I can’t believe this tweet isn’t going viral. Do people not really care that Facebook may have systematically charged the Clinton campaign an order of magnitude or two more than it was charging Trump to reach American voters? (Which is not allowed in other mediums by law.)https://twitter.com/parscale/status/967516077956755457 …
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler
This seems like a bit too much to me... Also, most platforms have penalty for ads people dislike too. So it isn't just about the most extreme content.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @deaneckles
the point is there's no transparency, unlike the requirements for TV/radio and there are huge political & governance implications. On broadcast, there are policies stipulating equal opportunities, pricing for competing candidates. https://www.fcc.gov/media/policy/statutes-and-rules-candidate-appearances-advertising#sponsorship1212 …pic.twitter.com/BGzMt9qy4O
2 replies 11 retweets 44 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler
Whether that kind of rule is at all compatible with modern online advertising is interesting. Depends on how you define way they are paying for, perhaps.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
copying and pasting a rule like that is probably not do-able. But the spirit of it is important and it's a shame there is no transparency, public accountability or discourse around what fair rates are for competing political candidates.
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.