51–60 of 107 posts
After all these years, it looks like the publishing industry is still threatened by marijuana.
It's not difficult to imagine an account with much deeper pockets and an opposing agenda making it clear that if CN takes money from "pro-drug" advertisers, then they'll pull their own.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't believe that comments like this are upmodded but yet HN has the audacity to tout some air of supremacy while laughing at the notion of a "digg vs reddit" flame war. The community remains remarkably split on adblock use (especially on sites they like, etc). There are people that oppose plenty of drug use (calling pot a drug is disingenuous for shock factor of "calling out" reddit) and being antigay is yes, unp…
The more surprising thing IMHO is the air of superiority that Reddit users have over religion, and especially over people who watch Fox News etc. Now I'm not for one minute defending people who only watch Fox News, but there are people who only get their news from Reddit. So instead of a blinkered, biased, inaccurate kneejerkist feed of stories from Fox, they get a blinkered, biased, inaccurate kneejerkist feed of st…
Arguing that it should be taken seriously without evidence really doesn't help your case.
I wonder why Conde Nast even bought reddit in the first place. It's cool that they let them run the web site as an independent entity more or less, but it really seems like they don't like supporting them (see Reddit Gold).
They probably thought they were buying a broad general "What news will look like in the future" website. In fact they ended up with a liberal pro drug, pro gay, pro adblock, anti capitalism, anti consumerism, anti advertising, athiest website. As time has gone on Reddits userbase seems to have become narrower and narrower even though it's obviously grown massively. Maybe it's groupthink at work, or maybe it's just co…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't believe that comments like this are upmodded but yet HN has the audacity to tout some air of supremacy while laughing at the notion of a "digg vs reddit" flame war. The community remains remarkably split on adblock use (especially on sites they like, etc). There are people that oppose plenty of drug use (calling pot a drug is disingenuous for shock factor of "calling out" reddit) and being antigay is yes, unp…
The more surprising thing IMHO is the air of superiority that Reddit users have over religion, and especially over people who watch Fox News etc. Now I'm not for one minute defending people who only watch Fox News, but there are people who only get their news from Reddit. So instead of a blinkered, biased, inaccurate kneejerkist feed of stories from Fox, they get a blinkered, biased, inaccurate kneejerkist feed of st…
>This was a decision made at the highest levels of Conde Nast. Doesn't this put the lie to their "we're our own business and don't have anything to do with Conde Nast, that's why we need your charity" line?
The fact they have take the decision to run the ads for free possibly puts lie to ''that'' :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I were Conde Nast, the fallout would be firing them, and yes I'm aware this may kill reddit. You were bought. Reddit does not belong to you, and you don't get to decide what to do with it. If you can't handle that then you should never have sold, or in this case you should quit.
Well the higher-ups could actually have been honest when they said they just didn't want to benefit financially, and might have approved the free ads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The power of reddit (and for that matter hackernews) is the top-voted comment on most articles is a thorough debunking/rebuttal. I'll often read articles that seem perfectly reasonable but are quickly ripped to shreds by the community. So while you are getting a pre-filtered view of the news, you're not getting a single viewpoint on that news. Furthermore (edit), the subreddits that you subscribe to radically change…
That's not the case at all IMHO. The top voted comment is just whatever the groupthink agrees is the 'right' stance on that issue. Over time online communities such as HN and Reddit gravitate towards a specific set of viewpoints. It means that you start only seeing certain types of article, you only see certain types of comments, comments that 'toe the party line' are upvoted to top, etc. The other funny thing is how…
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 targetin…
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.
After all these years, it looks like the publishing industry is still threatened by marijuana.
Could be they're not threatened by marijuana so much as their other advertisers. It's not difficult to imagine an account with much deeper pockets and an opposing agenda making it clear that if CN takes money from "pro-drug" advertisers, then they'll pull their own.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I were Conde Nast, the fallout would be firing them, and yes I'm aware this may kill reddit. You were bought. Reddit does not belong to you, and you don't get to decide what to do with it. If you can't handle that then you should never have sold, or in this case you should quit.
I completely agree with you. Either you take the cash or you don't. But if you take the cash, you shouldn't be mourning afterwards about not having enough money (while spending close to 1/2 million a year on ec2) and not being able to decide which ads you run on the site you simply don't own anymore.