A corporation wants to use another corporation's services to distribute content, but does not want to compensate them in any way, expects that the facilitating corporation will prevent a charitable organization from paying them to reach out to the same audience.
Everytown for Gun Safety is a private lobbying effort funded by Michael Bloomberg, and believes that they can use a company's service for free while censoring paid ads from a true community charitable organization which is funded primarily by membership dues. Mic deliberately characterizes Everytown for Gun Safety as a "gun safety charity", and avoids using similar language to describe NRA, a registered charitable organization with a considerable number of members. Are they trying to say that the NRA doesn't care about gun safety?
I don't really see why Snap Inc. should have to promote Michael Bloomberg's fantasies for no pay, and prevent the voice of an established charitable institution from being included alongside it through the standard advertising process.
Everytown for Gun Safety is a private lobbying effort funded by Michael Bloomberg, and believes that they can use a company's service for free while censoring paid ads from a true community charitable organization which is funded primarily by membership dues. Mic deliberately characterizes Everytown for Gun Safety as a "gun safety charity", and avoids using similar language to describe NRA, a registered charitable organization with a considerable number of members. Are they trying to say that the NRA doesn't care about gun safety?
I don't really see why Snap Inc. should have to promote Michael Bloomberg's fantasies for no pay, and prevent the voice of an established charitable institution from being included alongside it through the standard advertising process.