4 ms·

An example of what they used the data for is this investigation into feed changes in Georgia ahead of the runoff: https://themarkup.org/citizen-browser/2021/01/

by ccorda 6y ago

An example of what they used the data for is this investigation into feed changes in Georgia ahead of the runoff: https://themarkup.org/citizen-browser/2021/01/05/in-georgia-facebooks-changes-brought-back-a-partisan-news-feed https://themarkup.org/citizen-browser/2021/01/05/in-georgia-... Raw data available here: https://github.com/the-markup/citizen-browser-georgia https://github.com/the-markup/citizen-browser-georgia

toper-centage 6y ago
Those ad spending values are mind blowing... No wonder Facebook doesn't want to change anything.
- netsharc 6y ago
  It seems media companies have a different interest in political races: if they call it a tight race, the candidates will pay them to run ads. And indirectly, if they report that it's tight, people will keep tuning in, and they can sell these eyeballs for a better price to their advertisers. For example the 2008 Dem primaries with Obama vs Hillary. Obama was sure to win it months before the Dem conference, but I can recall CNN still calling it a race...
  - rchaud 6y ago
    > if they call it a tight race, the candidates will pay them to run ads. All the spending happens well before news channels start reporting ballot counts. Multi-million dollar political campaigns do not rely on the news media to tell them how they should spend their ad budget over a months-long election cycle. By the time news orgs start reporting actual ballot counts, it's too late to spend any more money. A good chunk of votes have already been cast via mail. Poll stations have either closed or are at best a few hours away from closing.
    - netsharc 6y ago
      What, and the news doesn't report poll numbers of "likely voters" before the election? Who'd be frontrunner, who's surging, etc, etc?
      - rchaud 6y ago
        Why would that affect the candidate's spend? Is there any evidence of that happening?
- pjc50 6y ago
  "Facebook made money from showing users ads containing misinformation."

by ccorda 6y ago

toper-centage 6y ago

Those ad spending values are mind blowing... No wonder Facebook doesn't want to change anything.

netsharc 6y ago
It seems media companies have a different interest in political races: if they call it a tight race, the candidates will pay them to run ads. And indirectly, if they report that it's tight, people will keep tuning in, and they can sell these eyeballs for a better price to their advertisers. For example the 2008 Dem primaries with Obama vs Hillary. Obama was sure to win it months before the Dem conference, but I can recall CNN still calling it a race...
- rchaud 6y ago
  > if they call it a tight race, the candidates will pay them to run ads. All the spending happens well before news channels start reporting ballot counts. Multi-million dollar political campaigns do not rely on the news media to tell them how they should spend their ad budget over a months-long election cycle. By the time news orgs start reporting actual ballot counts, it's too late to spend any more money. A good chunk of votes have already been cast via mail. Poll stations have either closed or are at best a few hours away from closing.
  - netsharc 6y ago
    What, and the news doesn't report poll numbers of "likely voters" before the election? Who'd be frontrunner, who's surging, etc, etc?
    - rchaud 6y ago
      Why would that affect the candidate's spend? Is there any evidence of that happening?
pjc50 6y ago
"Facebook made money from showing users ads containing misinformation."