3 ms·

Really? For a few last months of revenue versus potentially stopping an election result from being bought?

• nicolas_ 6y ago
  It's Facebook you're talking about. I'm not sure why you'd think they would make the right choice instead of chasing $.
• interestica 6y ago
  I suspect the lead-up to an election is like the Christmas season for political advertisers. So, it's hard to look at it as "few months of revenue" when in fact it might count for the majority.
  • pb7 6y ago
    Right. It's either already decided and no money left to be had or not yet decided and the majority of the money is yet to be captured.
• ssss11 6y ago
  Do you think they favour a fair election over $$$? Do you think there is anything they favour over $$$ at this point?
• nl 6y ago
  The mistake here is thinking that (generally speaking) allowing questionable behavior is a "whole of Facebook" decision. Instead there is some VP in charge of "ad sales for mid-West US" who looks at their target numbers for a bonus, looks at the ~$100M+ spending planned by the campaigns in that area in the next month[1] and goes "I don't want to sell an election but it is and important free speech issue that campaigns are allowed to get their message across". Stopping that is a decision that has to be made at the top, by one person who then needs to argue against a lot of people whose financial interest is in the opposite direction. [1] https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article245569490.html https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/electio...