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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!)
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.
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.
