> 1. they apparently gave advice to both the clinton and trump campaign

Just because this is worded ambiguously, to clarify the "they" is Facebook. CA on the other hand was effectively the Trump's digital ad campaign.

> 2. the trump campaign did targeted marketing better (ie. targeting the base rather than the marginal voter)

This ignores that a lot of what made CA different is that they used microtargeting to discourage turnout via fake news stories.

3. "I'm skeptical that Cambridge Analytica has any data or expertise that couldn't be replicated readily by someone else"

After CA's methods and actions became public, FB massively limited what you could do via their API.

>Just because this is worded ambiguously, to clarify the "they" is Facebook. CA on the other hand was effectively the Trump's digital ad campaign.

Given that "cambridge analytica" wasn't even mentioned in my comment, and "facebook" was the last subject mentioned (ie. "facebook was ..."), I don't see how anyone could have interpreted "they" to mean cambridge analytica.

>This ignores that a lot of what made CA different is that they used microtargeting to discourage turnout via fake news stories.

What does this have to do with the email? Everything you mentioned was already known before this email was released. Is the complaint that boz didn't also tell zuckerberg "btw cambridge analytica works with conservatives are are super evil"?

>After CA's methods and actions became public, FB massively limited what you could do via their API.

Was the email sent before or after they locked down the API? Also, this feels like a nitpick, eg. suppose a mass shooter killed a bunch people with an assault rifle, and then the government banned assault rifles, it would still be correct to say "anyone could bought the weapons the mass shooter used", even though it wasn't true in the present.