Vox Upset Social Media Used to Promote Guns

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Normally, I wouldn’t recommend a Vox link to my worst enemy; but if you can get past the embedded propaganda, there is actually some interesting discussion on the way firearms companies use social media to sell guns because they are shut out of normal advertising used by other retail companies.

Two things struck me about the article:

1) By restricting firearms companies from traditional advertising, social media seems to have created even more effective pro-firearms advertising (at least from Vox’s point of view).

2) Vox is an adamantly anti-2A company, yet they were welcomed with open arms by numerous pro-gun people. At least some of them MUST have known Vox was going to do everything in its power to portray the 2A negatively, and yet they engaged.

When I was younger, I would have strongly supported that strategy and even now a part of me thinks it is the most effective method of change. At the same time, my current patience to engage with people who have already decided I’m their enemy is pretty thin. Instead of wanting to have an open discussion, I just wish they’d quit being cowards and get down to business. So now I question the value in educating Vox when all they are going to do is use it against you? Can you overcome that filter to speak to Vox’s readers?

https://www.vox.com/features/2019/6/...ical-community

[TomBass]

Other than nearly throwing up on my phone it wasn’t a bad article.
The “smarm” is strong with these people. I think that is the first Vox article that I read more than a few sentences into without exiting.

While I don’t subscribe to Facebook, Instagram or any social media except forums I do find it interesting how pro gun folks have found ways to navigate their rules.
Anyone want to bet this article is the demise of the article’s subject on these “very open” pro 1A social media sites?

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Kaitlyn Tiffany

The National Shooting Sports Foundation has an ongoing conversation with Facebook, he says, but it’s kind of a boring and repetitive one. Business owners and individual influencers who have posts taken down or advertisements rejected contact the organization not understanding why; it then goes to Facebook and asks why. (A representative for Facebook confirmed this line of communication.) “And often it’s an internal problem of their own staff not understanding their own rules,” Keane says. “Or it’s the algorithm. It’s an inconsistent application of their own policies.”

That snippet about Facebook illustrates Bart Roberts' point about Vox, and applies to a number of media organizations that deny the existence of their own editorial policies. I can't remember when this wasn't part of the conversation about the NYT.

Last week, a parts company from whom I've purchased announced a rifle raffle participation in which requires reproducing or "liking" something on Facebook. The announcement was on a larger gun forum. The condemnation from members was swift an unequivocal -- Love your company, if FB is part of the raffle, I'm not (some responses would have required lots of asterisks).

I understand the impulse behind that condemnation, but being angry isn't a great business strategy. If a company has a presence on FB, youtube, linkedin, internet fora (there are probably others I don't know about), the prospect of being completely shut out of public communication is reduced.

[Aguila Blanca]

I understand that Facebook is a thing these days and that companies pretty much have to be on Facebook. However, to run a giveaway that requires entrants to participate on Facebook seems to me a great way to antagonize potential customers, because I don't think I'm the only person in the country (although I might be) who refuses to sign on with Facebook.

But it's not just companies. My state's grassroots pro-2A activism group has a web site that's always two to four months out of date, and at meetings when they announce something the refrain is always, "You can find the details on our Facebook page." Well, what about your web page, dummies? I keep trying to tell them that some people don't do Facebook out of principle, but they don't get it.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by AB

I understand that Facebook is a thing these days and that companies pretty much have to be on Facebook. However, to run a giveaway that requires entrants to participate on Facebook seems to me a great way to antagonize potential customers,...

Which they clearly did, or at least the vocal ones.

My guess is that most people are both lazy and only mildly interested in media problems. I'll offer myself as an example. I don't respect youtube's policy in banning or defunding personalities over disagreement with the positions those personalities take, but if I search for something and it brings up a youtube video, I still watch it. It's the same phenomenon that has me read WaPo, NYT, New Republic, or Mother Jones. I know I don't agree with it, and sometimes that's even the point.

I wish those who call for expulsion of their opponents from social media and college venues had the same tolerance.

[Hal]

I understand that Facebook is a thing these days and that companies pretty much have to be on Facebook.

Nope - Facebook's days are pretty much over. Facebook is a PC/phone hybrid social media.

Today, phone apps rule.

Instagram - Snap Chat - that's where you'll find the under 35 crowd.

Facebook has been taken over by the "old people".

[TDL]

When I was younger, I would have strongly supported that strategy and even now a part of me thinks it is the most effective method of change. At the same time, my current patience to engage with people who have already decided I’m their enemy is pretty thin. Instead of wanting to have an open discussion, I just wish they’d quit being cowards and get down to business. So now I question the value in educating Vox when all they are going to do is use it against you? Can you overcome that filter to speak to Vox’s readers?

Vox is run by people who are literally in a revolving door of vest pocket DNC ops. the major players are from Washington Monthly (ru/fully funded by a/the major family in funding Dem politics in California, The American Prospect (funders read like a "who's who" of DNC trustees and bundlers), Center for American Progress, et al.
Ezra Kline is very close to Mike Bloomberg, and his "wonkblog" did about three dozen gun violence "wonk" pieces without mention the profound decline in gun murder rates except for one instance which they credited it to reduction of blood lead levels.

I think though however you are correct in that they made a good point on advertising environments. But they still fundamentally trying to twist this as nefarious and fail to understand a lot of "Gun Culture 2.0" -- including the fact that this is not limited to advertising at all.

[TruthTellers]

I agree, when it comes to complete anti's I don't engage with them, they're not worth a thin dime. It's those who may be leaning anti, but not fully that you want to try and save from going over the cliff that you want to engage with.

The media is absolutely not worth ever speaking to as they will edit the video/audio or twist your words to make you sound like an idiot or a monster. They're called Fake News for a reason.