not an inference. If tech.mic is inventing things out of whole cloth here, then Snapchat has grounds for a libel suit.
- kbenson 10y ago
  > I just can't see how your explanation of "Maybe his hands are tied" plays out in the real world. I don't think that's a good characterization of my position. > I'm also not sure what kind of context would cast opening with 'we are also talking to the NRA about running ads within the story' in a good light. That's presented as a direct quote, not an inference. And quotes have never been presented out of context before? All I'm saying is that in a story where both sides have not released any sort of statement clarifying the situation or their position, and there are just emails to go by, I would feel more comfortable if I was able to see the full email when presented with the scenario in question, rather than quotes taken out of the email and presented in the narrative of the article. > If tech.mic is inventing things out of whole cloth here, then Snapchat has grounds for a libel suit. That's not the only option though. It could very well be a fairly ambiguous chain of emails, and rational people might disagree on how to interpret them. I don't like having that chance denied me, nor being told how to interpret the situation through limited releases of information. Edit: See https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/01/leaked-emails-put-spotlight-on-snapchat-sales-tactics/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/01/leaked-emails-put-spotligh... for Snapchat's statement. It's along the lines of what I figured it would be in my first comment, but that's an obvious way to reply whether true or not, and as I noted, at this point it's all in the hands of Pr departments.
lawless123 10y ago
>Sure, that's definitely how it was presented. It's just an implication. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yUafzOXHPE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yUafzOXHPE
- kbenson 10y ago
  I've seen that clip before, but only recently started binge watching the series. I'm eagerly awaiting that episode. :)