{"id":2340,"date":"2021-12-02T16:52:19","date_gmt":"2021-12-02T15:52:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/monblogeur.tech\/index.php\/2021\/12\/02\/what-the-facebook-papers-reveal-about-the-social-networks-advertising-business-forbes\/"},"modified":"2021-12-02T16:52:19","modified_gmt":"2021-12-02T15:52:19","slug":"what-the-facebook-papers-reveal-about-the-social-networks-advertising-business-forbes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/monblogeur.tech\/index.php\/2021\/12\/02\/what-the-facebook-papers-reveal-about-the-social-networks-advertising-business-forbes\/","title":{"rendered":"What The &#039;Facebook Papers&#039; Reveal About The Social Network&#039;s Advertising Business &#8211; Forbes"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"cfbc967f0983488262956e73eca9483a\" data-index=\"1\" style=\"float: none; margin:10px 0 10px 0; text-align:center;\">\n<script async src=\"https:\/\/pagead2.googlesyndication.com\/pagead\/js\/adsbygoogle.js?client=ca-pub-3859091246952232\" crossorigin=\"anonymous\"><\/script>\r\n<!-- blok -->\r\n<ins class=\"adsbygoogle\" data-ad-client=\"ca-pub-3859091246952232\" data-ad-slot=\"1334354390\"><\/ins>\r\n<script>\r\n     (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});\r\n<\/script>\r\n\n<\/div>\n<p>The Facebook logo is seen printed on print paper in this photo illustration from March 2021.<br \/>The \u201cFacebook Papers\u201d have been revelatory when it comes to how the company formerly known as Facebook deals with content moderation and a wide variety of other issues. However, they also shed light on the social network\u2019s advertising business and how users respond to the ads they see. The thousands of pages of internal documents gathered and released by whistle-blower Frances Haugen provide myriad examples of how Facebook\u2014which <a href=\"https:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/martyswant\/2021\/11\/03\/with-facebook-becoming-meta-chief-marketing-officer-alex-schultz-says-were-not-running-from-anything\/?sh=16b5411956be\" target=\"_self\" class=\"color-link\" title=\"https:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/martyswant\/2021\/11\/03\/with-facebook-becoming-meta-chief-marketing-officer-alex-schultz-says-were-not-running-from-anything\/?sh=16b5411956be\" data-ga-track=\"InternalLink:https:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/martyswant\/2021\/11\/03\/with-facebook-becoming-meta-chief-marketing-officer-alex-schultz-says-were-not-running-from-anything\/?sh=16b5411956be\" aria-label=\"rebranded itself as Meta last month\" rel=\"noopener\">rebranded itself as Meta last month<\/a>\u2014and its subsidiaries develop ideas, roll out products and research users.<br \/><span style=\"background-color: inherit;\">Much attention has focused on explosive details about how Facebook deals with misinformation and the impact of its content on <\/span>mental health, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/abrambrown\/2021\/10\/26\/instagram-considered-promoting-funny-memes-nature-photos-to-combat-body-image-problems\/?sh=249c81d04c99\" target=\"_self\" class=\"color-link\" title=\"https:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/abrambrown\/2021\/10\/26\/instagram-considered-promoting-funny-memes-nature-photos-to-combat-body-image-problems\/?sh=249c81d04c99\" data-ga-track=\"InternalLink:https:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/abrambrown\/2021\/10\/26\/instagram-considered-promoting-funny-memes-nature-photos-to-combat-body-image-problems\/?sh=249c81d04c99\" aria-label=\"body image\" rel=\"noopener\">body image<\/a> and political perceptions, which prove to be especially <a href=\"https:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/abrambrown\/2021\/10\/27\/facebook-can-be-toxic-for-female-politicians-company-documents-show\/?sh=3a2cae545020\" target=\"_self\" class=\"color-link\" title=\"https:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/abrambrown\/2021\/10\/27\/facebook-can-be-toxic-for-female-politicians-company-documents-show\/?sh=3a2cae545020\" data-ga-track=\"InternalLink:https:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/abrambrown\/2021\/10\/27\/facebook-can-be-toxic-for-female-politicians-company-documents-show\/?sh=3a2cae545020\" aria-label=\"toxic for female politicians\" rel=\"noopener\">toxic for female politicians<\/a>. But <span style=\"background-color: inherit;\">documents also offer fascinating glimpses into Facebook\u2019s ad products, how they\u2019re perceived by users and marketers, and how the social network\u2019s employees have sought to deal with a range of concerns.<\/span><br \/>One document from February 2016 raises questions about the impact of Facebook\u2019s reaction emojis, which debuted earlier the same year. A post written by an unnamed Facebook employee detailed feedback from an advertising client at Joyable, the mental health services company, who asked that the \u201cangry\u201d emoji be removed from their ads. (The document also revealed that Joyable was spending $2,500 per day on Facebook ads and nearly $1 million a year.) Although just 5 of the 75 emoji reactions were \u201cangry\u201d on the Joyable ad\u2014which included the text: \u201cIn 5 minutes, you could start overcoming social anxiety\u201d\u2014that was 5 \u201cangry\u201ds too many. The client complained to the Facebook employee, explaining, \u201cIt\u2019s bad for our brand to have people publicly panning our ads on Facebook\u201d and that \u201cI\u2019m sure it\u2019s bad for our ROI also.\u201d&nbsp;<br \/>\u201cThis is a particular problem for us because mental health is polarizing,\u201d according to the comment from the Joyable rep to the Facebook employee. \u201cIt\u2019s already a headwind for us to advertise on Facebook because of comments like \u2018Social anxiety isn\u2019t real,\u2019 \u2018Take your head out of your phone,\u2019 or \u2018Just drink alcohol.\u2019 This is making it much worse.\u201d<br \/>A screenshot from the internal Facebook documents revealed by whistle-blower Frances Haugen shows how employees discussed a mental health startup\u2019s frustration with angry emojis showing up in response to an ad.<br \/>The revelations come from the hundreds of documents provided by Haugen to the Securities and Exchange Commission, which were also provided to Congress in redacted form by her legal team. Redacted versions received by Congress were obtained by news organizations last month, including&nbsp;<em>Forbes<\/em>.<br \/>While speaking to British Parliament last month, Haugen said that serving up \u201chateful, angry, divisive\u201d ads was cheaper than other kinds of ads. She added that Facebook\u2019s ads were priced partially on the probability that users would interact with them.<br \/>\u201cWe have seen over and over again in Facebook\u2019s research, it is easier to provoke people to anger than to empathy or compassion, and so we are literally subsidizing hate on these platforms.\u201d <br \/>\u201cIt is cheaper, substantially, to run an angry, hateful, divisive ad than it is to run a compassionate, empathetic ad,\u201d Haugen said. \u201cAnd I think there is a need for things even discussing disclosures of what rates people are paying for ads, having full transparency on the ad stream and understanding what are those biases that come and how ads are targeted.\u201d<br \/>The Facebook Papers have already prompted at least a few brands to pull their advertising. Earlier this month, the egg-and-butter producer Vital Farms announced plans to pause all paid advertising on Facebook and Instagram \u201cuntil we are confident that the content on their platforms is managed responsibly and not intentionally posing harm,\u201d explaining that it\u2019s \u201cour small part to move a big conversation forward.\u201d<br \/>Last week, Lush went a step further by deleting all of its social media accounts\u2014going beyond Meta properties and also shutting down thousands of accounts across Snapchat and TikTok. The British cosmetics giant explained that it \u201cwouldn\u2019t ask our customers to meet us down a dark and dangerous alleyway\u201d and called on regulators to pass laws to protect customers from \u201cthe harm and manipulation they may experience whilst trying to connect with us on social media.\u201d<br \/>\u201cI\u2019ve spent all my life avoiding putting harmful ingredients in my products,\u201d Lush cofounder and CEO Mark Constantine said in a statement. \u201cThere is now overwhelming evidence we are being put at risk when using social media. I\u2019m not willing to expose my customers to this harm, so it\u2019s time to take it out of the mix.\u201d<br \/>Perhaps one of the biggest revelations about Facebook\u2019s advertising business has been how it\u2019s handled politics. Even before the November 2020 election, political ads have been perceived as unappealing. Internal Facebook documents from March 2020 found that users who were flooded with political ads were less happy with their experience on the platform\u2014and just as likely to close out of them as they would close out of nonpolitical ads. When comparing users\u2019 negative reactions to political ads with negative reactions to nonpolitical ads, Facebook researchers said users closed out of \u201csexually suggestive\u201d or \u201cscammy ads\u201d at similar rates to that of political ads.<br \/>In the report\u2014titled \u201cHow do political ads impact user sentiment towards FB ads?\u201d\u2014researchers found that political ad impressions accounted for more than 8% of what one tenth of users saw in their feeds during the first two months of last year. Facebook\u2019s research found that when political ads made up more than 10% of users\u2019 news feeds, they reported being \u201csomewhat or very dissatisfied\u201d at a rate 1.3 times higher than those whose feeds were made up of 0% to 1% of political ads. In fact, users with high exposure rates to political ads were \u201csignificantly more likely to be dissatisfied with their Facebook ads experience.\u201d<br \/>The findings also shed light on why people are so bothered by the ads. For example, some users had negative reactions to ads they perceived as \u201cmisleading, offensive or fake news content.\u201d Other respondents said they didn\u2019t like ads that they felt contained a \u201csensitive topic\u201d or didn\u2019t match their own political affiliation. (However, Facebook\u2019s researchers said affiliation mismatch didn\u2019t fully explain most of the ads that people closed.)<br \/>A survey of 3.6 million Facebook users conducted by the company earlier this year found that 30% of young adults in the U.S. reported \u201cseeing too many ads.\u201d <br \/>Facebook\u2019s research also found that users weren\u2019t very likely to see ads from opposing viewpoints. In fact, conservative users saw less than 2% of ads from primarily liberal audiences and around 10% from Democrat civic graph pages. Meanwhile, liberal users saw \u201calmost no ads\u201d from Republican civic graph pages and less than 5% from primarily conservative audience pages. (The most likely ads to be x-outs were pages affiliated with moderates.) Researchers also suggested fixing the issue by having Facebook more prominently display to users how to change their ad preferences while also limiting overall ad loads of political ads.&nbsp;<br \/>Facebook\u2019s internal research about user sentiment toward political ads also shows how often people close out of various types of nonpolitical ads.<br \/>In a separate report titled \u201cEffects of Turning Off Political Ads,\u201d dated August 25, 2020, the author wrote that users saw \u201cslightly less civic content\u201d after political ads were turned off for two weeks. However, researchers found that clicks on civic content stayed about the same even while they saw more content from Groups instead of Pages. <br \/>Documents also show how Facebook has struggled with political ad transparency. In a post from November 9, 2018, a Facebook employee explained that there was \u201cnothing we could do\u201d when it came to some aspects of properly labeling advertisers or preventing manipulative actors. For example, the company found out that a Facebook Page associated with a cluster of right-wing Pages had bought ads appearing to support liberal causes without being labeled as being bought by advertisers with conversation ties. The tactics\u2014known as astroturfing\u2014is something Facebook has associated with voter suppression.<br \/>Over the past few years, Meta has taken additional steps to improve transparency of political ads and more accurately authenticate them. In 2019, the company began requiring political advertisers to provide more information about their organizations before ads could run. In 2020, it began preventing new ads on social issues, elections and politics from running between October 27 and November 3.<br \/>\u201cSince the 2018 midterms, we have strengthened our policies related to election interference and political ad transparency,\u201d a Meta spokesperson said in an emailed statement to <em>Forbes<\/em>. \u201cWe continue working to make political advertising more transparent on our platform and we welcome updated regulations and help from policymakers as we evolve our policies in this space.\u201d<br \/>Other leaked internal files in the Facebook Papers detail Facebook\u2019s war against vaccine and QAnon misinformation during the Covid-19 crisis across ads, posts and comments. For example, a document from March 2021 uses an analogy of a rock thrown into a pond to describe how misinformation spreads, where the rock is \u201cbad content entering our system\u201d and the ripples are how the social network responds. While the company has sought to \u201cstop as many rocks from being thrown,\u201d \u201cmute the ripples\u201d and \u201cfill the void with good content and conversations,\u201d the document explains there\u2019s more to do with mitigating misinformation across ad frame, video ad breaks and instant articles. (Facebook has also considered using vaccine hesitancy content as a possible case study for harsher enforcements against foreign ad farms.)<br \/>\u201cThe fact remains that anything near and dear to people\u2019s hearts, such as their health, people will exploit for profit, and authoritative info sells less well than fear,\u201d according to the document.<br \/>An internal Facebook document dated March 16 explains how the company was working to mitigate vaccine misinformation.<\/p>\n<p>Revelations from the Facebook Papers have also given politicians around the world more fodder for investigating Meta on a number of fronts. While Haugen has already testified in front of Congress, members of the U.S. Senate will speak with Adam Mosseri\u2014the head of Meta-owned Instagram\u2014on December 6 as part of a series of hearings about how to protect children online. (Meta\u2019s head of safety, Antigone Davis, also met with lawmakers back in September and disagreed with allegations that the company\u2019s platforms are harmful for teens.) Meanwhile, lawmakers in the U.S. House and Senate are considering several pieces of legislation related to data privacy and antitrust.<br \/>European Union leaders have also cited the Facebook Papers as another reason to move forward with a proposal to regulate Big Tech\u2019s political advertising and other parts of business. Earlier this month at the Web Summit tech conference in Lisbon, V\u011bra Jourov\u00e1, European Commission vice president for values and transparency, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/martyswant\/2021\/11\/02\/european-union-lawmaker-says-whistleblowers-highlight-the-need-for-regulating-online-political-advertising\/?sh=233419f431e3\" target=\"_self\" class=\"color-link\" title=\"https:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/martyswant\/2021\/11\/02\/european-union-lawmaker-says-whistleblowers-highlight-the-need-for-regulating-online-political-advertising\/?sh=233419f431e3\" data-ga-track=\"InternalLink:https:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/martyswant\/2021\/11\/02\/european-union-lawmaker-says-whistleblowers-highlight-the-need-for-regulating-online-political-advertising\/?sh=233419f431e3\" aria-label=\"said\" rel=\"noopener\">said<\/a> lawmakers \u201cwould not be able to convince the people that regulation is needed\u201d if whistle-blowers like Haugen and others had not shed light on the company\u2019s internal processes.&nbsp;<br \/>\u201cIf we want to be sure that people are free to choose, we need to make sure the information they see online is not fueled by obscure functioning of platforms, algorithmic systems and an army of undetected bots.\u201d <br \/>In the weeks following the Facebook Papers release, Meta made a number of changes, including to its advertising business and its data privacy policies. On November 2, the company announced it was <a href=\"https:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/annakaplan\/2021\/11\/02\/facebook-shutting-down-facial-recognition-software\/?sh=65b8146d6e90\" target=\"_self\" class=\"color-link\" title=\"https:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/annakaplan\/2021\/11\/02\/facebook-shutting-down-facial-recognition-software\/?sh=65b8146d6e90\" data-ga-track=\"InternalLink:https:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/annakaplan\/2021\/11\/02\/facebook-shutting-down-facial-recognition-software\/?sh=65b8146d6e90\" aria-label=\"shutting down facial recognition software\" rel=\"noopener\">shutting down facial recognition software<\/a> that had been criticized by consumer advocates. One week later, it announced it would no longer allow advertisers to buy ads based on data related to users\u2019 race, political affiliation, sexual orientation, religion and health\u2014information <a href=\"https:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/martyswant\/2021\/11\/09\/meta-will-soon-ban-targeting-ads-based-on-sensitive-categories-including-religion-and-politics\/?sh=6653fa6e3b3d\" target=\"_self\" class=\"color-link\" title=\"https:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/martyswant\/2021\/11\/09\/meta-will-soon-ban-targeting-ads-based-on-sensitive-categories-including-religion-and-politics\/?sh=6653fa6e3b3d\" data-ga-track=\"InternalLink:https:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/martyswant\/2021\/11\/09\/meta-will-soon-ban-targeting-ads-based-on-sensitive-categories-including-religion-and-politics\/?sh=6653fa6e3b3d\" aria-label=\"deemed too sensitive to be used in targeted messaging\" rel=\"noopener\">deemed too sensitive to be used in targeted messaging<\/a>.<br \/>While speaking onstage with <em>Forbes<\/em> at Web Summit, Christopher Wylie\u2014a former employee of Cambridge Analytica who shed light on Facebook\u2019s data privacy issues back in 2018, when he came forward as a whistle-blower\u2014said the Facebook Papers and the discussions around them feel to him like \u201cd\u00e9j\u00e0 vu.\u201d<br \/>\u201cReally d\u00e9j\u00e0 vu for me with the Senate hearings, and all this,\u201d Wylie said. \u201cWe\u2019re just talking about the same thing over and over and over again. We\u2019re sort of stuck in this loop, and I think one of the problems is it\u2019s clear there are a lot of problems, and those are constantly being discussed, but we\u2019re sort of missing the conversation around solutions and frameworks for regulation.\u201d<br \/>Facebook employees also expressed concern about the company allowing right-wing websites to be a part of its broader network of publishers. In a post dated June 4, 2020, a Facebook employee wrote \u201cDo I need to explain this one\u201d attached to a photo with a number of Breitbart News headlines related to the George Floyd protests. An earlier post in October 2018 was written by a Facebook employee working on the Facebook Audience Network, a group of more than 50,000 publisher websites that Facebook advertisers can reach off the social network. The post\u2014titled \u201cWe need to talk about Breitbart (again)\u201d\u2014argued that while Facebook claimed to be politically neutral and that Breitbart had not yet seemed to violate any Facebook policies, allowing the website to monetize through Facebook was \u201ca political statement.\u201d<br \/>The Facebook employee, whose name was redacted from the document, said that 11,000 advertisers had added Breitbart to their list of websites on which they wanted to avoid advertising, adding that there were 30,000 block lists in existence\u2014and nearly every advertiser with a block list included Breitbart. (Facebook finally removed Breitbart from its audience network last year.)<br \/>When asked about the decision to remove Breitbart from the Facebook Audience Network, a Meta spokesperson told <em>Forbes<\/em> that the company defers to third-party fact-checkers, who rate specific pieces of content and manage internal systems for repeat offenders. Those systems can apply penalties when a page\u2019s content receives multiple false ratings and block them from receiving monetary incentives or advertising.<br \/>A screenshot from part of an internal Facebook Q&amp;A provided to the company\u2019s sales team after the January 6 attacks on the U.S. Capitol.<br \/>\u201cWe make changes to reduce problematic or low-quality content to improve people\u2019s experiences on the platform, not because of a Page\u2019s political point of view,\u201d the Meta spokesperson said. \u201cWhen it comes to changes that will impact public Pages like publishers, of course we analyze the effect of the proposed change before we make it.\u201d<br \/>Other documents show how Facebook directed its global sales team to articulate its response after the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. In an internal document labeled as a high priority, the company encouraged employees to \u201crespond reactively\u201d to questions from clients, even offering a script. In response to a question about whether advertisers should pause spending, it outlines how Facebook was reviewing and removing content that broke its rules related to inciting violence on the platform. Another answer explains why the company removed a video posted by then U.S. President Donald Trump, suggesting that his posts \u201ccontribute to, rather than diminish, the risk of ongoing violence.\u201d&nbsp;<br \/>An update on January 7 included answers to questions about Facebook\u2019s decision to block Trump from posting, including why it had decided that now was the time to take action. On January 15, it updated the post to include responses regarding whether the company saw violence coming ahead of time and, if so, why it didn\u2019t act. The post noted that prior to the attack, Facebook had removed more than 600 \u201cmilitarized social movements from our platform,\u201d as well as the original \u201cStop The Steal\u201d group and various hate groups.<br \/>In an internal note to staff dated August 2020, longtime Facebook veteran Andrew Bosworth\u2014who joined the social network in 2006, built Facebook\u2019s mobile advertising business and took on a number of other high-profile roles before becoming chief technology officer in September\u2014described Facebook\u2019s problems moderating hate speech as one of supply and demand. (The post was also published to Bosworth\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/boz.com\/articles\/demand-side\" target=\"_blank\" class=\"color-link\" title=\"https:\/\/boz.com\/articles\/demand-side\" rel=\"nofollow noopener noreferrer\" data-ga-track=\"ExternalLink:https:\/\/boz.com\/articles\/demand-side\" aria-label=\"public blog in January 2021\">public blog in January 2021<\/a>.) He said the more Facebook invests in ways to improve its content quality controls, \u201cthe harder people work to circumvent those tools.\u201d<br \/>\u201cAs a society we don\u2019t have a hate speech supply problem, we have a hate speech demand problem.\u201d <br \/>\u201cOnline platforms work on the supply side because they don\u2019t control the demand side, and they will continue to invest huge amounts there to keep people safe,\u201d he wrote. \u201cIt is key component of our responsibility as a platform (and I think we do it better than any of our competitors here at Facebook). But until we make more social progress as a society, we should temper our expectations for results.\u201d<br \/>Bosworth also compared overcoming the issue to building Facebook\u2019s ads business between 2012 and 2017, saying it\u2019s \u201cvery tempting to focus on growing the supply of spaces to show ads because that gives a predictable return on investment.\u201d<br \/>\u201cHowever, if demand remains fixed you are just buying your way down the inventory in terms of quality and into diminishing marginal returns,\u201d he wrote. \u201cInstead we focused on the demand side, which is slower to move and harder to measure, but increases the value of existing inventory.\u201d<br \/>Perhaps one of the most interesting metaphors for Facebook and the Facebook Papers comes from an October 2018 post titled \u201cA note about plagues.\u201d The author wrote that Facebook is \u201ccurrently a medieval city,\u201d and while such a city may have marketplaces, art galleries, universities and inventions, there are also plagues. <br \/>\u201cBefore you even realize what is happening, it sweeps through the city like a fire,\u201d the author wrote. \u201cIts virulence is fearsome. You have never seen anything like it. You are trying to contain it, but nothing that you can do seems to have any effect. The plague eventually ends. But the city lost many inhabitants. The ones that survived are scared.\u201d<br \/>The employee notes that some people in the medieval city might say \u201cthis was a consequence of some simple error\u201d that can be fixed to prevent future plagues, while others might suggest it\u2019s \u201cnot our problem\u201d if disease is inevitable:<br \/>The post also notes that cities have built sewers for waste, filters for drinking water, insecticides for fleas and antibiotics and vaccines for disease\u2014suggesting that problems have been solved to mitigate major issues in the past.<br \/>\u201cPeople come here and get value from it, but they face new dangers that they are not used to,\u201d the author wrote. \u201cIt is something that never existed in the history of the world, so it is entirely reasonable that we do not understand its consequences yet. But it doesn\u2019t mean that we should accept them. We have a unique opportunity to study them and find solutions.\u201d<br \/>Whether Meta can emerge from its \u201cmedieval\u201d Facebook era and enter a renaissance period is yet to be determined. But on the company\u2019s third-quarter earnings call in October, Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook\u2019s cofounder and Meta\u2019s CEO, dismissed the Facebook Papers as a way to \u201cpaint a false picture of our company\u201d while noting that \u201cgood faith criticism helps us get better.\u201d<br \/>\u201cI also think that any honest account should be clear that these issues aren&rsquo;t primarily about social media,\u201d Zuckerberg said. \u201cThat means that no matter what Facebook does, we&rsquo;re never going to solve them on our own. For example, polarization started rising in the U.S. before I was born. . . . The reality is, if social media is not the main driver of these issues, then it probably can\u2019t fix them by itself either.\u201d<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/martyswant\/2021\/11\/30\/what-the-facebook-papers-reveal-about-the-social-networks-advertising-business\/\">source<\/a><\/p>\n<!--CusAds0-->\n<div style=\"font-size: 0px; height: 0px; line-height: 0px; margin: 0; padding: 0; clear: both;\"><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Facebook logo is seen printed on print paper in this photo illustration from March 2021.The \u201cFacebook Papers\u201d have been revelatory when it comes to how the company formerly known as Facebook deals with content moderation and a wide variety of other issues. However, they also shed light on the social network\u2019s advertising business and [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"googlesitekit_rrm_CAow1sXXCw:productID":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2340","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-classe"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/monblogeur.tech\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2340","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/monblogeur.tech\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/monblogeur.tech\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monblogeur.tech\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monblogeur.tech\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2340"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/monblogeur.tech\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2340\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/monblogeur.tech\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2340"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monblogeur.tech\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2340"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monblogeur.tech\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2340"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}