What a puff piece. Obviously paid for by Snapchat, with every single image in the article coming from them and the interviewer lobbing softball after softball.
Absolutely
> Obviously paid for
That’s not obvious at all, in fact you’re making a pretty severe ethical accusation against specific people and it’s almost certainly untrue.
I wish people could understand the difference.
I have no evidence for this specific case, but assuming this until proven otherwise isn't a bad default strategy.
Business publications like FastCompany run uncritical puff pieces all the time. There's similar content in in-flight magazines, on many blogs, on various TV profile segments and much more. You're free to decide if you enjoy reading light, superficial, and purposefully positive stuff like that. Often the writers and the subjects of the writing run in the same circles, are even friendly. The content is often predictable and boring.
I'm not a huge fan of the genre either.
But it's still journalism. There's a difference between paid placements and journalism and it's a distinction I believe is important.