Honestly, I don't understand the point of this article. It says Facebook is probably influential (provides no data), says something about data leaks (doesn't tie into the thesis of the piece) and says that Democrats outspend Republicans 3-1 on FB ads (guess we'll see if that's successful on Weds).
It amazes me that so much ink is spilled over Facebook ads. It really seems like scapegoating from people who's candidate lost as I have serious doubts that FB advertising is effective at all and no data pointing to that conclusion is ever demonstrated.
I know a lot of people here have experience with digital advertising (as do I); it's basically a scam. It's not effective and it's certainly not turning any elections around.
Honestly, I don't understand the point of this article. It says Facebook is probably influential (provides no data), says something about data leaks (doesn't tie into the thesis of the piece) and says that Democrats outspend Republicans 3-1 on FB ads (guess we'll see if that's successful on Weds).
It amazes me that so much ink is spilled over Facebook ads. It really seems like scapegoating from people who's candidate lost as I have serious doubts that FB advertising is effective at all and no data pointing to that conclusion is ever demonstrated.
I know a lot of people here have experience with digital advertising (as do I); it's basically a scam. It's not effective and it's certainly not turning any elections around.