News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Facebook reverses on paid influencers after Bloomberg memes. Parent comment

Re:Facebook reverses on paid influencers after Bloomberg memes by ksdale on Friday February 14, 2020 @03:18PM (#22329981)
Also, corporations spend surprisingly little, like, a rounding error compared to how much they could spend.

And there's a cynical response that they are gaining influence in other ways, but it's not like we usually model corporations as agents of great restraint, so why wouldn't they also do way more political spending?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Facebook reverses on paid influencers after Bloomberg memes by icebraining on Saturday February 15, 2020 @04:32AM (#22334242)
Why would they spend more? They're already getting the outcomes they want.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Facebook reverses on paid influencers after Bloomberg memes by ksdale on Saturday February 15, 2020 @04:05PM (#22337962)
Why do they lobby as much as they do if they’re getting everything they want?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Facebook reverses on paid influencers after Bloomberg memes by icebraining on Saturday February 15, 2020 @06:03PM (#22338648)
They are getting what they want because they lobby as much as they do, not in spite of them.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Facebook reverses on paid influencers after Bloomberg memes by ksdale on Monday February 17, 2020 @02:26PM (#22349928)
That sounds like a just so story to me, though. They could spend way more on lobbying, and get more - more subsidies, more tax incentives, etc. but they don't. It seems very unlikely to me that they get everything they could possibly want for such a tiny fraction of what they could spend, given that most everything at the Fortune 500 level is a race to the bottom.
[ Parent | on HN ]