Under increasing pressure to explain the ridiculous notion that it only took $100,000 in Facebook ads from “Russian-linked” buyers (whatever that means), with many ads being pro-Hillary Clinton, to sway the election results against Hillary Clinton, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg finally spoke some sense in liberal left crazy-land, pointing out that “campaigns spent hundreds of millions advertising online” which was “1000x more than any problematic ads we’ve found.”
In other words…the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign spent 1000x more in Facebook ads than the measly $100,000 from accounts that are somehow linked to Russia (now under the scrutiny of the US Congress), and she still lost. Pathetic.
Zuckerberg acknowledged that he has found himself in the uncomfortable position of coming under fire from both the left and the right, each side accusing the platform of “helping” the other side during the US elections.
The Facebook CEO posted a message on his page which will hopefully retire the fake news “Facebook-Russia” nonsense…making it a point to stress that “campaigns spent hundreds of millions advertising online to get their messages out even further. That’s 1000x more than any problematic ads we’ve found.”
Trump says Facebook is against him. Liberals say we helped Trump. Both sides are upset about ideas and content they don’t like. That’s what running a platform for all ideas looks like.Campaigns spent hundreds of millions advertising online to get their messages out even further. That’s 1000x more than any problematic ads we’ve found.
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has responded to a Trump tweet from earlier this morning which suggested that Facebook, among other media outlets, were “always anti-Trump” from the beginning (we noted the Trump tweets here).
In his response, Zuckerberg finally managed to interject some logic into the Left’s latest, and most entertaining “Russian collusion” narrative which continues to allege that $100,000 (one hundred thousand) worth of ad buys on Facebook managed to sway the outcome of the entire U.S. election.
Of course, we made this very point recently by charting how the $50,000 that ‘MAY‘ have been purchased by Russian-linked accounts to run ‘potentially politically related’ ads compared to the roughly $1 billion in political ad revenue that Facebook generated in the U.S. over the same time period…
That said, we’re rather shocked that any Silicon Valley tech billionaire would have the ‘courage’ to prioritize truth over relentlessly toeing a party line whose ultimate purpose is to have a patriotic basis to shut down any media that offends the establishment narrative. Recall that it was one of Obama’s last acts to sign the “Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act” Into law last December. This is just the spectacle for the masses to obtain the needed public support to crack down on the first amendment.
As for Zuckerberg, we imagine that his efforts to spread the truth, rather than a carefully crafted media narrative approved by the Democratic party, will prove to be somewhat troublesome for him and/or his business at some point in the not so distant future, forcing the young CEO to “admit” that Hillary did in fact lose because of the “Russian ads” now that the original Trump collusion story appears dead and burried.
Here is the full post from Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg…
I want to respond to President Trump’s tweet this morning claiming Facebook has always been against him.
Every day I work to bring people together and build a community for everyone. We hope to give all people a voice and create a platform for all ideas.See Also
Trump says Facebook is against him. Liberals say we helped Trump. Both sides are upset about ideas and content they don’t like. That’s what running a platform for all ideas looks like.
The facts suggest the greatest role Facebook played in the 2016 election was different from what most are saying:
– More people had a voice in this election than ever before. There were billions of interactions discussing the issues that may have never happened offline. Every topic was discussed, not just what the media covered.
– This was the first US election where the internet was a primary way candidates communicated. Every candidate had a Facebook page to communicate directly with tens of millions of followers every day.
– Campaigns spent hundreds of millions advertising online to get their messages out even further. That’s 1000x more than any problematic ads we’ve found.
– We ran “get out the vote” efforts that helped as many as 2 million people register to vote. To put that in perspective, that’s bigger than the get out the vote efforts of the Trump and Clinton campaigns put together. That’s a big deal.
After the election, I made a comment that I thought the idea misinformation on Facebook changed the outcome of the election was a crazy idea. Calling that crazy was dismissive and I regret it. This is too important an issue to be dismissive. But the data we have has always shown that our broader impact — from giving people a voice to enabling candidates to communicate directly to helping millions of people vote — played a far bigger role in this election.
We will continue to work to build a community for all people. We will do our part to defend against nation states attempting to spread misinformation and subvert elections. We’ll keep working to ensure the integrity of free and fair elections around the world, and to ensure our community is a platform for all ideas and force for good in democracy.