Let's be real, the folks that should be providing transparency are the candidates and their sopprting organizations. These are the same folks that turn a blind I to where contributions to their campaigns come from. Be real and go after the candidates.
There once was a social media crackhead.
Who couldn't go a day without his threads.
The liberals, they said was social media's deception-
Yet not so grand was the overall reception-
Because everyone is addicted to the mental constipation.
Solid reporting Eli. Keep up the pressure. The big picture view is of a Social Media Giant that really has no idea, control or regard for their "product,: they just want to sell ads and make money. The consequences and effects of said "product" are, frankly, unknown. Jim Carry's comments today tie in nicely with trying to hold this behemoth accountable to the people consuming its "product," whatever it is,,,

"Jim Carrey tweeted on Tuesday he was selling his Facebook stock and deleting his page because the company profited from Russian interference during the 2016 U.S. election.
"What we need now are activist investors to send a message that responsible oversight is needed," Carrey said to CNBC in a statement."


And my comment to those who are bitching and whining and moaning like spoiled brats about Eli covering "one story!!!", and to those who may have just arrived in The Rattle, On Monday, April 16, Eli Sanders won a Pulitzer Prize for "The Bravest Woman in Seattle," a feature published in the June 15, 2011, issue of The Stranger.

A fucking Pulitzer.!

What, you would have bitched about that Woodward guy always covers that Watergate thing....that's what the whining suggests to in depth story requires depth,,,

Fight the fight, Eli, and then get up and fight some more,,,

"In fact, the total amount spent on Facebook ads by these campaigns may be considerably higher because of the way certain campaigns and IEs reported their digital ad spending."

Which also explains why the amount reported by the campaigns and what shows on the Facebook spreadsheet differ.

The campaigns may have, according to Eli's CrackerJack reporting, reported their digital ad spending in 'ways' that cause it not to correspond to Facebooks spreadsheets.
Purchased under multiple accounts etc etc.

Facebook searches their data plugging in the campaigns and gets the results reported.
Give them the other account names under which ads were purchased and their spreadsheets will give you different results.

Eli seems to think he is on to some conspiracy by Facebook, when, as he has already reported, the culprit is shitty haphazard record keeping by the campaigns.

Why, praytell, would Facebook give a shit about the piddling amount of ads bought for the Seattle campaigns, or waste two seconds hiding any purchases?

What exactly would be in it for them?

What, Eli, is your theory on what exactly the crime here is?
Interesting data and presentation, Eli! Thanks for the solid reporting.

@4: On the issue of Independent Expenditures vs. campaigns:

There was no IE spending money to buy Facebook ads for City Attorney Pete Holmes in 2017.

Facebook reported on its spreadsheet that Holmes spent $19,606 on Facebook ads in 2017.

In fact, the Holmes campaign itself reported spending $43,429 on Facebook ads in 2017.

That's a $23,823 discrepancy—with no IE involved.

Seattle's law is pretty straightforward. Information on local political ads needs to be disclosed by Facebook upon request.

Whatever may be causing it, inaccurate disclosure is a problem.

Zuck's photo spurred an imagined headline: "Hospitalized for Depression". Prescience?

The headline says "Why Facebook's Disclosure to the City of Seattle Doesn't Add Up"

Fortuitously, the answer is right there in the story; although Eli seems not to realize it.

"in fact, the total amount spent on Facebook ads by these campaigns may be considerably higher because of the way certain campaigns and IEs reported their digital ad spending."

It is not a Facebook story.
True, spinning it as a case of giant sinister Facebook thwarting democracy sells more clicks, and gets that craved attention of the national media; but it is sensationalism, not journalism.

The headline should read
"Local campaigns haphazard in reporting advertising expenditures"

Again, from the post;
"That is, digital ad buys that are reported in campaign disclosure filings as simply "digital advertising" or "digital ads: Facebook, Google, YouTube."
Really, Cary?

Again; why would Facebook hide anything?
What is in it for them?

Perhaps The Stranger can show Facebook the way by publishing their disclosures.

Be sure it includes free media articles and posts by staff pushing their favorite candidates, and smear pieces attacking those not in their favor.
Seattle voters have a right to know what free political ads Seattle's Only Newspaper is handing out.
Between James John, the obvious Facebook employee/plant/shill, and yetrybrad, the diarrheaic swedish clothing bot, this thread has gotten ill.
And i mean that in the original sense.
How do the TV stations do at parsing out independent expenditures? As always, surely Facebook can achieve what KOMO can.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.