Slashdot Mirror
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."
Everytown for Gun Safety has no interest whatsoever in "gun safety".
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.
Or look at California. If you put a flash suppressor on your gun, it's now an assault weapon because it is 10 times more deadly.
-- Will program for bandwidth
OR the stupidity of the law that says you can carry a gun for protection in your car, but you have to lock the ammo in the trunk and the gun in the glovebox.
There is a flaw in the above statement. The NRA keeps it's member lists secret therefore one can not reliably poll the majority of the NRA members other than the NRA. The polls used to support this claim are usually biased towards getting results that support gun control measures and interestingly enough recent political polls have proven that polling on a political issue can generate false results (the recent presidential election being one example). The poll cited by this article used a sample of one hundred sixty nine NRA members out of over four million members the NRA had in 2013. Consider the sample of 169 from 4,000,000 represents less than .005% of the NRA membership and the four million number is under-representing the NRA's membership claim.
it was about keeping guns out of the hands of blacks. Seriously. I'm not kidding or trolling. In the late 70s early 80s manufacturing finally made guns affordable by minorities. That's also around the time gun control laws started making it through legislatures. If you ever want to seem the funniest thing in your life looks up a story about a bunch of anti-muslim rednecks who took their AR-15s to go harass worshipers at a mosque unaware that the Nation of Islam are a little more than just peaceful worshipers.
My point is we don't have really effective gun control law because we never really tried to. Now, I don't think we ever will and I honestly wish the left would drop the issue entirely. It's a losing issue (and noticing that was the only thing Clinton got right). But it does irritate me to see folks like you saying gun control doesn't work. No shit Sherlock that a bunch of laws designed to keep guns out of oppressed minorities didn't have much effect on gun violence...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Extortion is "the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats".
Snapchat was threatening to display pro-gun ads during an anti-gun livestream unless the owners paid up. Sounds like the literal definition of extortion to me.
If you read the actual article, you'll find that the person who did that was also being vindictive.
The Unicode standard is over 20 years old. Why does Slashdot not support it?
The NRA is a deeply controversial and polarizing gun advocacy group. While some argue that it exists to vigorously defend the Second Amendment, others argue that the NRA has stifled any meaningful attempt at reasonable gun control reform.
Can't both arguments have merit, simultaneously?
What is the metric for whether a proposed gun control measure is "reasonable"? That is a highly subjective term.
Furthermore, what is the standard rate for this type of advertisement? Is $150k USD the going rate for 3x 10-second ads for an event of this nature, or is the price here being inflated simply due the diametric natures of Everytown and the NRA?
I do like how Mic (who originally received the emails regarding this story) fails to address these questions entirely. Mic is garbage, as is TheNextWeb for running a [basically paraphrased, rehashed] story without asking pertinent questions.
What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
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.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The problem with locking up insane individuals is that psychologists can't tell if someone is insane or not. They're really bad at that, surprisingly.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
No. Snapchat was telling everytown that it would sell advertisements as usual, unless everytown purchased the ad space. The submitter and the journalist are playing fast and loose with the phrasing of the facts.
One thing that is consistent is that all those cities have been run by Democrats for decades.
I have no problem promoting gun safety but what i do have a problem with is stupid law's that are just these feel good laws usually by liberals that claim to work to attack gun violence problem but reality do NOTHING to stop the problem.
Reduced accessibility to guns will ultimately result in fewer attacks being carried out using guns. How many attacks are there with high-grade explosives? Not many because they are tightly regulated.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
The thing that makes this so stupid is that you haven't made contingencies for the thousands of other terrible things that are far more likely to happen to you, your wife, and your children. This is what makes the "I'm prepared game" so fucking hollow.
"Old man yells at systemd"
First off, any honest, informed person will tell you that politifact is full of shit and a shill for the liberal progressives. They spin and twist and build straw man arguments rather than doing what they purport to do, namely, fact check things.
Secondly, the right to bear arms is a constitutional right. Flying commercial is not. You can't infringe a constitutional right without a felony conviction or a finding of mental incompetence. Period full stop. The no fly list does not have a jury of your peers to put you on it, or really much in the way of judicial review. If you don't like the second amendment, get the votes to change the constitution, until then you are out of luck.
Thirdly, we already have federal background checks for every gun purchase. If the feds do their jobs, all is well. If they are incompetent and don't do their jobs in a reasonable time frame, bad things can happen. Welcome to the real world.
Fourth, the liberal progressives in general and the ACLU in particular are responsible for nearly every mass murder attack in the US after they broke the system for involuntary commitment for the mentally ill in the 1970s (look it up). It doesn't matter if they use a knife, a gun or a car to follow the voices in their head and murder people, we can't have mentally ill people roaming free in a free society, or there will be mass killings. The solution is not to take away everyone's freedom to use knives, machetes, axes, pipes, guns or drive cars, the solution is to take the paranoid schizophrenics and put them in the looney bin like it used to be...
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
> I also think it's fucked up that anyone who's been to prison for more than a year is denied, regardless of whether they've ever used a gun in a crime. For their whole life. It's unamerican.
I agree with your point but not because its unamerican, but because it just enocurages cirminals to get them illegally.
I've always thought it was stupid the way that in the US, once you have a criminal record you basically remain marked for life. Its pretty much encouraging people to be lifetime criminals once they have a record, since its often much harder for them to get a job.
I prefer the UK approach that is once you've done your punishment its considered that you've paid your debt to society and you get a fresh start and your record wiped. I'm not sure of the details but I think employers aren't legally allowed to discriminate against ex-cons and often can't even tell if they ever had a criminal conviction. Obviously there are a few exceptions, such as, (I guess) allowing convicted paedos to work with kids, and probably multiple offenders, but it generally allows people to resume as functioning members of society so less of a chance of repeat offending.
More to the point, if a suicidal person doesn't have a gun, they can always electrocute themselves, drown themselves, poison themselves, drive their car off an overpass (and into freeway traffic, killing innocent people in the process), blow themselves up (likely killing innocent people in the process), rob a bank and taunt police into shooting them, jump off a bridge or building, slit their wrists (down, not across, so the damage can't be repaired), or come up with much more creative ways of killing themselves. Guns aren't even the most popular method, and for good reason; you stand a better chance of becoming brain damaged than dying from a self inflicted shot to the head.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
The Supreme Court is also part of the problem. The stability of the court is both a benefit and a curse. It's a curse because once appointed, justices serve for life which means the court is glacially slow to turn over. In most cases, the only way to change a Supreme Court ruling is to either pass a constitutional amendment or appoint new justices with predictable ideological biases who then overrule past rulings.
Since amending the constitution is practically impossible, partisans have realized that by loading the court with ideological allies they can achieve lasting legislative goals through Supreme Court rulings.
Thus the legislative and democratic process has been bypassed in favor of what becomes a nearly ecclesiastical body. Americans have on many issues traded legislation by elected representatives for legislation by life-appointed jurists whose rulings are nearly completely permanent.
I think the simplest solution is to acknowledge the political nature of the court and overhaul the tenure of the court, requiring justices to retire after 10 years of service. This would cause the court to more closely align with the general political will of the country. This would mean court rulings would be more likely to align with the legislative process politically and ideologically, which, hopefully, would push issue resolution from the court system to the legislative system.
The most contentious issues benefit from legislative solutions where compromise can more easily be achieved. Judicial decisions tend to be more absolute, which in turn makes them inherently more partisan in nature. If dispute resolution is pushed back into the legislative arena, we might end up with a more compromise-focused set of policies which would also be less partisan.
There might be other solutions, too, such as allowing a supermajority of Congress 30-90 days to vacate Supreme Court decisions. Failure to affirmatively vacate them would allow them to stand as usual. This would prevent the court from issuing rulings which run counter to the general political will, while still setting the bar very high for overturning them.
Another option might be to make the Vice President the 9th member of the court, allowing an elected official to act as the tiebreaker for issues partisan within the court. This allows political influence on contentious court decisions, while still allowing the court to issue majority rulings for which the 9th vote would have no influence.
And before you start on the 2nd amendment, I will remind you that at the time, smooth bore muzzle loader flintlocks were the prevalent weapon. Not fully automatic machine pistols with 120 round drum magazines that are accurate up to 100 yards or more. (But I'd SO like to fire one off just once.)
This is a shit argument because it is disingenuous, and you are being a hypocritical asshole because you know it is disingenuous. First, the breech-loading rifle existed at the time. They didn't ban it, even though it was essentially the assault rifle of its day. Second, it was the practice for private citizens to own cannon. The entire point of the second amendment was to avoid the need for a standing militia. That meant that all the military weapons were meant to be in the hands of the people, and specifically as a hedge against tyranny. The authors and proponents of the 2a also believed in the right to self defense (a basic tenet of common law) and made that point very clear in their writings on the subject.
TL;DR: the second amendment was specifically intended to keep military weapons in the hands of civilians.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
One doesn't need to "poll the majority" to be able to make statistically sound assertions about a group. Do you think 50% of manufactured hard drives are run to failure to determine MTBF?
claim: "a majority of people are right handed"
naïve rebuttal:" WHOA there... we gotta individually count 4 billion righties before you can make that claim!"
"at the time, smooth bore muzzle loader flintlocks were the prevalent weapon."
On both sides, so armed citizens were on an equitable basis with government troops. Private ownership of the big weapons of the day, heavy cannon, wasn't uncommon (privateers).
Now you're arguing that although the weapons available to the government have improved, those available to citizens shouldn't.
Of course, also at the time, there were no electronic communications, no high speed printing presses, no photography, etc. So by your logic, a reasonable interpretation of the 1st Amendment would allow modern government to limit speech to unamplified human speech, handwriting, and the output of Gutenberg presses.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law