Poor Mark Zuckerberg

[fsu1jreed]

It had a YUGE effect. - $100,000/$2,600,000,000 = 0.004%

Not sure why putting up money spent somehow discounts any possible affect from fake facebook stories put up by Russians.......I would think the number of views, shares, etc. would be a more relevant stat to try and determine any possible influence. I agree with @kc78 that to think that it didn't affect votes is completely crazy, I also had a few friends that said they were on the fence get duped by known fake articles. Let's not forget, this was the first election in which more people were voting AGAINST the other person, rather than voting FOR their person (and this was in September, so in all reality these numbers went up)........and it was far more prevalent among those voting for Trump (53% voting against Clinton/46% voting for Trump).

With that said, I think it would be impossible to determine if any of that actually changed the election results.......there's far too many unknown variables.

 

[OrlandNole]

Not sure why putting up money spent somehow discounts any possible affect from fake facebook stories put up by Russians.......I would think the number of views, shares, etc. would be a more relevant stat to try and determine any possible influence. I agree with @kc78 that to think that it didn't affect votes is completely crazy, I also had a few friends that said they were on the fence get duped by known fake articles. Let's not forget, this was the first election in which more people were voting AGAINST the other person, rather than voting FOR their person (and this was in September, so in all reality these numbers went up)........and it was far more prevalent among those voting for Trump (53% voting against Clinton/46% voting for Trump).

With that said, I think it would be impossible to determine if any of that actually changed the election results.......there's far too many unknown variables.

I think what the OP is trying to demonstrate is the relative impact - That $100K investment was a tiny fraction of the $2.6 billion spent, yet the impact was so much greater.

 

[seminole97]

I think what the OP is trying to demonstrate is the relative impact - That $100K investment was a tiny fraction of the $2.6 billion spent, yet the impact was so much greater.

I think the Trump campaign did a good job leveraging those platforms as well to raise and suppress turnout, no different than past advertising efforts except in their ability to monitor, gauge, and respond to feedback.
When the Obama team leveraged these tools everyone raved about the data whiz kids. I think Trump’s campaign spending on these same platforms far outweighed foreign efforts to stir domestic discontent.
Everyone is going to be trying to do this next time.
The hysteria about Russia is more domestic politics to try and invalidate and discredit an unpalatable election result.
I’m not surprised more people voted against a candidate than for a candidate last time. War mongering just doesn’t hold up as well on the resume anymore, and I’m ok with that.

 

[ReliableOstrich]

Politics aside (to keep this from getting locked)...

The question is how FB rebounds and reacts to their various issues, not the least of which is their platform being used to sow discord and spread misinformation. User privacy concerns being the other.

Daily actives have dropped as has time on site. As someone else mentioned, they're lucky they bought Instagram but they'll struggle to transfer their revenues from that app without demolishing the user experience and quality of posts there as well.

 

[noleit]

18 billion! Normally you could say sux to be him, but in his case.....

 

[RTM58]

Not sure why putting up money spent somehow discounts any possible affect from fake facebook stories put up by Russians.......I would think the number of views, shares, etc. would be a more relevant stat to try and determine any possible influence. I agree with @kc78 that to think that it didn't affect votes is completely crazy, I also had a few friends that said they were on the fence get duped by known fake articles. Let's not forget, this was the first election in which more people were voting AGAINST the other person, rather than voting FOR their person (and this was in September, so in all reality these numbers went up)........and it was far more prevalent among those voting for Trump (53% voting against Clinton/46% voting for Trump).

With that said, I think it would be impossible to determine if any of that actually changed the election results.......there's far too many unknown variables.

I assume it affected it about 0.004%, so I agree with you. The linked article neither state nor implies that this is the first election in which more people were voting AGAINST the other person, rather than voting FOR their person. Given the candidates I am not shocked more people voted against than for. They are two polarizing celebs.

FB is still vile.Zuckerberg can't fall fast or far enough.

 

[fsu1jreed]

The linked article neither state nor implies that this is the first election in which more people were voting AGAINST the other person, rather than voting FOR their person. Given the candidates I am not shocked more people voted against than for. They are two polarizing celebs.

I read that a month or so after the election, but could not find said article (can't remember if it was from Pew or not)........but that's what it stated. In that article, it said that every election prior that they had data for (which went back to 1980, IIRC), a slight majority on both sides always voted for one person, instead of against the other person. But with 2016, a majority on BOTH sides had voted against the other person. I wish I could find, but I looked and looked.