[HillaryBriss]

If Clinton had won, FB would have avoided this scrutiny.

The lesson FB execs are learning is that FB must filter all of its content very carefully so that the electorate is nudged more forcefully toward the correct candidate. Either that, or, more likely, just keep doing whatever makes the most money.

[ggggtez]

Considering the fact that the Times reports that the reason FB had been keeping this stuff secret is because worry of congressional oversight, I think your analysis about Clinton is overly reductionist and factually inaccurate.

In general you should always start with "more money" as your first assumption, not the backup. They don't want to be regulated, that's all.

[HillaryBriss]

but we should remember the earlier context. in the days before the election, some focused on how much power Facebook actually had in an election:

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/04/how-f...

but very few serious analysts thought Trump would actually win.

so, Trump's 2016 electoral victory was not just surprising. it was positively shocking, especially to people in the media. the most reliable predictors and conventional wisdom strongly favored Clinton. Trump's campaign was basically a bad joke. so, when he won, we needed to explain it, to understand it, and, yes, to blame someone for it.

journalists continued to focus on Facebook as an explanation right after the election:

https://www.wired.com/2016/11/facebook-won-trump-election-no...

imho, it's reasonable to think that calls for increased scrutiny of FB were amplified and multiplied because of Trump's victory to a far greater extent than would have happened had Clinton won. our explanatory framework expected her victory. if that framework failed, there must be some new factor that confused it.