According to Facebook, during the 2016 election, President Trump’s campaign actually paid higher rates to advertise on the platform overall than Hillary Clinton’s campaign did.

The disclosure by Facebook came Tuesday by way of Facebook executive Andrew Bosworth’s Twitter feed. It follows days of speculation kicked off by a recent WIRED story about how Facebook’s advertising auctions work. That story noted that Facebook’s algorithms prioritize more engaging content, meaning the more Facebook believes its users will click, comment on, or share a given ad, the less an advertiser will have to pay to reach a given audience.

After the story was published, President Trump’s former digital director and newly announced campaign manager, Brad Parscale, said he believed the Trump campaign may indeed have gotten a deep discount on its ads compared to the Clinton campaign, because, Parscale tweeted, Trump was the “perfect candidate for FaceBook.” That single tweet led to calls for the Federal Election Commission to investigate Facebook, which some accused of effectively subsidizing the Trump campaign, and even inspired Hillary Clinton herself to chime in on the need to regulate social media platforms.

But Bosworth’s tweet suggests some of this anger may be overheated.

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

While this chart does show that the Trump campaign paid higher rates overall than the Clinton campaign did—and how competitive the ad market gets as the election approaches—it doesn't tell the full story. Much of the public outcry centered around the idea that Facebook’s system prioritizes more provocative or outrageous political ads. That, in turn, has stoked fears about whether Facebook’s ad algorithms reward mudslinging and fear-mongering. The chart Bosworth shared sheds no light on this question, because it contains no information about the content of the ads on any given day.

It’s also unclear which types of messages and targeting correspond with what pricing. An ad targeted at a custom list of voters will have a higher CPM than one with a national audience, for instance. The chart does not show what the Clinton and Trump campaigns would have paid for an apples-to-apples ad buy. In fact, that may ultimately be impossible to tell, given how many variations are at play in terms of who the campaigns are trying to reach, where they're trying to reach them, and what they're trying to get out of them.

The chart does not show what the Clinton and Trump campaigns would have paid for an apples-to-apples ad buy.

Finally, it doesn’t take into account the organic reach these ads received by way of Facebook users sharing them with their own networks. Campaigns don’t have to pay for that, but it can radically expand the number of people who are seeing an ad depending on how viral it becomes. If the Trump campaign's organic reach was dramatically higher than Clinton's, it stands to reason that it would be more willing to pay a higher rate upfront.