Uh, no. Trump’s ads got shared so they reached more people. Clinton could have made her ads better. Also, targeting different demos costs vastly different $. Saying she got charged more is pretty misleading
-
-
-
There is evidence that her campaign simply did not put in the same level of effort into the FB platform. But also we don’t have access to the data to give us a clearer picture of how much it is on the campaign versus whether there is something more structurally unsavory like
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
but do you that these new norms intersect with historical standards for political advertising pricing for competing candidates in a way that is inequitable, non-transparent and/or corrosive? FB sets the standards for how users share/consume.
-
Typing up longer thoughts on this now (I literally used to be on the Google team that sells ads I candidates) - if you know anywhere that might want to publish them by all means let me know :)
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Facebook adverts are cheaper per impression if the ads get a lot of clicks. All this shows is that Trump troll ads got more clicks than Hillary ads. I can believe that, because Hillary's content was usually worthy-but-dull, whereas Trump troll content was scandal-y.
-
Yes but if the main media system that 2B people use structurally favors extremist messaging at a price differential that is unprecedented in media history, isn’t that a matter of public concern?
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Then why do former Facebook employees think it’s a problem? https://www.wired.com/story/how-trump-conquered-facebookwithout-russian-ads/ …
-
The thing about your tweet is that a company "systematically charging" one candidate more is different than one group exploiting the system. Not saying it's good but it's not as if Facebook made a choice to charge her more specifically. It's how it was set up
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Conversion rate differentials affect ad pricing. Not clear what fairness should mean in this context.
-
I totally get that. But the public should have access to the data and then there should be a discourse or process to determine what fairness is rather than ceding it to an opaque entity, whose system reaching 2B ppl structurally disseminates false or inflammatory paid messages at
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.