Does CNN, NYT, MSN, Maddow, all pay to have anti Trump stuff advertised?  Maybe FB got them a good deal, pay $1 and they can promote it.

There's just as many conservative trump news out there.  I don't know the advertising budgets for either.  But I do know FB is out to make money,  if the libs pay more you are going to see more. 

There's just as many conservative trump news out there.  I don't know the advertising budgets for either.  But I do know FB is out to make money,  if the libs pay more you are going to see more.

No bias in Big Tech.

Big Tech Employees Donate Overwhelmingly to 2020 Democrats

Some tech company employees were far more partisan in their donations this year, with
98 percent of Netflix employees and 77 percent of Amazon workers donating to Democrats,
according to OpenSecrets.

In 2016, 68 percent of donations from workers at the largest U.S. tech companies went
to members of the Democratic Party. That number increased to 79 percent during the 2018
midterm elections and now 84 percent this year.

In virtual hearings this week in Congress, Sen. Ted Cruz named several high profile Conservative users on FB that were recently censored and had their accounts locked -- The President and other members of the Trump administration topped the list.  Cruz then asked Zucherberg to name JUST ONE Liberal influencer with lots of followers and high visibility who had been "accidentally" censored or locked out in the same way Conservatives had been.  His answer: "I'll have to do some research and get back to you."

he was asked this very same question a year or more ago in another Congressional hearing, and his answer was the same:  I'll look into it.

One would think he would have been prepared to answer that question now.  One would also expect he could remember if there was any backlash over someone like Hillary, Obama, Loretta Lynch, Comey, a Liberal political group, or other Progressive Celebs were accidentally locked.  Since we all know (those of us with any sense) that the pendulum always appears to swing just one direction, and that is toward the Conservative and Republican users.

Just like fake news -- if it was truly accidental, one would expect to see an even distribution over time of it involving both sides of the aisle.  The Media publishes fake news about Trump over 80% of the time, and negative articles about him over 95% of the time.  That's not an accident.  Nor is the same trend an accident in FB, Twitter and Google.
https://www.newsweek.com/big-tech-employees-donate-overwhelmingly-2020-democrats-1515430

No bias in Big Tech.

Big Tech Employees Donate Overwhelmingly to 2020 Democrats

In virtual hearings this week in Congress, Sen. Ted Cruz named several high profile Conservative users on FB that were recently censored and had their accounts locked -- The President and other members of the Trump administration topped the list.  Cruz then asked Zucherberg to name JUST ONE Liberal influencer with lots of followers and high visibility who had been "accidentally" censored or locked out in the same way Conservatives had been.  His answer: "I'll have to do some research and get back to you."

he was asked this very same question a year or more ago in another Congressional hearing, and his answer was the same:  I'll look into it.

One would think he would have been prepared to answer that question now.  One would also expect he could remember if there was any backlash over someone like Hillary, Obama, Loretta Lynch, Comey, a Liberal political group, or other Progressive Celebs were accidentally locked.  Since we all know (those of us with any sense) that the pendulum always appears to swing just one direction, and that is toward the Conservative and Republican users.

Just like fake news -- if it was truly accidental, one would expect to see an even distribution over time of it involving both sides of the aisle.  The Media publishes fake news about Trump over 80% of the time, and negative articles about him over 95% of the time.  That's not an accident.  Nor is the same trend an accident in FB, Twitter and Google.
https://www.newsweek.com/big-tech-employees-donate-overwhelmingly-2020-democrats-1515430

Should the government force politics quotas? 

Should the government force politics quotas?

Do you have an actual point?

There's just as many conservative trump news out there.  I don't know the advertising budgets for either.  But I do know FB is out to make money,  if the libs pay more you are going to see more.

please list...
and remember that "just as many" means an equal number...

The bubble idea was told by a FB insider.  Should I believe them, or your feelings?

It's not either or.  They have several ways of manipulating users.  These are just two of them.

I said impression, not feelings.

Of course it could be a case of two birds with one stone.

I understand what you're saving if it related to a slap chop or TWIX candy.  But they are trying to swing an election.  I remember when Russia was all the story.  Not once did I see any pro Trump stuff on my feeds on FB.  It was all pro Clinton and anti Trump.  So there is no way Russia influenced FB for me personally like how the DNC stated Russia did.

Social media companies are using "algorithms" as a scapegoat.  "It wasn't us, it was the system" type of BS.

How would they swing an election by creating a bubble for democrats and a bubble for republicans?

I have numerous pro-Trump friends on facebook and quite frankly I saw no shortage of pro-Trump posts by them. I saw so many memes that had been re-posted. Some of the ones that Russia had purchased were ones that I had seen friends re-post. The evidence appears to show Russia just tried to foster a divide rather than try to help one candidate over another. Of course I never kept a running log of how many times I saw comments or ads supporting one side or another more. Even now I see many Trump advertisements on Facebook so I am not so sure they are trying to swing an election.

Algorithms just a BS excuse? Certainly possible but it wouldn't be the first time algorithms gave them results they wouldn't have wanted either. Ultimately I don't know the true answer, but I will consider all possible explanations.

Do we have any figures for advertising amounts?  This might just be a case of democrats spending more money,  that means more advertisements and more chance you see them.  Rather than some conspiracy Facebook is influencing the election on purpose.

This does bring up an important point in analyzing such things. Disproportionality does not always prove  some nefarious intent. Just like how disproportionate use of force by police against black people doesn't prove cops are racist, disproportionate advertising or even moderation doesn't prove Facebook has their thumb on the scale. There are many variables to consider.

How would they swing an election by creating a bubble for democrats and a bubble for republicans?

I have numerous pro-Trump friends on facebook and quite frankly I saw no shortage of pro-Trump posts by them. I saw so many memes that had been re-posted. Some of the ones that Russia had purchased were ones that I had seen friends re-post. The evidence appears to show Russia just tried to foster a divide rather than try to help one candidate over another. Of course I never kept a running log of how many times I saw comments or ads supporting one side or another more. Even now I see many Trump advertisements on Facebook so I am not so sure they are trying to swing an election.

Algorithms just a BS excuse? Certainly possible but it wouldn't be the first time algorithms gave them results they wouldn't have wanted either. Ultimately I don't know the true answer, but I will consider all possible explanations.

By allowing more anti-GOP posts in both bubbles.  It's not a brain buster.

They can also allow more anti-Dem posts in the Dem side supposedly from the GOP just to piss them off even more -- especially if the ad is 100% fabricated nonsense.

Go read what the Russian "Hackers" supposedly did on FB.  Read what FB did this year to supposedly stop it.  Then ask yourself, would Mueller have investigated, and FB made changes, if those types of election interference were not already a problem?

The details are out there if you really want to know about them.

By allowing more anti-GOP posts in both bubbles.  It's not a brain buster.

They can also allow more anti-Dem posts in the Dem side supposedly from the GOP just to piss them off even more -- especially if the ad is 100% fabricated nonsense.

Go read what the Russian "Hackers" supposedly did on FB.  Read what FB did this year to supposedly stop it.  Then ask yourself, would Mueller have investigated, and FB made changes, if those types of election interference were not already a problem?

The details are out there if you really want to know about them.

Then just have the Republicans throw more money at advertising to even it out.  Money is speech.  Just because the Democrats are spending more doesn't mean you punish them. 

Then just have the Republicans throw more money at advertising to even it out.  Money is speech.  Just because the Democrats are spending more doesn't mean you punish them.

please prove the dems are spending more...

please prove the dems are spending more...

Old article but
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/10/liberals-are-crushing-conservatives-on-facebook-ad-spending/574444/

According to this site democrats are spending 5x more than republicans on FB.  So you would see potentially 5x more ads which makes sense.
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/facebook-inc/totals?id=D000033563

please list...
and remember that "just as many" means an equal number...

still waiting...

still waiting...

Sour cream sanchez...ohhh layyyy..

Old article but
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/10/liberals-are-crushing-conservatives-on-facebook-ad-spending/574444/

According to this site democrats are spending 5x more than republicans on FB.  So you would see potentially 5x more ads which makes sense.
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/facebook-inc/totals?id=D000033563

Do you agree with the facts in those articles?

If so, then you agree that Democrats see value in buying FB ads.

If ads on FB don't "sway an election", then why buy them at all?

There's a new FB rule that they won't accept NEW political ads one week from election day.  That impacts the GOP most.  GOP voters are more likely to vote on election day, as Dems are likely to vote at early voting centers and via mail.  That matters, because any ads that are stale or need updating are locked in for that final week which reasonably won't impact people who already voted.

There's no reason to create such a rule other than to interfere in the GOP's campaign.  That's not a money/spending issue.  It's a FB policy issue targeting one major block of voters.

still waiting...

I am not going to list every single republican news site.  Use google.   Just cause I proved you wrong on funding don't try and change the subject.

Do you agree with the facts in those articles?

If so, then you agree that Democrats see value in buying FB ads.

If ads on FB don't "sway an election", then why buy them at all?

There's a new FB rule that they won't accept NEW political ads one week from election day.  That impacts the GOP most.  GOP voters are more likely to vote on election day, as Dems are likely to vote at early voting centers and via mail.  That matters, because any ads that are stale or need updating are locked in for that final week which reasonably won't impact people who already voted.

There's no reason to create such a rule other than to interfere in the GOP's campaign.  That's not a money/spending issue.  It's a FB policy issue targeting one major block of voters.

Absolutely nothing wrong with "swaying the election" with money.  Republicans do the same with TV ads.   Money is speech.  Ads need to be vetted, not sure what other reasons facebook has but its their own power to decide.  They are a private company.   That rule effects both sides.

I am not going to list every single republican news site.  Use google.   Just cause I proved you wrong on funding don't try and change the subject.

you made the statement
back it up...

Absolutely nothing wrong with "swaying the election" with money.  Republicans do the same with TV ads.   Money is speech.  Ads need to be vetted, not sure what other reasons facebook has but its their own power to decide.  They are a private company.   That rule effects both sides.

They are a public-private taxpayer subsidized entity.  Far from private.

you made the statement
back it up...

he already obviously proved you wrong. . .