They were selling their own ads based on Facebook's numbers, then had to refund advertisers when they found out the truth.

This is a good point, that Facebook decided to pollute their clients' revenue streams with fraud, and the clients had to pay the price for that.

When you can objectively measure results, you'll often find that the people making decisions in an organization aren't as competent as they seem. It's a bitter pill to swallow when you realize that most of the people you have to take orders from didn't get to where they are through intelligence, hard work and character.

Reminded of this line from Margin Call:

"So, Mr. Sullivan, why don't you tell me what you think is going on here, and please speak as you might to a young child or a golden retriever. I didn't get here on my brains -- I can assure you of that."

Hence "networking" being one of the most persistent pieces of advice under job-hunt posts.

Three career stages are based on.

Stage 1: What you can learn.

Stage 2: What you know.

Stage 3: Who you know.

That would have been the shrewd business move, and a sufficiently callous read of the entire situation can conclude "It's CH's fault for making a bad gamble without due diligence. Even a popular, publicly-traded company can run a scam or have a screw-up; history has examples."

I doubt most people agree with that read though.

What research? Facebook made $18B the year they pushed pivoting and they're a one-stop shop for eyes. Hard to make the business case under traditional principles to keep the status quo.

I assume facebook still pays for all views it counts, so there is no downside in terms of ad revenue for publishers.