
Leaked Snapchat emails: Anti-gun group told to pay or NRA ads may appear - davidbarker
https://mic.com/articles/170019/leaked-snapchat-emails-anti-gun-charity-told-to-pay-or-nra-ads-may-appear-on-videos
======
kbenson
I have to wonder how much this was intentional and how much was very poor
communication.

My initial response was that it's a horrible shakedown, but on reflection, I
wonder if it really was just Saliterman acting in both Everytown's _and_ his
own best interest. _If_ it's a common tactic for the NRA to advertise where
possible during anti-gun media, and if it's something Snapchat does not
involve itself in mediating for journalistic purposes, then it's entirely
possible the team that offered Everytown the free media deal _inadvertently_
set them up to have the NRA run messages during their event, and Saliterman
was trying to come across as "hey, I would have advised you against this for
this exact reason, as the NRA is trying to get in on your ad spots and that's
not something we can really prevent."

How you interpret it is probably highly dependent on your opinions of the
companies involved as well as how it is presented here. I only wonder because
it seems like it's in vogue to call out bad behavior of tech companies right
now, and that undoubtedly leads to _at least some_ articles that purposefully
misinterpret events to convey that story.

To be clear, this story certainly makes it sound like a shakedown, and it very
well may be. I have no idea if that's what happened here, and I doubt at this
point we'll ever know know that it's in the realm of PR spin for damage
control, but given that _both parties_ refused to comment, I think chances are
high that we're getting the author's assumptions rather than something
reasonably close to the truth, whatever that may be.

~~~
willvarfar
> 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?

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

~~~
deong
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.

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

~~~
AcerbicZero
Basically, yes.

~~~
memmcgee
Why do you say that?

~~~
dsfyu404ed
Numbers have been crunched and conclusions have been drawn.

------
whack
To be honest, this is standard operating practice for almost every advertising
venue.

If you work at Amazon and want to show Amazon ads at the top of the page,
whenever a user searches for eBay, Google will happily let Amazon do that. If
eBay wants to prevent it, they need to pay money go secure the advertising
spot on "eBay" search results. Ditto for Windows/Mac, BMW/Mercedes, etc etc.

At its foundation, advertising spots are content-agnostic. Anyone is able to
buy advertising slots on any page, and as long as everyone follows the rules,
whoever has the best bid*click-through-rate will win. And to be honest, that
sounds like a perfectly reasonable way to run a business that's funded almost
entirely by advertising revenues.

~~~
WhitneyLand
I'm glad you are making an effort to be honest, thank you. However that is
really too simplistic.

This is not competing retailers, it's people fighting over matters of life and
death and they will use any tactic against each other no matter how
distasteful because they believe the end justifies the means.

Clearly any media company has to carefully weigh controversial issues from
different perspectives. Making money, preserving the integrity and their
brand, potential bad press or defecting customers, etc.

Often there is no simple rule. A judgement call has to be made factoring in
what's best for company overall and if we're lucky maybe integrity is
mentioned by someone along the way.

~~~
gravypod
> A judgement call has to be made factoring in what's best for company overall
> and if we're lucky maybe integrity is mentioned by someone along the way.

I'm pro-gun, and have given money to the NRA, and I'd be upset if snapchat
wouldn't sell ad-space to the Brady Campaign during an NRA-sponsored event
like if the 1000-person shoot had been captured using Snapchat.

I think it's a basic moral standing that whenever someone is saying something
I want it allowed for the oposition to say the exact opposite.

I also think that the only people who'd be afraid of a pro-NRA ad in or during
an anti-gun ad would be those who cannot defend their moral possition.

Personally, I'm happy when I get the opprotunity to see the anti-gun arguments
on HN and that we can discuss ideas about these subjects. It broadens my
understanding of what others think and vise versa.

There isn't a problem with saying "I sell X, and all I care about is the money
I get from doing that" and then turning around and selling Xs to the highest
bidder.

~~~
DaUR
That would be principled but not in Snapchat's interest.

Their audience demographics would probably hate to see an NRA ad in a story
about gun control, and it would hurt Snapchat's reputation, brand, and
loyalty. You might even see hashtags trending about it, calling them
"insensitive" and worse.

~~~
gravypod
> That would be principled but not in Snapchat's interest.

It would definetly be in Snapchat's interests. The best thing for an arms
dealer is a war, the best thing for a place of discussion is a clash of
ideology.

They'd just sell the space to both sides, run the ads, say "We are a neutral
party who doesn't get involved in politics; if we give one side a stand we're
fine with giving the other side a stand. Complain to the NRA if you think it's
poor taste, we just sell bilboard space"

> Their audience demographics would probably hate to see an NRA ad in a story
> about gun control, and it would hurt Snapchat's reputation, brand, and
> loyalty

Sadly, a lot of pro 2a people use Snapchat despite my, and many others,
protestings.

Also, we need to ask a few questions about this "brand loyalty" and
"repuation". What "reputation" does Snapchat have? What "brand" does Snapchat
have? Their a service to send small clips of your life to other people.
Wheather that's to send videos of you speeding at >100MPH, of crying people
talking about how guns killed their relatives, or the NRA saying that it
wasn't the guns but instead was a criminal who killed their relative.

That perception of their essential function is not damaged and in fact, if
anything, a lot of pro-gun people would just be happy that their willing to be
unbias in their ad-space.

> You might even see hashtags trending about it, calling them "insensitive"
> and worse.

I'd surely hope the anti-gun crowd can come up with a worse insult then
"insensitive". Even still, I've never seen something come of the hash-tag-nag
that happens after every major screw-up of a company. The demographics we're
talking about come from a time when voting with your wallet isn't even a faint
idea in the back of their head.

If Snapchat came out pro-Hitler, financially supporting neo-Nazis, I'd bet
good money that after the initial hash-tag-nag craze the same crowd would
_still_ use the app.

The fact is that Snapchat has poised itself as a key piece of the
communication networks that the younger generations are forming. It would need
a suitible replacement for them to think about leaving it.

That's why it's an advertisers gold mine. All you have to do is keep the
market clean and you'll be able to reach this century's bread-and-butter
demographic.

~~~
bmelton
Out of pure curiosity, would you be willing to explain _why_ you'd protest 2A
people using a service that you also use?

~~~
gravypod
> Out of pure curiosity, would you be willing to explain why you'd protest 2A
> people using a service that you also use?

I have snapchat installed on my phone. I do not use it. I do not like the
company. I'm not in their demographic. I don't like taking pictures of myself
nor of my suroundings.

I'm about as much of a use as I am Verizon Messanger+ user. It's there on my
phone, I'll never use it, and I don't like it.

The extent of my usage of the app pretty much goes to telling people who
message me on it to text me instead.

------
gizmo
According to their Form 990, Everytown for Gun Safety spends 5.5 million a
year on lobbying, legal, and accounting fees. Their advertising budget is
another 7 million. They spend 2 million a year on travel. Their top executive
earns $350,000. Honestly, they seem to be a pretty well funded charity. I
don't think SNAP was in the wrong here.

[https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/208...](https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/208802884)

~~~
iaw
2.1% of your budget for a single campaign of that size does seem like a
reasonable tradeoff.

~~~
hluska
What if it wasn't about the money? I wouldn't buy an ad alongside editorial
content about my brand. Savvy media consumers tend to see that and think that
the editorial content is actually paid content.

~~~
anonfunction
It is telling that they declined both the free editorial and any advertising.

~~~
hluska
Telling of what??

An intelligent brand manager has to weigh the positives and negatives of paid
and earned media. In this case, in light of Saliterman's email, a brand
manager would weigh the (seemingly high) possibility that the NRA would
advertise alongside fearful messages from grieving families. Since Everytown
knew that this was a possibility, the advertising alongside the editorial had
the capacity to damage the brand and (perhaps more importantly) cost jobs.

------
averagewall
Would people have the same complaints if it was the other way around? Snapchat
reached out to the NRA and offered a free Live Story as partnership for Gun
Appreciation Day. Another division then threatened the NRA that it could run
anti-gun ads during the NRA's free Live Story.

If the complaints would be different, then it's just your political bias. Some
people think the NRA is important and its message is being harmed by groups
like Everytown. In that case, why not focus on the heart of the issue which is
"Snapchat allows NRA ads but I don't like guns".

~~~
floatrock
You're suggesting there is a type of symmetry around relative moral beliefs on
the gun debate, and it is somewhat arbitrary to be upset on one side of it but
not the other.

If that was all there was to it, I would agree.

However, that's missing the huge asymmetry at play here: money. Specifically,
the NRA is an industry-funded group that has lots of it, and the people who's
family members have been victims of gun violence don't.

If this was a spat between, say, Google and Oracle, each of which has
boatloads of money to buy the competitor's advertising spots, no one would
care.

But this story feels scummy because it's a human story, one where the little
guy is fighting a noble cause but is being shaken down by organizations who
write weekly checks larger than some of these people will see in their
lifetime.

If you pretend that money doesn't create an asymmetry, then yes, you being
upset this way but not the other is all relative.

~~~
whatthesmack
> [...] money. Specifically, the NRA is an industry-funded group that has lots
> of it [...]

The NRA is a _member_ -funded group. Five million members paying annual dues
-- that's where their money comes from.[1] They use some of this to fund gun
safety education and training (Everytown For Gun Safety does not, oddly
enough). Sure, industry chips in, but it's just a couple million $ (which is
tiny compared to member dues).

[1] [https://www.quora.com/Where-does-funding-for-the-National-
Ri...](https://www.quora.com/Where-does-funding-for-the-National-Rifle-
Association-NRA-come-from) (graphs data from NRA's public tax filings)

------
lostphilosopher
Hmm, other than a communication blunder I don't see the foul here? I don't
know how Snapchat advertising works internally, but if the NRA is a known
purchaser of advertising, and can choose to target its ads in specific content
segments it would seem like Everytown might want to be warned that leaving
their ad segments unclaimed means the NRA claiming them is a possibility. Even
if the ads get assigned randomly or through some sort of automated process
you'd still think a good client relationship manager would want to give his or
her (prospective) client a heads up that an NRA ad in their time slot is
possible, no? Imagine if he had said nothing, and then the NRA _did_ run ads
in the Everytown slot? Would that have been better? If I was Everytown I'd be
angry at Snapchat for not warning me that this was a possibility. As far as I
can tell, Saliterman did his job, his job just happens to have intersected
with an emotional flash point, and is by nature manipulative.

Now, how someone got to his professional level without knowing how to handle
this conversation more tactfully is beyond me. And further if he was trying to
convince them this was a possibility when it _wasn't_, or some other nefarious
ploy then sure - let's jump on the outrage bandwagon, but from that article?
Nothing to see here.

~~~
anigbrowl
Editorial is supposed never to communicate with advertising so that the latter
can't influence the former.

------
ctdonath
Social media sites really need to face the decision of whether they're "common
carriers" or are liable for consequences of discrimination against
common/normal views.

~~~
clubm8
They seem to want it both ways:

when an ad causes serious consternation in the press, they pull it because
"we've a private site and can regulate speech".

But if there isn't sufficient controversy, they can hide behind the banner of
free speech.

Sites like Facebook need to either commit to allowing all lawful ads, or admit
they exercise editorial judgement on what is "proper" speech, and start a
larger conversation about what sort of speech should be restricted.

~~~
bertil
> admit they exercise editorial judgement on what is "proper" speech

Facebook does exactly that, with slightly different rules for posts & comments
and with ads.

[https://en-gb.facebook.com/communitystandards](https://en-
gb.facebook.com/communitystandards)

[https://en-gb.facebook.com/policies/ads](https://en-
gb.facebook.com/policies/ads)

------
aresant
I remember in the Facebook pre-IPO days they invited a handful of notorious
internet marketers / affiliates to sit down with senior executives to figure
out how they could work together to drive higher CTRs for fare like ringtones,
weight loss pills, etc with the goal of goosing revenues upwards.

I'd guess these are similarly interesting times in the SnapChat ad sales
department on the way to an IPO - they are under tremendous pressure to drive
results.

~~~
mschrage
source?

------
smsm42
Looks like a combination of bad team communications (one team tries to sell
service, another offers essentially the same for free) and even worse attempt
to rescue the sale by FUDing the client ("if you go with free option, we might
run competitor's ads inside your content!"). I hope that's not a routine way
for them to work, because that would be rather stinky practice.

~~~
hluska
I don't think that you understand. Advertising and editorial cannot
communicate in trustworthy media outlets.

~~~
smsm42
I think there's different ways of communicating. Trying to hard sell the same
service other team offers for free looks stupid, and I don't think sales team
being aware of the editing team's actions and behaving in a smarter way would
not hurt the trustworthiness. It's not like this "if you don't pay us, we'll
run your competitors ads inside your content" snafu did wonders to the
trustworthiness.

~~~
hluska
Great response - that's one of the classic arguments against having a wall in
between ad sales and editorial. And, for what it's worth, I agree with you.

Editorial staff would reply, "Okay, in that situation, it might be okay. But
what happens if we want to run a well researched/sourced story that is highly
critical of one of our biggest advertisers?"

Their fear would be that if there is too much communication between
advertising and editorial, advertising would use its control over revenue to
hurt editorial independence. And, then ad sales people tend to reply, "Well,
if you won't give us the chance to kill a story, it is better if we don't even
know about it. That way, when the person who I have sold ads to calls me up
yelling, I can truthfully say that I didn't know because there is a wall
between advertising and editorial."

In other words, the wall between advertising and editorial mostly sucks for
both sides, but it's better than any alternative. It preserves editorial
independence while giving sales people the chance to save relationships (in
anticipation of their next job).

------
yalogin
Why do people expect ethics and morals from startups? Snapchat here and Uber
all year. Is it because they are startups and someho the HN crowd assumes they
will be good citizen? The same thing if done by some pharma company or may be
some division inside Johnson and Johnson would go unnoticed and expected even.

It looks to me that most people on here work for startups and new companies
and some how want to work in a field that has higher morals and ethics. Why
would a sales guy try to behave differently and not make a sale? We have seen
this again and again with other sales teams from Yelp and others. I am not
trying to explain the actions of sales people just to understand where the
outrage is coming from.

~~~
smsm42
> Why do people expect ethics and morals from startups?

People expect ethics and morals from people. Startups are run by people.

~~~
bambax
Pharma companies are run by people; Monsanto is run by people. And yet nobody
expects ethics and morals from those: that was the point of the parent.

People don't expect ethics and morals from all people or organizations in the
same amount.

~~~
nradov
What specifically has Monsanto done lately that was unethical or immoral?

~~~
bitwize
Promote pesticide-resistant GMO crops in order to drive pesticide sales, for
one.

~~~
nradov
How is that unethical or immoral?

~~~
tedunangst
GMO!!!

------
marcrosoft
I only see this as a problem if Snapchat put NRA ads up for free just to
extort money or vice versa.

~~~
deong
I don't think it would have to be free. If they specifically reached out to
the NRA to initiate the process, I'd call that pretty gross, whether or not
they gave them a break on pricing.

~~~
marcrosoft
> I'd call that pretty gross

Just to be clear, if roles were reversed and the NRA advertised you would
_not_ want Everytown to have ad placement as a rebuttal or do you just find it
gross because you disagree at a political/personal level?

~~~
deong
If I'm your customer, I don't want to feel like you're going to devote time
and resources to finding the optimal way to fuck me over if I don't cough up
more money. That sentiment is completely independent of the editorial content
we're talking about.

------
sauronlord
What is the issue here? Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

If I post an video on Youtube for my spaghetti event. And it has reach, then
of course other spaghetti vendors may want to run ads on it if they pay up.

Slow news day?

------
zeveb
I wonder if they also try to get the NRA to pay so that Everytown for Gun
Safety ads don't appear. This actually seems like a decent way for social
media companies to make money, although it sure does feel smarmy.

(as an aside, Everytown for Gun Safety is not actually a gun-safety charity:
it's an anti-gun organisation)

~~~
CodeWriter23
Actually, it seems they wanted the NRA to fund the editorial content being
given freely to Everytown.

~~~
LyndsySimon
I didn't get that from the article, but it would make sense. The NRA has long-
standing and well-funded firearms safety programs, ranging from training for
adults to the "Eddie Eagle" program for kids.

Everytown's budget for political contributions last year was about 1/3 of the
NRAs, but the the overall organization budgets are vast different - Wikipedia
shows the NRA having $348m in revenue in 2013, while Everytown brought in
$4.9m in 2012.

From a purely financial perspective, Snap should be prioritizing the NRA's
business over Everytown's.

~~~
CodeWriter23
When an ad agent solicits an advertiser, they literally are asking the
advertiser to pay for the production. That's how ads and productions work.

------
mcculley
This is a perfect example of why a firewall between editorial and advertising
departments in a news organization is not sufficient. I would really like to
see a subscription only news service exist that doesn't take any advertising
dollars. It would make very clear that it serves the readership, not
advertisers. Alas, I don't think enough people are willing to pay what it
would take and media companies are too risk averse to even attempt it.

~~~
fletchowns
What about organizations like NPR and PBS? It seems like that is as close as
you can get to a subscription only news service that doesn't take advertising
dollars. Their news reporting is really top notch.

Technically it's not a subscription, it's a donation. And technically they do
make money with underwriting but I think user contributions make up the vast
majority of their funding.

~~~
dredmorbius
Both organisations' underwriting credits raise plenty of questions.

For much of the 1970s and 1980s, major PBS programming was funded by oil
companies (Mobil in particular, if you watched Masterpiece Theater). Today,
Nova receives heavy funding from Koch sources. Even nonprofit sources are
tainted -- the John Templeton Foundation (look it up) has a very specific
agenda, and there is/was a two-part series, "The _Real_ Adam Smith", which was
essentially a straight-up, full-on propaganda piece put out by the Mont
Pelerin Society / Atlas Network, funded by Templeton, and with Chicago PBS
affiliate WTTW's name specifically attached to the production. The content is
highly slanted, and I found (and find) the whole matter exceedingly
questionable.

I'm not saying there isn't a lot of good work coming through PBS, NPR, PRX,
and similar sources. Or that the quality isn't, generally, vastly superior to
commercial media. But that bar is set miles below floor level, and the
problems with co-option of public media have been increasing with time.

Part of that I attribute to "Woozle's Epistemic Paradox": because of a high
percentage of the population being present, there is now substantial power to
be had by influencing the discussions that take place.

A problem which attaches to other (really, any) media, including online:
BBSes, Usenet, Geocities, Facebook, Reddit, HN.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/5wg0hp/when_ep...](https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/5wg0hp/when_epistemic_systems_gain_social_and_political/)

------
Jedd
Why is a company the size of Snapchat not using a CRM so that their various
divisions _can 't_ step on each other's toes like this?

Apart from the highly dubious ethics being exhibited, it suggests it's a
surprisingly unsophisticated organisation.

------
microcolonel
A corporation wants to use another corporation's services to distribute
content, but does not want to compensate them in any way, expects that the
facilitating corporation will prevent a charitable organization from paying
them to reach out to the same audience.

 _Everytown for Gun Safety_ is a private lobbying effort funded by Michael
Bloomberg, and believes that they can use a company's service for free while
censoring paid ads from a true community charitable organization which is
funded primarily by membership dues. Mic deliberately characterizes _Everytown
for Gun Safety_ as a "gun safety charity", and avoids using similar language
to describe NRA, a registered charitable organization with a considerable
number of members. Are they trying to say that the NRA doesn't care about gun
safety?

I don't really see why Snap Inc. should have to promote Michael Bloomberg's
fantasies for no pay, and prevent the voice of an established charitable
institution from being included alongside it through the standard advertising
process.

------
brilliantcode
Another reason why Snapchat might be so stingy-there long term prospect is
severely limited.

IPO will increases the exit valuation when Snapchat inevitably fizzles and
gets bought out by a tech giant with actual positive net profit.

------
audeyisaacs
I really don't see the issue here.

There's no reason that Snapchat should voluntarily censor ads on that story at
their own financial loss.

~~~
ThrustVectoring
Uhm, they should restrict the ads embedded in that story in order to convince
that partner to contribute content?

Like, if a LGBT organization wanted to give a television network the rights to
air an Orlando Shooting documentary on the condition that they don't sell ads
for conversion therapy in the middle, that's kind of their right to make that
sort of offer. It's a very short distance from making those demands to the
distribution side preemptively seeking out those sorts of deals.

------
edw
The headline oversells the story in a way that makes its overselling of the
story completely deniable. Reminds me of something… Oh yeah—of the actual
behavior the story describes. Is this a postmodern meta-storytelling piece?

------
probablybanned
Good. Why is Snapchat doing political activism?

~~~
emn13
Why does any organisation? Why does the NRA? Perhaps it would be nifty to
split the world into commercial entities without no permission to lobby, and
political entities with no permission to deploy commercial activities, but
that sure isn't this world.

In any case, the issue isn't political activism, it's the tastelessness of the
threat. It also doesn't help that it exposes how this particular employee
apparently felt no compunction in undermining what others in his business were
working for - it sure looks like he wasn't actually handling in the best
interests of his employer, and I can't imagine he didn't know it.

~~~
ctdonath
Social media sites are generally perceived as "common carriers" whom we expect
no political activism from (beyond refusing illegal activity & promotion
thereof) - to wit commercial entities whom we expect will not lobby
(legislators nor customers) re: non-sequitur topics.

~~~
emn13
Well, we expect social media sites to try and avoid blatantly taking sides.
But they definitely thrive on human-interest stuff (such as this), especially
if it's something with a social mobilisation aspect, and that's almost bound
to skirt the political rather closely. As it does here. At best you might
expect social media firms to give opposing sides equal opportunities (even
more business!). But even openly biased media is common - e.g. Fox news, but
really many other news outlets too - and I see no reason to think social media
firms couldn't evolve in the same direction.

I'm not saying we should applaud this development...

In any case, I don't see no evidence that snapchat it being particularly
biased based on one story they're pushing. It's pretty much impossible to make
that conclusion based on one story, given that they push so many. It looks
more like sheer incompetence to me than anything else.

------
jlewis7272
Too bad they didn't reach out to the NRA for comment.

~~~
daenney
What would that have added to the article? The issue seems to be between Snap
and Everytown. NRA ads just happen to be the thing they're disagreeing over
but it could've been pandas.

~~~
vanattab
I am pretty sure if the email had read "a panda petting zoo might advertise
during the campaign" this article would never have been written. The only
reason this is controversial at all is because it involves the NRA. The
article repeatedly mentions the NRA and leaves it as an open question if the
NR A was interested in running ads. Requesting comment from the NRA would be
appropriate in my opinion.

------
mywittyname
Companies opt-out of advertising on shows or events that revolve around
programming they don't feel aligns with their company values. So, when I see
the NRA opting into advertising for this event, I see it as sponsorship and
support of the message.

If I saw an Exxon Mobile commercial during a climate change documentary, I
would take that as tacit support of the subject.

Now, obviously I'm wrong. So can someone explain why this advertising is so
valuable to the NRA? I guess it's just trolling.

~~~
dave5104
It's probably valuable since they see it as a potential avenue to sway
opinions of those who may be closer to the fence between anti-gun and for
guns.

------
anonfunction
As soon as the head of political sales found out about the editorial he
stated:

> We are also talking to the NRA about running ads within the story.

Later in the article it says that the NRA advertised on Snapchat in 2015, have
they since? Or was it that now we will contacting the NRA to tell them it's a
good idea to advertise during your editorial.

Seeing the comments it looks like the majority doesn't see a problem with this
because the NRA is free to do advertising. To me it's just bad business to be
featuring a good cause as a so-called partner and then extorting them like
this. It certainly also seems like that would be a negative experience for the
viewers and the partner.

In the end Snapchat lost both an editorial partner with a group that resonates
with their target demographics and any potential advertising revenue from the
event.

------
abalone
Saliterman was a former spokesperson for George W. Bush, by the way.[1] I'm
shocked.

This was absolutely an unprofessional move and not simple targeted selling.
The story would not have been as attractive a target for the NRA without
Everytown's cooperation in the first place. So now that Snapchat's roped them
in, to maintain the integrity of their story they need to pay up? This guy put
his division ahead of Snapchat's reputation as a company.

[1] [http://www.potomacflacks.com/pf/2011/09/former-bush-
spokesma...](http://www.potomacflacks.com/pf/2011/09/former-bush-spokesman-
saliterman-departs-bloomberg-lp-in-nyc-for-google-in-dc.html)

------
andrewclunn
Well I for one was bothered to find out that snapchat would give away ads
through their news decision to such a political advocacy group.

------
aurizon
How double dumb, gun people do not want ads targeted to those that will not
buy and those that do not want to buy guns do not want the ads. A waste AND a
shakedown.

In fact the anti gun lobby should tell their members to click on all these ads
(or get a 'clickbot to do it) since that will burn gun company cash for zero
gains

------
libeclipse
This title is very clickbaity, and the first half of the article does a very
poor job of communicating what's really going on.

Snapchat has no obligation to favour one side of the gun reform debate over
the other. But the way this article frames it, they're actively blackmailing
the gun-reform side.

------
paulajohnson
I can't help thinking that the anti-gun group could exploit this by
specifically running content that attacks NRA advertising tropes, thereby
turning the NRA ads into an exercise in deconstructing NRA propaganda.

------
elastic_church
The timing of this is more interesting than the fairly standard advertising
practices itself. I would say this is pretty bullish for Snap since they have
leverage over the organizations founded by movers and shakers!

------
apapli
It seems we are in the middle of an unfortunate trend when industry disruptors
also seem to be conveniently "disrupting" (ie ignoring) established ethics at
the same time.

------
thinkloop
An additional nuance here is big guy vs. little guy. If this was Coke vs.
Pepsi where either could afford buying up the ad spots, it wouldn't be a big
deal.

~~~
wl
Everytown is bankrolled by Michael Bloomberg. I'd hardly call them the little
guy.

~~~
thinkloop
They said they couldn't afford the $150k.

~~~
Alupis
> They said they couldn't afford the $150k.

It's likely more accurate to say they didn't _want_ to afford the $150k.

------
h4nkoslo
No one seems to be mentioning that doing so would presumably screw over the
NRA harder than Everytown. The target viewer for gun control content would
presumably not be interested in an NRA ad, but the NRA is nonetheless paying
to run it.

Oddly the "threat" is essentially that you might become ritually unclean by
proximity to such content.

~~~
fixermark
Were I in charge of NRA advertising, I would consider my ad running along a
gun-violence-awareness campaign to be a misfire, akin to running a smoking ad
alongside a story about smoking-induced lung cancer or a Coke ad alongside a
story about Crystal Pepsi coming back.

~~~
krapp
Gun violence is the best recruitment tool the NRA has. When someone shoots up
a school in the US, NRA membership goes up (as do gun sales.)

~~~
jonnycoder
No, democrats using a shooting event to blame guns and call for bans and
stricter gun control causes gun sales and membership to go up. Obama has been
the best gun salesman for the United States ever.

~~~
krapp
You're just repeating my point, but applying a predictable anti-liberal bias.

>Obama has been the best gun salesman for the United States ever.

Because of all the extremist gun control legislation he passed?

No, wait.. people just believed Obama was coming for their guns but he never
actually did that.

It's almost as if people have been trained to respond to gun violence by
supporting the NRA and buying guns ... in some sort of Pavlovian response.

But I can't imagine what organization or industry could possibly have spent
decades and millions of dollars in political capital engineering such a
virtuous cycle for themselves.

~~~
madengr
If Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, and other ilk had their way, there would be guns
bans and confiscation. Intent is 9/10 of the law.

~~~
krapp
The weird thing though, is they did have their way, and that didn't happen.

~~~
madengr
No they didn't have their way. several draconian bills never made it out of
comitee.

~~~
krapp
Fair enough, then. Which bills?

I still don't know why the political process working as intended justifies the
degree of paranoia that leads to mass stockpiling of guns and ammunition,
though. Or why that paranoia manifests behind _all_ gun control legislation,
not just the "draconian" attempts which fail.

~~~
madengr
[https://www.google.com/amp/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/how-
many...](https://www.google.com/amp/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/how-many-gun-
control-proposals-have-been-offered-since-2011/)

~~~
krapp
That article's thesis appears to be that nearly all attempts at gun control
legislation, _including those by Republicans_ , fail regardless of their
intent because of the political and lobbying influence of the NRA.

I don't see evidence of the "draconian" bills you mentioned, or of nefarious
intent by "Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, and other ilk."

~~~
madengr
[https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-
bill/4269...](https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-
bill/4269/text)

[https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-
bill/691](https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/691)

[https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/22/us/politics/senate-gun-
co...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/22/us/politics/senate-gun-control-no-
fly-list-terrorism.html?_r=0)

~~~
krapp
I see a bill to ban assault rifles, to limit the sale of high capacity
magazines and an article about a Senate proposal to ban the sale of firearms
to people on the government's no-fly list.

The first two don't seem draconian to me, they seem reasonably targeted to
address specific concerns. The bills listed appear to provide exceptions for
weapons owned before the bill would take effect, for law enforcement, etc. I
don't see the typical doomsday scenario of wholesale banning, mass
confiscation or disarmament that we're told the democrats are always working
towards. Maybe I need to read between the lines?

The third is disturbing because of the no-fly list, not the ban itself. Felons
are already banned from owning firearms as a class, and no one would argue
that terrorists or criminals _should_ have guns, so the premise of banning
firearms in some cases seems acceptable even to many gun advocates. The no-fly
list wasn't created by Democrats, but it was expanded in scope and
overwhelmingly supported by Republicans, so I can't really consider that part
to be a Democrat issue per se - blame the Democrats for the ban, but blame the
Republicans for the blacklist that makes the ban unacceptable.

If gun legislation is, as stated earlier by jonnycoder, "using a shooting
event to blame guns and call for bans and stricter gun control," then the
typical response by gun advocates amounts to "using a shooting event to
promote guns and call for higher gun sales." Why can gun advocates criticize
the former, but not the latter?

~~~
madengr
Well we can agree to disagree. The AWB would require registration, like has
happened in NY. Registration leads to confiscation. Their goal is an
Australian style ban; turn them in and melt them down.

There was other legislation and regulation; .50 caliber ban, steel core ammo
ban, mail order ammo ban, import ban of Korean War surplus rifles, import ban
of Russian guns.

Though I agree with you about Republicans; they can support gun control too.

------
tn13
What is wrong with this ? I love NRA and I think they are doing a wonderful
job of protecting our rights. If anyone want s to compete with them they
should obviously pay.

~~~
ClassyJacket
I'm consistently amazed by how often I see Americans brag about their "right"
to shoot up a school. As someone from another country it's such an absurd
thing to see that it still surprises me.

Such a crazy cognitive dissonance. What about your right to have a bomb? Or a
biological weapon?

Such an actively harmful hill to die on.

~~~
paulajohnson
I've often wondered how "the right to keep and bear arms" can be abridged for,
e.g. a shoulder-launched surface-air missile, but not for a hand gun or rifle.
Surely both are "arms" within the meaning understood at the time the Bill of
Rights was ratified.

US courts have tried to get around this by finding a right to self defense,
and finding that preventing someone from carrying a handgun infringes this
right, but preventing them from carrying a missile does not. However this
makes no sense: if someone points a gun at you then its already too late to
pull your own gun out and shoot them, so guns are only useful for self defense
against criminals who don't have guns.

Its true that there are some extremely narrow circumstances in which a legal
gun carried by a bystander can be used to stop a gun crime, but only in a tiny
fraction of cases.

~~~
madengr
One should be able to own & buy a shoulder launched missile. In fact you can
(at least a bazooka; non-guided). It's destructive device, and requires a $200
tax stamp. It's perfectly legal to own hand grenades too.

------
valuearb
What a great salesman.

------
LyndsySimon
I realize it's the title of the article, but "Everytown" is not a charity.

There are two legal entities:

1\. Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, Inc; a 501(c)3

2\. Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund, Inc; a 501(c)4

The NRA is structured similarly with the NRA being the traditional non-profit
and the NRA-ILA being the political lobbying entity.

It's disingenuous to cast one group as a charity and not the other.

~~~
dang
Ok, we replaced "charity" with "group" and "gun safety" with "anti-gun" (per
the URL) in the title above.

------
JKCalhoun
Disgusting.

------
ddingus
Click the shit out of them. Happy times.

