Snapchat Wanted $150K To Not Run NRA Ads On Gun Control Group Videos (thenextweb.com)

New submitter bababoris writes: It appears that Snapchat's Rob Saliterman attempted to "encourage" Everytown for Gun Safety to advertise with Snapchat or risk having National Rifle Association (NRA) ads run during their Live Story promoting gun safety. The Next Web reports: "Everytown for Gun Safety is an advocacy group that focuses on gun safety and violence issues. According to Mic, it reached out to Snapchat in 2016 to inquire about an advertising campaign for its #WearOrange event, held on National Gun Violence Awareness Day. A Snapchat representative, Rob Saliterman, responded to Everytown with a quote of $150,000. This would allow Snapchat users to engage with the event using custom filters and lenses created specifically for it. Realizing that another department within Snapchat had undercut him, he fired off an email suggesting that Everytown pay up, lest National Rifle Association (NRA) adverts appear on their videos."

Comments

Re:And this is interesting because?

[hawguy]

What if we aren't haters and don't hate the NRA? What if we don't have a phobia of guns? Why is this "stuff that matters"?

I don't have a "gun phobia", I own 3 - a rifle, a shotgun (which I use for hunting), and a handgun (which I use for fun -- i.e. target practice).

But I do think guns are way too easy to obtain (both legally and illegally), and gun owners should hold more responsibility for securing their weapons so they aren't stolen and resold on the black market. My gun safe cost as much as both of the long guns that are locked inside it.

Companies that sell ads sell ads. BFD.

It's not the ad sale that's the story, it's the extortion.

Re:i have no problem

[phantomfive]

If you think Chicago is bad, in California we have politicians who are anti-gun because legal gun sales conflict with their illegal gun-running business.

Re:That org is garbage

[Bartles]

Just google "everytown false". Slashdot is not getting more right wing, it is getting more liberal in the classical sense. It's your relative point of view that has changed.

Re: That org is garbage

[Anonymous Coward]

Happens quite a lot, even thou you don't want to believe it does:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-uber-driver-shoots-gunman-met-0420-20150419-story.html

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Man-Shot-in-the-Chest-Inside-West-Philly-Barbershop-297176271.html

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/26/official-suspect-in-deadly-hospital-shooting-had-lengthy-history-gun-arrests/

http://citizensvoice.com/news/police-plymouth-homicide-suspect-shot-by-patron-1.1370815

http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/17251517/churchgoers-subdue-gunman-at-spartanburg-church

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2054129059072688443

http://www.lvrj.com/news/19257519.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/us/12brfs-GUNMANKILLED_BRF.html?fta=y&pagewanted=print&_r=0

http://articles.philly.com/1998-04-26/news/25765866_1_andrew-wurst-john-gillette-science-teacher

And that is what I could find in a 2-sec google search.

Re:That org is garbage

[drinkypoo]

The liberal progressive Democrats are 25X times more likely to be unemployed (or maybe that's unemployable) and 7X more likely to be a criminal.

So why is it that the red states are the ones that consume the lion's share of the social services, even though California has the highest population and is often considered to have the most illegal immigrants living within its borders?