![](\"https:\/\/cdni.rt.com\/files\/2018.02\/thumbnail\/5a95438bdda4c87d268b459d.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Hillary Clinton has a new target to blame for her losing the 2016 presidential election and, surprisingly, this time it’s not the Russians. According to the Democrat, Facebook is behind her failure to win the White House. <\/p>\n
The crux of the argument is that Facebook charged the Trump campaign team less for advertising on the platform and therefore seemed to favor his candidacy. However, this is exactly how Facebook \u2013 a commercial enterprise \u2013 works: the more impressions, clicks, interactions, shares and comments a post generates, the less Facebook relatively charges the advertiser to reach people. And this is where the Trump campaign succeeded.<\/p>\n
READ MORE: Everyone\u2019s fault but hers: Media reviews Hillary Clinton\u2019s \u2018What Happened\u2019<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n Simply put, team Hillary was not as social media savvy as team Trump and was therefore charged more for advertising on the platform. Former Facebook advertising staffer Antonio Garc\u00eda Mart\u00ednez explained<\/a> it all in a February 23 article for Wired entitled \u2018How Trump Conquered Facebook \u2013 Without Russian Ads.\u2019<\/p>\n \u201cDuring the run-up to the election, the Trump and Clinton campaigns bid ruthlessly for the same online real estate in front of the same swing-state voters,\u201d Martinez writes. \u201cBut because Trump used provocative content to stoke social-media buzz, and he was better able to drive likes, comments, and shares than Clinton, his bids received a boost from Facebook\u2019s click model, effectively winning him more media for less money.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n Following publication of the Wired piece, Trump campaign advisor Brad Parscale tweeted to corroborate. He maintained that, due to Facebook\u2019s cost effectiveness metrics, Trump posts were highly successful on the platform compared to Clinton\u2019s.<\/p>\n I bet we were 100x to 200x her. We had CPMs that were pennies in some cases. This is why @realDonaldTrump<\/a> was a perfect candidate for FaceBook.<\/p>\n \u2014 Brad Parscale (@parscale) February 24, 2018<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n According to Facebook, Cost Per 1,000 Impressions or CPM<\/a> is \u201ca common metric used by the online advertising industry to gauge the cost-effectiveness of an ad campaign. It’s often used to compare performance among different ad publishers and campaigns.\u201d<\/em> \u00a0<\/p>\n READ MORE: Book tour karma? Clinton compares \u2018Russian meddling\u2019 to 9\/11, falls & breaks toe<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n I can\u2019t believe this tweet isn\u2019t going viral. Do people not really care that Facebook may have systematically charged the Clinton campaign an order of magnitude or two more than it was charging Trump to reach American voters? (Which is not allowed in other mediums by law.) https:\/\/t.co\/S2OgxfgcGq<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 Kim-Mai Cutler (@kimmaicutler) February 25, 2018<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n We should all care about how social media platforms play a part in our democratic process. Because unless it\u2019s addressed it will happen again. The midterms are in 8 months. We owe it to our democracy to get this right, and fast. https:\/\/t.co\/aM3pRrZW4J<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n