Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Conde Nast refuses to run Prop 19 ads on reddit

reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 107 posts

Re: Conde Nast refuses to run Prop 19 ads on reddit

#61

Post by jrockway »

ars wrote: post #24
famousactress wrote: post #9

The fact that they're running them for free is kinda interesting. Going from corporate censoring the ads, to reddit essentially giving the campaign a huge contribution. It'll be interesting to see what the fall-out from this is.

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.

The founders already did quit, right?

Re: Conde Nast refuses to run Prop 19 ads on reddit

#62

Post by jrockway »

huntero wrote: post #44

Am I the only one who has no problem with a parent company not wanting pro-marijuana ads running on their sites? They legitimately own Reddit, it seems rather childish that Reddit is "rebelling" by running the ads for free.

New media vs. old.

Conde Nast can retaliate somehow, but then all the users just get mad and go to the competitors, and Reddit becomse a Distant Memory Of The Past.

Re: Conde Nast refuses to run Prop 19 ads on reddit

#63

Post by zavulon »

points wrote: post #6
starnix17 wrote: post #4

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…

Don't forget "anti-semitic". And before anyone even has the audacity to say "it's anti-Israel, not anti-semitic", this: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ccnir/im_gonna_get...

Re: Conde Nast refuses to run Prop 19 ads on reddit

#64

Post by Sukotto »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #13
points wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

What can't you believe?

Us are always better than them it's a cornerstone of human culture.

Re: Conde Nast refuses to run Prop 19 ads on reddit

#65

Post by kingkilr »

kleevr wrote: post #50
bluelu wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CN bought reddit so they can do whatever they want to do with reddit. Either you take the cash or you leave it.

True, but there's also the massive anarchistic user base. /r/all is/was yelling censorship top to bottom. Starting to look a lot like the Digg Revolt[1] circa '07 regarding the 09 F9 .. censorship. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controversy...

Not really, during the aacs thing digg literally stopped to function under the weight of 09 f9 subissions. In comparison I've seen more pro-Ron Paul sentimennt on the front page at any given time than I have prop 19 stuff today.

Re: Conde Nast refuses to run Prop 19 ads on reddit

#66

Post by gbhn »

huntero wrote: post #44

Am I the only one who has no problem with a parent company not wanting pro-marijuana ads running on their sites? They legitimately own Reddit, it seems rather childish that Reddit is "rebelling" by running the ads for free.

Why do you think they're rebelling? Isn't the most natural interpretation that the corporate statement ("we don't want to profit from this issue") is accurate, and that Conde Nast doesn't mind if Reddit runs the ads?

Re: Conde Nast refuses to run Prop 19 ads on reddit

#67

Post by philwelch »

pstuart wrote: post #16
auxbuss wrote: post #3

For those who have no idea what Prop 19 is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_19 Basically, a marijuana legalisation proposal.

More of a "tax and regulate", which is a step towards legalization.

Well, it does legalize marijuana on the state level, and additionally taxes and regulates it. It may or may not be a de facto first step to federal deregulation.

Re: Conde Nast refuses to run Prop 19 ads on reddit

#68

Post by famousactress »

CamperBob wrote: post #56
ojbyrne wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There might be some really severe legal consequences to running those free ads. I'm not familiar with campaign finance but it's possible that the law considers Reddit's action to be a "donation" with a large equivalent cash value.

I was thinking the exact same thing. At the very least I think there are disclosure and tax issues, and the fact that the 'donation' came from Conde Nast has pretty significant implications.

Re: Conde Nast refuses to run Prop 19 ads on reddit

#69

Post by farmerbuzz »

wvenable wrote: post #47
farmerbuzz wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps its not that they're threatened by marijuana but disinclined to accept controversial and divisive advertising?

They already accept controversial and divisive advertising. Here is an example: http://i.imgur.com/pRN0K.jpg

Although it looks like that is a Google ad, so maybe they didn't intend to accept it?

Re: Conde Nast refuses to run Prop 19 ads on reddit

#70

Post by huntero »

gbhn wrote: post #66
huntero wrote: post #44

Am I the only one who has no problem with a parent company not wanting pro-marijuana ads running on their sites? They legitimately own Reddit, it seems rather childish that Reddit is "rebelling" by running the ads for free.

Why do you think they're rebelling? Isn't the most natural interpretation that the corporate statement ("we don't want to profit from this issue") is accurate, and that Conde Nast doesn't mind if Reddit runs the ads?

I guess the question is: Would Reddit have offered to run the Prop 19 ads for free even if Conde Nast hadn't told them not to run the ads at all?

I would say no, so it seems that the reason that the ads are running for free is because of the difference in opinion with the parent company. That's how I reasoned out "rebelling", although it's obviously a bit of hyperbole.

Post reply on HN