Once upon a time manipulating people's opinions during an election-campaign was considered an outright No-No. Now, on the Internet, it helps elect presidents. See here: Inside Trump's Facebook Campaign - excerpt: A word to the wise is usually sufficient ...
Meanwhile, Twitter is flagging politician’s tweets with “harmfully misleading” badges that are bright orange. Orange badge bad. Do we want Twitter deciding what is true, or do we want a hands-off approach like Facebook is claiming to do?
One must be amazingly blind not to see Facebook for what it is. A giantly successful website that brings people together (typically within a specific language). When Donald Dork invited Mark Zuckerberg to the White House for dinner, it seemed that there was something "going on". And what is going on is fairly obvious; the Dork wanted the Duckling to help him get re-elected. Anything more complex than that simple statement is purely beyond the machinations of America's present PotUS. The point being that this president has stimulated a very considerable amount of dislike for himself - and yet, yes, admittedly, he could still get reelected. That is, sadly, the nature of politics today - people think that because he is rich he must be intelligent presidential material. When he has demonstrated clearly how incompetent he actually is! But, YOU-PLURAL, love him because the economy is doing well - and he did nothing whatsoever to accomplish that fact. The economy started creating jobs in Obama's administration! And if you-plural don't believe that, then look at this Bureau of Labor Statistics graphic here. See what happened between October 2013 and January 2014! The Employment-to-population Ratio flipped upward! Note that the first uptick mentioned in the linked infographic of the E-to-p Ratio continues on further into 2014. Where was Donald Dork in 2014? Playing golf in Florida wondering what the hell he should do next in his boring retirement! The presidency has become his favorite hobby-horse when he's not watching Fox News ...
Yes, Trump started it. No politician ever thought of campaign advertising before. Sheesh! Now they're all going to be doing it.
If political campaigns aren't attempts to manipulate opinions, then what on earth are they? By the way, your post was an attempt to manipulate opinions.
Click your brain "on". That was not what I meant by that remark. And you have obviously not read the article mentioned, and haven't the slightest notion of what happens on FACEBOOK. Campaign Advertising is NOT the subject. For your edification: One year inside Trump's monumental Facebook campaign - excerpt: The American voter, hooked on Facebook is being manipulated. And the manipulation worked so well that Facebook owner, Mark Zukerberg, was invited for supper with Donald Dork at the White House ... Of course, the next time around, Facebook will offer the same services to both contenders for the presidency. Now, somebody/anybody, please explain how TV campaign-advertising plays are role in any presidential election. It's like selling dishwasher powder? "Mine washes whiter than yours!"
Democrats/neo-commies want to use election interference (Facebook ads/memes Democrats/neo-communist don't like) as an excuse to impose Chinese Democrat/neo-communist style censorship on Americans. Democrats/neo-commies will crush the internet as we know it if they come back to power.
Yes, I see these "ads" but we need a new word than "impressions", and "views" because if I'm viewing a movie, or listening to music on Youtube(my favorite hobby), believe me on this: I'm not interested in or thinking about politics at the moment. In fact, I made a post because I was angry that Bloomberg was intervening in my favorite pastime. Just because *something exists* doesn't mean that the something is impactful. Do you know why companies SPAM commercials? Because you're not going to get the buyer on the first, second or even TENTH time. Especially if you use a social networking site like Facebook as a medium. Politics has the worst retention rate for consumerism imaginable, because the consumption of politics is entirely by choice. So they could be spending a gazillion dollars on ads. I can assure you from a practical business sense and human psychological sense they're not getting a gazillion worth, or even 1/50th of that value.
