> Some of Mr. Goldman’s claims may have been narrowly true, but they were a prime example of misdirection
> Why should it reassure us that most of Russia’s Facebook advertising was purchased after the election, rather than telling us that Facebook continued to drop the ball even after it knew it had a Russia problem?
The Times is admitting the tweets weren't wrong. The Times is criticizing Facebook's actions because they disrupted their preferred narrative of the election.
I haven’t read anything that would lead me to believe the tweets are misleading in the slightest. The clumsy NYT “Fact Check” least of all.
In November CNN reported the IRA spent $100,000 on promoting content of FB. That’s compared to $81 million spent by the campaigns.
Anyone who has actually used FB as an ad platform knows exactly how relevant the IRA was to Trump winning the election. But when the facts don’t fit the narrative, what are they to do?
> Some of Mr. Goldman’s claims may have been narrowly true, but they were a prime example of misdirection
> Why should it reassure us that most of Russia’s Facebook advertising was purchased after the election, rather than telling us that Facebook continued to drop the ball even after it knew it had a Russia problem?
The Times is admitting the tweets weren't wrong. The Times is criticizing Facebook's actions because they disrupted their preferred narrative of the election.