Hacker News Reader

Comment by jsz0 | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

No, they are avoiding ads that they think will cost them money.

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.

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that. there is a deep entrenchment in the establishment to oppose hemp, for purely economic reasons.

the war on <s>drugs</s> cannabis is way too profitable for the so-called "northeastern liberalismists" to turn away from it.

Uh, what?

I don't know, do you have any objections or are you trying to appeal to ridicule?

I literally don't know what you're talking about. A conspiracy to suppress hemp?

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories#Dru...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DuPont#Hemp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp_for_Victory

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?

Okay, here is a source that argues that while the hemp conspiracy might be overblown, the racist underpinnings of prohibition are still in place.

http://cannazine.co.uk/hemp/hemp-products/debunking-the-hemp...

I'd like someone to point out how this isn't true.

On a similar note, here are some cute pictures of kittens:

http://images.google.com/images?q=kittens&ie=UTF-8&o...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

no apologies this time =(

http://www.activistpost.com/2010/07/marijuana-conspiracy-rea...

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!)

Less sure about their other rags, though.

The Atlantic is pretty liberal too, and to whatever extent it isn't, it's libertarian.

too late, they've already ran anti-prop 19 ads:

http://www.reddit.com/r/prop19/duplicates/cx665/no_on_19_ad_...

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.

They are a private company owned by the Newhouse family. They can do what they want.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com