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.
Because he thinks that corporate-speak is not meant to be taken literally, and he is probably right. The sentiment is "don't run these ads," which is what they are rebelling against.
