Skip to comments.Zuckerberg’s power to hurt Trump
Posted on 11/02/2019 7:31:04 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Top Republicans are privately worried about a new threat to President Trumps campaign: the possibility of Facebook pulling a Twitter and banning political ads.
Why it matters: Facebook says it won't, but future regulatory pressure could change that. If Facebook were to ban or even limit ads, it could upend Trumps fundraising and re-election plan, GOP officials tell Axios.
Trump relies heavily much more so than Democrats on targeted Facebook ads to shape views and raise money. Red flag: Kara Swisher, of Recode, the super plugged-in tech writer, predicted on CNBC's "Squawk Box" that Mark Zuckerberg will ultimately buckle on allowing demonstrably false political adds on Facebook: "He's going to change his mind 100% ... [H]e's done it before."
Twitter this week announced a ban on political and advocacy ads. ("Platforms give pols a free pass to lie," by Scott Rosenberg)
Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale ridiculed the decision ("yet another attempt by the left to silence Trump and conservatives"), signaling the wicked backlash that would hit Zuckerberg.
(Excerpt) Read more at axios.com ...
This would be totally illegal. It would be a violation of free speech rights AND election interference.
Of course we know that this will happen.
This is how the Left plans to negate Trump’s YUGE money advantage.
The Clinton Crime Family has been making veiled threats to him the last couple days. He isn’t going to risk ending up like Epstein.
Well dems are right now conducting super double secret meeting with those who they want to use to destroy Trump with.
After the whole mueller thing.
So illegal isn’t a problem with them.
True Americans who love their country elected Trump. Not Twitter. Trumps people could this web site, couldn’t they?
Facebook ads are bad idea for anybody. Political campaigns especially but for any corporate entity.
You can COMMENT on ads and don’t even have to subscribe to the sponsor’s page to do so. So there are a lot of negative comments and angry or sad emojis associated with the ads from some sponsors.
Also you can block all ads from a specific sponsor (so you paid for the exposure and going forward all of your content will be blocked from someone you were trying to reach).
Any reaction dramatically increases the reach of each ad as that reaction would go over the entire newsfeed of each person that does it - allowing countless thousands of additional people to see the ad.
How do you think he got his message to these people in order to go around the traditional media and search engines that are biased against him?
There were numerous articles detailing how Trump had a huge social media advantage to reach his supporters and how this was putting the Dems at a huge disadvantage. So Twitter pulled the plug, and now the Democrats are putting enormous pressure on Zuckerberg to do the same with Facebook. They are trying to take this away from him so they can be in control of the message.
You have to pay for that exposure. A $5 ad buy isn’t going to get as many people as a $50 ad buy.
Postings go viral. Ads only report back the level of interaction but don’t go viral without a bigger ad buy.
Yeah, as someone that has purchased ads for an organization I can tell you that is not true.
When the liberal press couldn’t overcome Rush Limbaugh, they gave him the silent mode. It’s logical they would do the same to Trump.
Let me expand on that last post.
It is correct that more people will in fact see a $50.00 ad vs. a $5.00 ad organically from the paid spots appearing on Facebook newsfeeds, but appearances of the same ad posting appearing on other newsfeeds as a result of people liking, sharing, commenting, etc. do not result in additional charges or cause your ad by to be wiped out by those views from the others doing that.
“Trumps people could this web site, couldnt they?” What does that mean?
It is correct that more people will in fact see a $50.00 ad vs. a $5.00 ad organically from the paid spots appearing on Facebook newsfeeds, but appearances of the same ad posting appearing on other newsfeeds as a result of people liking, sharing, commenting, etc. do not result in additional charges or cause your ad by to be wiped out buy those views from the others doing that.
Eliminate ‘sharing” and your ad doesn’t trend the same.
And angry isn’t a positive response to an ad.
You know they would like to do that.
I meant to ask Trump re-election team could come here and post, couldn’t they?
He has RALLIES. That's the biggest advertising there is, simply rent out an arena and have the media report on it.
No Trump supporter is going to be swayed by Democrat ads in the MSM that they don't watch anyway.
If Twitter and Facebook want to pass up millions of dollars in advertising, that's their own damn fault. It's a stupid decision and more butt-hurt from the Dems because the DNC is deep in debt and can't compete with Trump on fundraising.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.