Note: the data behind this came from NYU's Ad Observatory project which Facebook is trying to shutdown[0].<p>[0] <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24909056" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24909056</a>
Conclusion from the linked analysis:<p>> We found Biden, on average, paid more for his ads than Trump did. Facebook says that pricing for ads varies based on parameters set by the advertiser and Facebook’s instant auctions system. The company has also said in the past that it subsidizes ads that its algorithms view as more engaging. Without greater transparency as to how Facebook prices ads, we cannot say conclusively why the difference in prices charged to the presidential campaigns occurred.<p>I’m trying to connect this with a point made in the article, itself:<p>> The sort of differential pricing for political advertising that The Markup found would be illegal or unconventional in other media. Federal laws require TV stations to charge candidates the same price—the lowest that they charge any advertiser—for ads. Some states forbid newspaper publishers to charge one candidate a higher price.<p>But what happens if candidate 1 chose prime time slots and candidate 2 did not...seems unlikely they would be charged the same price. The analysis also says<p>> Facebook does not disclose in its ad library one key piece of information: whom the ads were targeted at using its audience microtargeting tools. Nor does it disclose a campaign’s “objective”—whether it’s just getting its ads in front of the voters, or other goals like raising money, gathering email addresses, or getting users to watch a video all the way through.<p>So: “Biden paid more and we don’t have enough info to say why, let alone whether this is somehow unfair.” Is that it?