> I just can't see how your explanation of "Maybe his hands are tied" plays out in the real world.
I don't think that's a good characterization of my position.
> I'm also not sure what kind of context would cast opening with 'we are also talking to the NRA about running ads within the story' in a good light. That's presented as a direct quote, not an inference.
And quotes have never been presented out of context before? All I'm saying is that in a story where both sides have not released any sort of statement clarifying the situation or their position, and there are just emails to go by, I would feel more comfortable if I was able to see the full email when presented with the scenario in question, rather than quotes taken out of the email and presented in the narrative of the article.
> If tech.mic is inventing things out of whole cloth here, then Snapchat has grounds for a libel suit.
That's not the only option though. It could very well be a fairly ambiguous chain of emails, and rational people might disagree on how to interpret them. I don't like having that chance denied me, nor being told how to interpret the situation through limited releases of information.
Edit: See https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/01/leaked-emails-put-spotligh... for Snapchat's statement. It's along the lines of what I figured it would be in my first comment, but that's an obvious way to reply whether true or not, and as I noted, at this point it's all in the hands of Pr departments.
I don't think that's a good characterization of my position.
> I'm also not sure what kind of context would cast opening with 'we are also talking to the NRA about running ads within the story' in a good light. That's presented as a direct quote, not an inference.
And quotes have never been presented out of context before? All I'm saying is that in a story where both sides have not released any sort of statement clarifying the situation or their position, and there are just emails to go by, I would feel more comfortable if I was able to see the full email when presented with the scenario in question, rather than quotes taken out of the email and presented in the narrative of the article.
> If tech.mic is inventing things out of whole cloth here, then Snapchat has grounds for a libel suit.
That's not the only option though. It could very well be a fairly ambiguous chain of emails, and rational people might disagree on how to interpret them. I don't like having that chance denied me, nor being told how to interpret the situation through limited releases of information.
Edit: See https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/01/leaked-emails-put-spotligh... for Snapchat's statement. It's along the lines of what I figured it would be in my first comment, but that's an obvious way to reply whether true or not, and as I noted, at this point it's all in the hands of Pr departments.