Facebook Inc. executive Andrew Bosworth today revealed that Donald Trump actually paid slightly more than Hillary Clinton to reach U.S. voters during the 2016 election.

Bosworth, who at the time of the election was in charge of Facebook’s advertising business, said he felt it necessary to reveal the cost of what each person paid. That’s because a recent Wired article suggested Trump got the cheap deal on ads.

“After some discussion we’ve decided to share the CPM comparison on Trump campaign ads vs. Clinton campaign ads,” said Bosworth in a tweet. He was referring to “cost per 1,000 impressions,” the metric used to determine the price of ads. “This chart shows that during (the) general election period, Trump campaign paid slightly higher CPM prices on most days rather than lower as has been reported.”

After some discussion we’ve decided to share the CPM comparison on Trump campaign ads vs. Clinton campaign ads. This chart shows that during general election period, Trump campaign paid slightly higher CPM prices on most days rather than lower as has been reported. pic.twitter.com/u0qgUQ02qM

— Boz (@boztank) February 27, 2018

That chart indeed seems to show that from the period of June 21 to Nov. 8, 2016, the Trump campaign consistently paid more for ads. Although it’s unusual for Facebook to release such information, the report in Wired stated that at times, Clinton was paying far more than Trump because her campaign’s ads weren’t clicked on or shared as much as Trump’s. And since ads that get more clicks tend to be priced less, the assumption was the Trump’s cost less.

“Prices depend on factors like size of audience and campaign objective,” Bosworth said. “These campaigns had different strategies. Given the recent discussion about pricing we’re putting this out to clear up any confusion.”

However, Facebook remains under a microscope for its role in helping promote Trump, not just via ads but shared posts by fans and, as it turns out, Russian trolls. So Bosworth’s tweet seems unlikely to relieve much of the pressure on the social network.

Indeed, the criticism continued today at a conference in San Francisco. Roger McNamee, a Facebook investor who wrote a recent article in the Washington Monthly taking the company to task for not taking enough responsibility for allowing extremists and other bad actors to exploit the site, repeated his concerns at the NewCo Shift Forum.

“They have approached this with a deny/deflect/dissemble strategy when they could have been a hero,” McNamee said of Facebook. He added that it was “horrific” that Facebook appears to think it’s OK that a foreign government used the platform to influence elections.

“Platforms have the tools to do something” about fake news and other bad content, he said, but using them may require a change in business models the companies aren’t willing to make. He said change might come only from “Daniel Ellsbergs” inside the companies pushing for change, a reference to the former U.S. military analyst who in 1971 released the Pentagon Papers, which indicated the Johnson administration lied about the Vietnam War.

With reporting from Robert Hof

Image: Gage Skidmore via Flickr