Last night's GOP debate was a weird move for Facebook.
Touted by Fox News as a cohost of the network's primetime talkfest, Facebook was omnipresent on screen, but didn't do much else.
Based on this two-part livestream, Facebook's logo appeared on-screen for all but a few seconds of the broadcast. But there were no representatives from Facebook, no interactive tools, no prerecorded message from CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Facebook also offered no alternative to watching on basic cable -- despite streaming debates in past elections.
Instead, the tech giant provided some some short-form, user-submitted questions that seemed innately better-suited to another company (you might have heard of it).
Throughout the event, candidates fielded questions submitted to moderators via Facebook's clunkily titled "Debate Uploader," which doesn't sound like the handiwork of a company with drones that beam Internet across the developing world. It sounds more like a utility on public library computers.
The Facebook user-submitted questions could have been a great way for the company to broach topics like net neutrality, funding NASA, technology in health care, high-speed access in rural or underserved areas, or the importance of STEM education, among a dozen other topics.
Instead, Facebook offered up something less satisfying -- something more like YouTube comments:
According to a press release, this submission process "was the result of a month-long call-to-action campaign that generated nearly six million views and received more than 40,000 responses."
Over the course of the event, the release notes, the event prompted "strong social conversation" (have you ever seen Facebook comments?), with 7.5 million people creating more than 20 million posts, comments, and likes (no word on whether they were using Trump Math).
That's a paltry figure for a company with a billion-plus users.
But why didn't Facebook offer a stream?
It's 2015. A live stream should be a given for a marquee event like this -- especially one that involves elected officials vying for public office. Fox did a great part in treating this whole thing like a pay-per-view UFC match, but they can get away with it because Fox viewers are old. (Really old.)
For the cord-cutting set, Facebook offered nothing but its logo on a basic cable lower-third. There were a few alternatives to watch, but those required some ingenuity. Periscope is great, as we learned from the Mayweather-Pacquiao fight. Those with an Apple TV could have tuned in via Sky News before Fox News somewhat ironically took the stream down.
Let's not forget: Facebook unveiled a live-streaming app specifically for noteworthy people one day before this debate. If only Facebook had a test subject that was big, loud, famous, and guaranteed to get attention.
Facebook is great at hogging up all of our attention. Its recent aggressive push into video is no exception. Is it really so hard to expect, y'know, some video?
Fortunately, the company has two whole months to get it sorted out before the Democratic debate in Nevada.