11 ms·

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."