31–40 of 40 posts
This is something that Facebook and ad-serving companies should be fully transparent about. * Who is paying for their political propaganda? * How much was spent? * What were the ads? * How was it paid? Not being able to track ad spending by political parties, governments or individuals opens opens a huge opportunity for political corruption.
There is a major problem with the "Region" selection when viewing the United States data. It includes all sorts of global regions and even "(null)" when it should simply list US states and territories.
Yes because political adverts don't run anywhere apart from the U.S.
Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (literally the top of the list alphabetized by first name) spent $1.5 million on 9,576 ads, garnering 60 million impressions, mostly for fundraising, and it all started after she assumed office? And the ads are spread out across the country with California edging out her home state of New York?
What a weird coincidence - both Ocasio Cortez and Cory Booker placed more ads in California than their home states (New York and New Jersey), but Kamala Harris put more ads in New York than her home state California.
I don't know what this data means, I'm uncomfortable with Facebook getting heat when other tech companies aren't (because people think Facebook helped Trump), but this is a really interesting data set if you start to play around with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a problem in how do you classify ads into political and non-political. But then, why not make all ad spending public? What benefit is there to society in keeping the source of ads secret?
Facebook does - at least in the UK. Try to run a "political" ad and there's a lot of hoops to jump through.
Didn't Facebook make this data available months ago? Where is the pressure for google to do the same?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for saying this. I'll add, just as general observation from within the industry, that because of the shrinking profits and massive budget cuts insisted upon by a lot of corporate parent companies many outlets are short-staffed. The enormous (and I've personally witnessed enough to suit the use of that term) reduction in editorial and arts staff at major outlets has stretched the surviving teams pretty thin. It…
Word is born.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a problem in how do you classify ads into political and non-political. But then, why not make all ad spending public? What benefit is there to society in keeping the source of ads secret?
Facebook does - at least in the UK. Try to run a "political" ad and there's a lot of hoops to jump through.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Word is born.
I believe it’s word is bond implying your word is your honor.
I'm not sure if I'm understanding the map correctly: Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (literally the top of the list alphabetized by first name) spent $1.5 million on 9,576 ads, garnering 60 million impressions, mostly for fundraising, and it all started after she assumed office? And the ads are spread out across the country with California edging out her home state of New York? What a weird coincidence - both Ocasio Cortez…
These ads are probably for fundraising purposes. Congresspeople face re-election every two years and thus spend a lot of time fundraising. Also, if she raises extra money she can put it into a PAC and use it to support/oppose candidates in other races. This is a practice that was perfected by Lyndon Johnson who used campaign cash from his friends in the oil industry to bolster support for his policies amongst his peers.
>> What a weird coincidence - both Ocasio Cortez and Cory Booker placed more ads in California than their home states (New York and New Jersey), but Kamala Harris put more ads in New York than her home state California.
This is because they already built donor/supporter bases in their own states where their name ID is strongest. Rather than advertise at home where they are already household names it make sense to take out ads in other states which they want to win.